Talk:Wikinomics (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Whether to include the official book site 2 Encyclopedic? 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion

[edit] Whether to include the official book site

I just noticed that Ronz took out the official book site with the reason "removed official site as promotional" after I made some edits. Although I see Ronz's point but at the same time I ended up having to Google the book site to find it and read more. So I think if the book website actually has added value (IMHO, the sample chapters and the authors' blog, etc.), it should be allowed. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was some attempt to demonstrate the notability of the book, I might be more agreeable. --Ronz 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. Agree to leave it out.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The following analogy is not perfect, but nearly every Wikipedia article about a software program includes a link to the program's official site. {{Infobox software}} even has a field for it. If we apply the same notability requirement to software official sites, we would have to massacre thousands of articles which currently link to official sites for software programs. Including such links follows from the way we expect most people to use an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia - the idea is for readers to check the sources of article information, because Wikipedia makes no guarantee of correctness itself. Obviously, a very large percentage of Wikipedia readers who are interested in a topic will want to follow a link to the official site for an article, if such a site exists. This is different than link spamming to large numbers of weakly-related or unrelated sites. Therefore, I vote for restoring the link to the official site. Notability should be satisfied on the same basis as the notability of the book itself. That is, if the book is notable enough to deserve its own article, then by extension the official site should be notable enough to mention in the article. --Teratornis 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed {{Infobox Book}} does not have a Website: field like the one in {{Infobox software}}. So I proposed that the template maintainers should add one. --Teratornis 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No book site article has a link to it's official site. See also Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_book_site.3F. --Ronz 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean "No book article" rather than "no book site"? I assume the former. I still want to know what makes books different than software, companies, and other articles which link to their subjects' official sites. For example, see the Microsoft article, and note the {{Infobox Company}} which not only links to the official Microsoft site but also quotes the official Microsoft slogan. That is not merely linking to advertising, it is actually quoting the advertisement on Wikipedia. The Microsoft article is a featured article - making it one of the best articles on Wikipedia, having gone through a featured article review and weathered criticism from many editors! So, I ask again, what makes a trade book different than a software package or a company, that their articles should have different policies on Wikipedia? --Teratornis 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Links_to_official_book_sites --Ronz 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reply: permanent link. Here is the key question I would like you to answer, because I cannot answer it:

• "What sort of person would choose to read an encyclopedia article about a trade book and not want to browse through the full text of the table of contents and first chapter of the book?"

In any case, I know how to Google for the official site, and I have no interest in a revert war. I just want to understand why a full chapter of actual content from a book is irrelevant to people who would read an encyclopedia article about the book. Wikipedia has thousands of links to official sites for many different kinds of commercial products and enterprises. --Teratornis 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm following the discussions, and trying to encourage more. The best argument I've seen is that book sites as they are today are almost entirely promotional in nature, offering little if anything that's not available from sites like amazon. Further, these sites are today very transitional in nature, often disappearing the way other ads do. --Ronz 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic?

Is this article encyclopedic? It doesn't seem to be so, at first blush, except for the fact that Wikipedians might appreciate the reference due to similarity in naming. Antelan ^talk 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it not encyclopedic? Or do you mean not notable? --Ronz 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is one of many criteria used to evaluate whether or not an article is encyclopedic.

From WP:BK: Finally, note that a book's notability is not a reflection on its worth. A book may be brilliantly-written, fascinating and topical while still not being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Also from that page: A book is generally notable if it meets, with attribution in reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject ^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,^[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
   • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.^[4]
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.^[5]
5. The book's author is historically significant enough for his or her works to be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

This book does not seem to meet any of those criteria, although I'm not an expert in this field which is why I'm asking the question. Antelan ^talk 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Wikinomics (book) → Wikinomics — There is no need to have the disambiguation ('book') in the title anymore now that the Wikinomics page has been deleted. WatchAndObserve 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Is the discussion of whether or not this article is even encyclopedic complete? I feel that should be resolved before renaming the page. --Antelan ^talk 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)