Talk:Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Wikipedia - The Missing Manual, has edited Wikipedia as
John Broughton (talk ยท contribs)

Contents

[edit] Internal links

See our own Signpost's review at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Book review.

Interview with author: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-28/John Broughton interview

See mention of a small "reader's guide" version at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Maker Faire.

Should we really avoid putting these in the article? The interview, for example, provides some good information. I think we should treat them just as we would any other link (not doing so would be a self reference in itself if you think about it), and if that means including them we should do so. Richard001 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valuable resource for Wikipedians

I just bought it the other day at Barnes & Noble (list price: $29.99). It really seems like "the Missing manual." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia The Missing Manual vs. Wikipedia-The Missing Manual

Another alternative is Wikipedia (book), although I think I prefer this one (and I think that title will become ambiguous very soon, if it hasn't already). John should have thought about this conflict when naming the book :) Richard001 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Only one review is provided here, which isn't really enough to establish notability. Has it been reviewed by any other notable sources? This is Wikipedia, so it looks like we are being biased by having an article about this book and not most other books of greater notability. Richard001 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We have lots of systemic bias. See also m:Eventualism and m:Incrementalism. ;) But yes, more content would be good here. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sure, I'm not saying we should have to write articles on every book that is 'more notable' than this one before having the article. In fact, I think systematic bias isn't always a bad thing; imagine if we had lots of articles on things that nobody was ever going to read about and none that were relevant to English speaking people. Two pages that have some review collections are [1] and [2]. I haven't got time to go through them, but they should give some indication of whether the book has received enough attention to merit an article. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)