Talk:Wikinomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. 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 at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 How can this article be expanded? 2 Whether to include the official book site 3 Encyclopedic? - Notability 4 Similar to Nanocompetition article 5 The Guardian 6 Requested move 6.1 Survey 6.2 Discussion

[edit] How can this article be expanded?

A couple of weeks ago, I made what I thought were some minor edits to the page (adding a chapter list and rewording the final chapter description). They were reverted and described as 'highly promotional'. That wasn't my intention. Could someone please share with me how I could go about expanding the article in a way that wouldn't be misconstrued as promotional? --Jdechambeau 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

re: How can this article be expanded? I would suggest that we describe the phenomenom as social organization structure (or rather lack of) instead of describing the book itself.

.hj barraza march 10, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.250.225 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[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 its 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? - Notability

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.

---

Notes:

1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
2. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
3. ^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
4. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
5. ^ This criteria does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

---

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. talk 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You might consider nominating this article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet our inclusion requirements. If you have any questions about the deletion process, I can probably help answer them; Wikipedia:Deletion policy is probably a good place to start. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think a prod based upon notability per the discussion above would be fine. --Ronz 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonesense! I assume this discussion is dead since it has since become abundantly clear that this book is noteable. Anyone who follows I.T. news has heard of this book. Personally I read a big article in the Guardian about it, saw it on slashdot, and saw one of the authors appearing on BBC newsnight to give an interview about the book, and that's before I even look for others references in the press.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Similar to Nanocompetition article

The ideas presented in this article are strikingly similar to those in the Nanocompetition article (from 2004) which eventually got deleted for being "original research". 89.244.185.212 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a book called "Wikinomics" (and the book is notable). Now the book itself is "presenting ideas" on a concept called "Wikinomics" (which may or may not be something which people regard as a good name/real concept/worthy or a wikipedia article) but this article is not particularly "presenting ideas" on a concept called "Wikinomics". The reason this article exists... is to describe the book by that title -- Harry Wood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Guardian

"The book has been reviewed by major media outlets, including The Guardian." This seems unnecessary to me, of course a book will be reviewed by people, why mention the Guardian at all? John Saunders (talk) 18:33, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move