text:
Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/not/wikipedia

Further edits
I've made some amendments, which I hope will be seen as improvements. I do think this unstable version is much better than the original - I hope it can go live in the not too distant future. Jguk 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some changes were improvements and some things weren't. I think your changes removed some clarity and facts:
 * Even though dictionaries, thesaurus, books of quotations, etc. are books that may be useful for learning, they don't belong here.
 * Wikibooks isn't the place to upload books and works of literature, they can only be used as part of annotated texts.

I'll try to make some improvements of my own. --dark lama  23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Critical section missing, at least as a theme
One thing that is critically missing in this revised policy is something indicating the relationship of Wikibooks to the other Wikimedia projects, and in particular Wikipedia. I will note explicitly What is Wikibooks, that has caused innumerable problems in the past when it has not been followed.

Since almost the beginning of Wikibooks, there was a tendancy of people on Wikipedia using Wikibooks as a place to fork articles because of some editing dispute or some sort or another on Wikpedia, especially as Wikibooks tended to have fewer admins and a generally much more permissive policy on what was acceptable.

The issue of avoiding macropedias on Wikibooks is of particular concern to me, as it seems like they are starting to creep back into Wikibooks again, particularly with Star Trek Starships and a few other semi-recent Wikibooks. Indeed one of the legitimate reasons for killing some of the gaming guides on Wikibooks (generally not stated in the VfD discussions) was that they tended to be merely collections of references or articles to monsters or weapons in each of the games. They really weren't scholarly treatments about the games.

I know there is a section in this version about reference texts, but I don't think that covers the issue well enough nor clear enough to new Wikibooks users. Explicitly stating that macropedias aren't considered acceptable should perhaps be something better defined, particularly given problems that Wikibooks experienced in the past.

Other parts of What is Wikibooks do have some legitimate concerns. I can point to a specific VfD, problematic user, or Wikibooks gone awry that resulted in almost every sentance being written in this section. While much of that has been worked into this new policy, I think we need to be careful that we aren't throwing too much out in the process.

A variation of v:Wikiversity:Approved Wikiversity project proposal might be reasonable to add in here as well. The general philosophy that we as a project don't go stepping on the toes of the other Wikimedia sister projects is a reasonable thing to explain, and as a general policy we should try to avoid having overlaping areas of responsibility. This also gets back to why we need to be very explicit that Wikibooks should not duplicate Wikipedia: Wikipedia does a much better job of being an encyclopedia. So much so (with tough quality standards, reference requirements, and a much much larger group of people participating) that it seems patently absurd that we here on Wikibooks should even try to duplicate efforts on Wikipedia. --Rob Horning 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I hate it when people say I agree but "I agree". I think this difference needs to be made explicit.  There are some very good books on here & some that may become ones.  However there are both some works that do not seem to me booklike and some stubs that could be developed the wrong way.  Peace to the anti deletionists but it is a reason I query a number of short pages that seem to have little direction.  They are not useful to readers and in not clearly specifying where they are going may mislead in the future -- Herby  talk thyme 13:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe the bit about using previously published works could be expanded a little bit to state that in order for duplicate to exist here, it needs to be expanded on, not just copied. I don't believe the issue of using Wikibooks as a dumping ground is strictly done by Wikipedians nor taken just from Wikimedia projects. It was my intent to exclude works duplicate here with no intent of ever being developed further or with the intent of just mirroring another source,

 * A major part of my philosphy in revisions to this policy has been on making it more postive and focusing on ways to explain what Wikibooks is for with the effect of excluding through postive definitions (eg so people can say "This is what Wikibooks is for, this is why this isn't allowed here"). I also believe it would be a lot easier for people to agree on what Wikibooks is for then what it is not for. and what may not be allowed might change with time, while the general aims of Wikibooks is not as likely to do so.

 * I cut down on referring to other projects a lot because I believe that would be better served as a help page for instance or even a textbook, which should be allowed to be expanded on and changed without being part of some policy. I can agree that "A duplication of other Wikimedia projects." from Wikiversity may have a place within this policy and the "Other projects" section revised to reflect this. In fact as soon as I finish this reply, I will work on it.

 * Are there any other concerns? What other things do you believe is missing from this proposal that is currently in WB:WIW? I believe this proposal does a good job of covering what is in WB:WIW in a more positive and helpful way, and explains a lot more. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep in mind that What Wikibooks is not was primarily defining the relationship between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, at least in the beginning with the policy. I understand the need to cut down on some of the words here, and that certainly Wikibooks has become an established project, but something here needs to explicitly cover the use of encyclopedias within Wikibooks.  This shouldn't be a seperate policy, because this is precisely the policy where this relationship is already defined.  I would dare say this is the very purpose of this policy.  That perhaps this section from the older policy could be rewritten to a more positive tone, I would have to agree.  That it should be culled completely from this policy, I strongly disagree.  This is far too important to ignore and as I've said, has been the source of considerable frustration in the past that this is supposed to clear up.  --Rob Horning 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * My issue is in how WIW currenly defines that relationship by describing what each project is for. I think that sort of information is better off in a help page or textbook because its going off the subject of what Wikibooks is for and into what other projects are for which has nothing to do with Wikibooks policy, but their own policies. There is already links to the other projects policies on what each is within this policy for them to learn that. On the other hand I already adopted some of "What Wikiversity is not" into the policy because I do think it is short and to the point and does a better job of saying "don't duplicate work from other projects" in a hopefully more positive and helpful light which does deal with our policy and I believe covers more then just Wikipedia. Keep in mind this proposal says "Be more then a collection of articles or list of terms, quotations, facts, images or other information" which also excludes most other Wikimedia project stuff. Have you read the current version? I made some changes a few days ago to try to address your concerns. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I remember this problem a while ago, and I agree that there should be some sort of "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia" thing written in the policy. It is so obvious, but it is forgotten much. We have similar policies, but with distinct nuances. I don't worry so much about Wikibooks anymore however; as we have developed a sense of what is allowed here and what is not.

 * As for making it explicit... I'm neutral on the subject. On the one hand, there have been instances in the past where Wikipedia users would come here and dump whatever didn't fit Wikipedia's policy. And there are always going to be macropedias attempted here on Wikibooks. On the other hand, maybe they'd read the policy if we focused on making it shorter and easier to read, instead of adding in so much redundancy. --Dragontamer 17:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with your comment that maybe more people would read the policy if it focused on being easier to read. My main issue with the current WIW is it seems to focus on what Wikibooks isn't too much, which doesn't help new users understand what Wikibooks is for. Thats why I think this one is better. I did as I said I was going to do and made some changes. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicating some items from the older version
I added some sections regarding the relationship between Wikibooks, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary. These are very common new user mistakes in terms of having somebody create a list of words or write up what is essentially just an encyclopedia article. With some strong examples of what a Wikibook is on the Main Page, this has been cut down considerably from what the typical experience was like in the past, but it still happens.

I tried to keep the generally positive tone of this new version of the policy, but to retain the key ideas.

I also added a new section about essentially original research. There has been some concern that there is no official policy about original research, but in fact what was on the previous "What Wikibooks Is Not" was largely felt to be all of what was necessary for original research policy here, and the policy most often cited in terms of removing original research in the past. This is in fact something we need to be a little more diligent about in terms of trying to cull this sort of content from Wikibooks before it gets out of hand. The wording is mostly copied from the original policy, so I hope it isn't too controvercial to be added here.

Omitting either of these additions really puts a huge hole in this policy, and was something really missing from this current revision. I understand that the purpose was to try and simply a rather unwieldy policy, but experience has shown that many of these issues need to be spelled out very explicitly, particularly for brand-new users to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I do understand that creating lists of words or writing encyclopediac articles can be a very common mistake for new users to make, but I still don't understand why you think this policy is the approperiate place to address these concerns. We have Wikibooks for Wikipedians for example which is meant to address confusion for people who are use to Wikipedia and how things are different here, and we also have various Help:FAQ files that could include this information for example "Q: I can write encyclopedia articles here too right?". I have to admit though what you added is more positive than before. I guess you could say my concern is this providing informative information thats policy rather then proving helpful information for new users and where do we start to draw the line?

 * Your use of "they must be secondary and auxiliary to a main text" has given me the beginings of an idea for more improvements to this policy, which I think can help improve the "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" section.

 * The omittion of an original research section was intentional there is some attempts to have another policy to address this specifically that are in contradiction with the current WIW's concept of original research and your Academic Research description. The people working on that policy seem to be interested in allowing people to coin new words and definitions so long as they make are clear and people can understand them, and in allowing new ways of doing things. Last I checked though it was not very clear because of disagreements on what should or shouldn't be allowed. For myself, I believe taking the perspective of defining what it takes to not be original research has a far better chance of working while satifing these wishes. "Be verifiable and peer reviewable; that is anyone can verify the material will work every time through repeating it" was the result of some of that perspective and discussing it on the IRC channel. Fiction and novel literatures aren't something your going to be using to learn from but for enjoyment, so why do you think this is needed? I think the two points I think you were trying to make for orginal research can be perhaps be addressed as "Be based on facts that are well established", what do you think? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I will have to say that we absolutely must get the original research policy passed before this version is accepted if you absolutely insist that the original research portion of the current policy is to be removed. For now, this is the one and only policy that we have that even addresses this issue.

 * In terms of removing the portion discussing Macropedias, I am going to be a major PITA about this if it is not put into this policy in some substantial form. This is a very, very, very common new user mistake, and not something merely to be relegated to the "FAQ" pages.  The same goes for individuals who want to create encyclopedia articles on Wikibooks, including forking from Wikipedia.  That the wording may be more friendly, yes, I can agree on that point.  But it does need to be in here in some fashion.  This is very much a critical section that absolutely must be addressed by this policy, or perhaps recreating What Wikibooks Is Not if you insist.  The whole point of merging that policy into this policy was to keep to one page everything that generally talked about the same general idea:  What exactly is this crazy thing we are doing?

 * As far as addressing fiction and novel literature, this is again something that has been repeatedly added to Wikibooks and we point explicitly to this policy as justification for removing that sort of content. I thought this was a resolved issue here, but apparently it isn't.  'This is the policy that governs fiction on Wikibooks!  If you want to spin this policy off as a seperate policy, OK, I might go along with that, however it flys in the face of trying to simplify the plethora of policies on Wikibooks as well.  While you may not think currently of fiction as something found on Wikibooks, that hasn't always been the case.  It is very diligent efforts on the part of many administrators to keep that stuff off, and point to this policy as a short hand not to reopen the whole debate over fiction on Wikibooks all over again.  Or if the issue is reopened, then it should be a major policy change instead.

 * One of the key parts of this policy is that it is the accumulated experience and history of Wikibooks, particularly in dealing with marginal issues and codifying concensus that has happened on the VfD pages and the Staff Lounge. My huge concern about the massive culling of content on this page is that you have suddenly lost all of that accumulated experience, and lost the context as to why we do things the way they are done here.  Try to at least understand why I'm adding these sections in here, and make a special effort that any policies that are removed are then subsequently covered elsewhere.  I don't see that happening here at the moment.  As the oldest policy on Wikibooks, dating almost to the very creation of this project, it has accumulated some cruft over time.  But at the same time, don't simply change things just for the sake of changing them.  There are reasons why this policy has been worded the way that it is currently.  --Rob Horning 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rob. The NOR rule is one of the fundamental rules of all WMF projects, and it's something that we do need to specify, either here or someplace else. As a bit of compromise, we could include a small statement against original research in this policy, and then create a separate proposal (guideline or policy, i don't care) that will flesh out the details. Regardless of where we write about it though, i think that we must have something on the topic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd be interested to know specifically how Rob would amend the current version of the proposed text so as to address his concerns. For example, is it sufficient to add under the "To be on the English-language Wikibooks, textbooks content must:" section the words "not be original research" to address this point, or, if not, what would he see as addressing it. Similarly, do we just need to add "be non-fiction" to address the non-fiction point? Are we just talking about an additional one or two sentence bit under the "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" section to address the macropaedia point? Similarly, I'd be interested in how else Rob would amend the text to address any other concerns that he has. Jguk 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as how I would ammend this.... I already tried and was reverted. I don't need to add it in again and turn this into an edit war.  If you want to see what I would do, this was my edit in that direction.  I think this was one of the more positive policies on the previous version of this policy, and points to some clear places where you can add both fiction and do original research, if that is what you really want to do.  I still fail to see why this whole section needs to be eliminated.--Rob Horning 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand that this policy represents the accumulated experience and history of Wikibooks. However, I can't say I understand your concern, because I disagree that changes present in this proposed revision for the policy is resulting in lost of all that accumlated experience. I believe its clarifying that accumulated experience through more positive reinforcements and addressing both the need for clarity and an updated reflection of current practise. I am trying to understand why your adding them, even if I do disagree with them, so I can better understand your position and reach a compromose we both can accept. So far though you haven't made it easy for me to understand your position and why you think its needed.

 * I agree that works of fiction and other literature aren't generally allowed unless its in the form of annotated texts. I don't dispute that, so I don't consider it unresolved. I'm not suggesting that this be a seperate policy either. I believe that through the definition of textbook and the bit on annotated texts, this proposed policy does explain why works of fiction and other literature don't belong here. What I'm trying to understand is how Robert or anyone else feels that this proposal inadequately addresses why they are not approperate for Wikibooks. For example, how would anyone not be able to point to this policy and clearly show, in its current form, that fiction and other literature aren't allowed?

 * My problem with focusing on macromedia and encyclopedia articles for policy is I don't believe its enough any more. I think we need to address the broader problem of content dumping in all its forms, not just from Wikipedia and not just in the form of encyclopedia articles. I could be wrong, but I believe its current practise to disallow it without much regard for the reason for it, unless there are people who are willing to develop it into textbook material independently of its original source. I would be agreeable to having "Be more than a collection of articles or list of terms, quotations, facts, images or other information (though books may include them)" taken and made into its own section somehow thats explained in more detail. That was actually part of the idea that was starting to form with the concept of secondary information. I think that "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" could be that section. Explaining how each Wikimedia project has its own focus and the focus of Wikibooks is on textbooks and so most of these things don't belong here as a book within itself, but can be used as seconardy information within a book as an aid to readers, but nothing more than that. I do have some concern though that this issue may need to be addressed seperately from this policy because it seems like it could get rather big and may have a different focus and aim from this policy. I'm still working it out in my mind, but hopefully you see my point.

 * The original research concept, I believe needs to be made more positive and reflect current practise as with everything else that has been done to this policy. I think there needs to be a decision of some form as to whether or not that should be covered in this policy or in a seperate one. I favor rejecting WB:OR and focusing on better ways to describe the concept in this policy. For example if it there is a insistence on giving it a name, rather then describing it through content requirements, than use something like "established research is theories that have been peer reviewed and is generally accepted as fact." I would like to understand what problems, if any, that Robert or anyone else has with this approach. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I will have to say that in term of forking Wikipedia articles, I just dealt with an issue done by a new contributor today. See Physical Chemistry/Valence Bond Theory for what I marked as an issue.  And clearly this is yet another attempt to create a macropedia about in this case physical chemistry.  There is a very strong tendancy among Wikibooks authors to simply make a Wikibook to be a collection of articles about a given topic, where there is no distinction at all between Wikibooks and Wikipedia.  I'm not being paranoid here, but simply stating a simple observation I've made over a great deal of time.  This is something that absolutely must be explicitly mentioned.  Forking content from Wikipedia is fine, and is not in violation of the GFDL.  I should note that the rest of this user's contributions were out right copyright violations, so he is obviously just copying stuff because he doesn't know better.  But that doesn't stop abuses here of Wikibooks.

 * And while I may agree that the issue of Macropedias might need to be expanded, I feel that the wording I used in my previous edit to be quite reasonable and concise. It was also very positive in tone and even suggested alternatives for those who really want to make a macropedia.  It can be done on Wikipedia without even creating a Wikibook in the first place.  If so, there is no reason to make one here in the first place.  It is also current policy, and by removing it also removes and declares void this policy.  That is a huge change.  Or it turn this policy from something official to something much less concrete and open to objection.

 * As far as the original research policy wording, I'm really curious about what is so negative about it. It simply says that it is better to used the Academic Wikicity if you want to do original research, and notes that as a basic principle original resesearch is not done on Wikibooks.  Ammending the wording to make it more positive is much different than culling the whole policy altogether.  --Rob Horning 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The primary problem (at least concerning macropedias) is that not all people are capable of writing a textbook, and many people don't quite understand the difference between a textbook and a multi-page macropedia. This is a subject that people need to learn on their own, because nobody teaches how to write textbooks. That a textbook needs to have a centralized narrative implies that it requires a large amount of planning, dedication, and vision. These are all things that our contributors are not required to have before during or after they start authoring their books. Having more policy on these issues won't change the fact that most of our contributors (as well-meaning as they may be) are simply unable to properly author a textbook. Frankly, a macropedia makes a good start to a book, and only requires a certain "author's touch" to become something better, and I'm willing to wait around forever for somebody to deliver. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Well at the end is easier to turn a macropedias into a book with some flow and a sense direction that it is to start it from scratch, I'm personally against teaching anyone how to write a book (that is giving a set of rules and guidelines), the best book one can write is the book one would like to read, this is not very complex and a basic use of common sense would do, this is part of the attraction I have on how books evolve on Wikibooks, it is with some pleasure that I can detect cultural influences on several books or as you state the "author's touch", but most users still prefer to be kept away from the work and personal involvement authoring entails (things do get dangerous out there), and this will not change even if numbers get increased the disparity of contributors vs authors will probably remain steady or even aggravate since the only reward an author has on Wikibooks is to accomplishing something he sees and hopes will be useful for others.
 * Another point to have in consideration is that it is easier for contributors to participate collectivity in a macropedia that to have several authors colaborating at the same time on a book especially under the Wikibooks infrastructure, were most personal relations are casual and based on assumptions and decisions don't require/can't support a long term compromise nor an end date for the job. --Panic 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Macropedias
I would like to point out that the issue of Macropedias is currently a part of the existing policy, and has been "official policy" since this version of this policy was created by User:KelvSYC, a long-time admin who practically ran Wikibooks single handedly back elsewhen. I see that Whiteknight is challenging this philosophy, which is fine, but my argument here is that this is currently policy and what is being proposed now is to remove this policy from Wikibooks. And that the policy was removed under the guise of a simplification where I think this is a signficant policy change and should not be omitted unless this is precisely where the Wikibooks community wants to go.

OK, I will admit that in actual practice the Wikibooks users do have a hard time trying to make a distinction between a Wikibooks module and a Wikipedia article. And often the two read so similarly that they can be transwikied between the two projects with most people not really understanding that there might be a difference.

One of the key points of this policy is that it very clearly defines a huge difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Even if in practice we tend to fall short of the goal, it is still important to let people know what the idea "textbook" really could be here. Set the standard high enough and eventually much of what we produce will reach that standard.

In addition, I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to stop efforts that are really nothing more than a Wikiproject that was kicked off of Wikipedia for some reason or another. Wikibooks that clearly have no intention of being anything other than a collection of encyclopedia-like articles, such as frankly most of the video game guides were before they were deleted, fit this description. It really would be better if these articles were instead on Wikipedia (where they would get much more attention anyway) and you create a Wikipedia portal page to that content.

Keep in mind that Wikibooks was started specifically because User:Karl Wick decided to write Organic Chemistry on Wikipedia, but this content was kicked off due to the length it was getting on Wikipedia. This is the standard that Jimbo uses when trying to compare the rest of Wikibook's content, and frankly much of what we have does fall short of that sort of approach and quality. So the question I offer here is how to distinguish random Wikipedia articles that really should be on our sister project from those that really should be here on Wikibooks? --Rob Horning 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For clarification, I'm not challening the "no macropedias" rule, that's an established rule, and I dont see a reason to remove it. What I am advocating, however, is that while the aim of a book project here on wikibooks should not be to create a macropedia, the use of macropedia-like formatting as an intermediate state of book creation should be acceptable. My point being here that many people who are not familiar with authoring textbooks (which includes, essentially, everybody here) may not be immediately able to construct books in the proper format. Having a book that is essentially a macropedia shouldn't be cause for deletion (i dont feel that we should ever really delete content that is acceptable based on poor formatting), but should be cause for people to come in and improve it. I posit that all macropedias can become textbooks with far less effort required then it would take to author a new book on the subject from scratch.
 * Something that I would like to point out is that many books here begin life as a meer outline. And while outlines themselves are not acceptable material to host here on wikibooks, they are an acceptable intermediate state of material while a book is being created. Macropedias, while not recommendable, are likewise an acceptable intermediate step in book creation, but they are not (and should not ever be) an acceptable end point for a book project here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Why not add a timelimit or a limited life time as a macropedia and tag it as VfD after that has passed, maybe taking in consideration the last time the book was contributed (not edited) content, in the VfD we can add User:Whiteknight view that I agree completely, this will solve any future problems and bring content, even if the content in the final stage is discarded from Wikibooks it can be usefully elsewhere under the GFDL. --Panic 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * A timeline, i think, is just not an acceptable tool. Textbooks take a long time to write, and all our authors here are volunteers. We must be patient with people as they author their textbooks, and we should not be in any kind of a hurry to mandate what kinds of progress must be made, and in what timeframe. The only punishment that we should use in such situations, is that books that are meerly macropedias should not be designated as "good", and should not appear on the main page or in Featured books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Narrative" as optional
I disagree with the change in the text to make a narrative an optional component of a book. A narrative is all that stands between a macropedia and a textbooks, and saying that a narrative is optional is tantamount to saying macropedias are acceptable. There is a strong historical precident for not allowing macropedias here, and i think we should follow that precident. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That was in response to the fact that references don't generally have a narrative which is an acceptable textbook. I could of sworn I read you urging above that macropedias can become acceptable textbooks with time and should be given a chance to become so. Have you changed your mind on that? Surely there is some other criteria that excludes macropedias from being developed here without relying on all books requiring a narrative and without making a special exception for it? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * A macropedia can become acceptable with the addition of a narrative. Once the information is written down, the addition of narrative and other "book features" is a relatively simple matter. I can understand your point about reference books, however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/not

Wikibooks doesn't complement Wikimedia
Wikibooks is a part of Wikimedia it does not complement it, Wikimedia is a project under constant evolution without a specific goal or concrete objective so no one single part of it may complete it.

part - A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.

complement - Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.

--Panic 18:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Because Wikibooks is a part of Wikimedia, it helps to complete and bring Wikimedia to perfection. Thus it is both a part and a complement of Wikimedia. Rather confusing, but hope this helps! :) --Iamunknown 05:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I would tend to agree that wikibooks is a component part of wikimedia, and not a complement to it. Wikibooks does, however, complement the other wikimedia projects. For instance wikibooks complements wikipedia and wikiversity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A part belongs to the hole, a complement may not be part of the hole, but help the "fulfillment" of the goal. "The METRO/SUBWAY complements the BUS routes." --Panic 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From "not paper"
What does "The authors of a textbook do not worry about an event occurring tomorrow that makes all the large, expensive paper copies outdated, as the textbook will change as well." mean? -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * My own interpretation of the text is that printed textbooks sometimes refer to things that may change shortly, such as some new theory that may effect how a subject is understood and effect the accuracy of the text. Because Wikibooks is not limited to paper where such speculation may be needed, textbooks here can be updated to reflect changes as the changes happen rather then trying to guess what will happen and trying to prepare for it prematurely. Attempting to do so is difficult anyways to do beforehand because what may happen can radically change from day to day. Its about making clear to write about what people know to be true today rather then what may be true tomorrow. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm... the "not paper" does seem important to remind people that Wikibooks can do stuff that normal books can't do. However; it feels like a "wikibook plug" to me, and probabably should be in a different section. Maybe in a how to write a wikibook section or something similar. It contributes little to this policy page IMO. --Dragontamer 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's important: we don't want people to be writing traditional-style textbooks at the expense of losing some great features that wiki has to offer. The sentence that Johnny brings up, while poorly worded, goes to mean that wiki is a continuous process, not a linear process like tradtional textbook authoring (write, edit, revise, format, publish, etc). If the world changes tomorrow, wiki can update immediately, if needed. If a traditional textbook is being edited or revised, and the world changes, the whole project needs to get scraped. In short, wiki isn't constrained by timelines, as paper books are. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Template:Done

title: Template:Done


text: Template:Not done

title: Template:Not done


text:
Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash/Text

At first glance, type may seem an easily overlooked feature in Flash. However, the text features in Flash are very comprehensive and allow the user to explore their typographic creativity. Flash uses vectors to create type. Vectors are mathematical algorithms used in programs such as Adobe Flash and Adobe Illustrator to create shapes that are both scalable and small in file size. In contrast, bitmap or raster images are created pixel by pixel yielding subtle color detail such as in photographs. Vector type is a great choice for Flash because it allows for precise lines and scalability without inflating file size.

Using the Text Tool
Adobe has introduced new font rendering capabilities that allow for anti-aliased text in animation increasing the readability of the text. However, because of this feature, anti-aliased text created with Flash cannot be rendered when opened by versions older than Flash 7.

Flas incorporates three main types of text: static, dynamic, and input text. Static text is display text which is not changed at run time. Dynamic text fields are updated or changed at runtime via an outside source such as a text file. Input text are text fields for user input at runtime such as a message post or username. These three categories of type will be further explained in the following sections.

The text tool bar in Flash is similar to those found in other creative application software. Many of the options will look familiar such as the ‘font menu’, ‘kerning’, ‘color’, ‘size’, ‘alignment’, ‘bold’, and ‘italic.’ The best way to get acquainted with the text tool bar is to observe the layout and features:

Next >>

title: Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash/Text


text:
Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash/Text/Static

Using Static Text in Flash Professional 8
Static text is display text that is not changed at run time. However, static text allows the designer many options at author time. Similar to text boxes in layout programs, Flash’s static text boxes can be scaled, rotated, skewed, flipped, and moved. In addition, static text can have filters applied to it as well as anti-aliasing. Static text boxes come in two varieties: expanding and fixed width. Simply clicking the text tool on the stage and typing will create an expanding text box. This box will expand width-wise as long as the user types. Using the text tool to define a box by clicking and dragging will create a fixed width box. This will constrain the text to the width of the box. In the upper right corner of each text box, the user will find either a square for fixed width boxes or a circle for expanding text boxes. Flash 8 also allows text to be positioned vertically in a static text box. The user simply changes an option on the menu to control the text orientation. This can be useful when dealing with languages that are not based on Latin.

Next >>


text:
Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash/Text/Dynamic

Using Dynamic Text in Flash Professional 8
Dynamic text fields are updated or changed at runtime via an outside source such as a text file. Instead of ‘text boxes’, the dynamic text area is called a ‘field.’ The area of the field is defined by the author of the movie. Using ActionScript, text is called from an outside source and is inserted into the field during run time. These outside sources can include databases, server-side applications, other flash movies, or text files. Creating a dynamic text field works the same way as a static text box except that the expanding or fixed width indicator is in the lower right corner instead of the upper right. Dynamic text fields can be set to scroll. When the text field is full and set to scroll, the width handle indicator changes from white to black.

There are certain limitations on the appearance of dynamic text. Text in a dynamic text box cannot be skewed, kerned, tracked, rotated, or use vertical type at author time. However, because dynamic text fields are allowed to have instance names, ActionScript can be applied to help control its appearance.

<< Back | Next >>


text:
Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash/Text/Input

Using Input Text in Flash Professional 8
Input text fields are very similar to dynamic text fields. Instead of using outside sources, the input text field gets its content from the user at runtime. This could take form of bulletin posts, usernames, user comments, forms, and other means where user input is necessary. Just as dynamic text, input text area is called a “field” instead of a “text box.” The area of the field is defined by the author of the movie. Creating an input text field works exactly as a dynamic text field in that the expanding or fixed width indicator is in the lower right corner. Input text fields can be set to scroll. When the text field is full and set to scroll, the width handle indicator changes from white to black.

There are a few options which are unique to input and dynamic text. The HTML option in the properties inspector will allow the text field to interpret HTML tags. The text border option creates an outline around the field and is an easy way to create a dynamic or input “text box.” Also, both dynamic and input text fields can be assigned instance names in order to have ActionScript applied.

<< Back | Next >>


text:
Qt

Qt Programming
Qt is a cross-platform application development framework which supports the X Window System (Unix/X11), Apple Mac OS X, and Microsoft Windows NT/9x/2000/XP). The latest versions have experimental support for mobile operating systems.

Qt is object-oriented, widely used for the development of GUI programs: it is the basis for the KDE desktop environment and used in numerous commercial applications such as Google Earth, Skype for Linux and Adobe Photoshop Elements. It is also useful for developing non-GUI programs such as console tools and servers.

Qt is Released under the LGPL or a commercial license.

To use the framework a previous C++ experience is recommended. If you'd like an easier language for use with Qt, check out PyQt. See X Window Programming/Qt for more information.

The Qt documentation (provided freely as the framework) is probably the best information source you can find. See: http://qt-project.org/. It provides extensive documentation and tutorials on Qt.

For more help, try #qt on irc.freenode.net.

 * /Development Environment/ - Setting Up the Work Area
 * /Lesson 1/ - Hello, World!
 * /Lesson 2/ - Signals and Slots
 * /Lesson 3/ - QtWebKit Module
 * /Lesson 4/ - Video in a Qt application
 * /Lesson 5/ - IDE

 * /Qt Quick Overview/ - Introduced in Qt 5

Qt für C++-Anfänger Introducción a Patrones de Diseño en C++ con Qt4 Programmation Qt Programowanie_C%2B%2B_Qt4_w_systemie_Gnu/Linux/Helo_World_w_QT4 Qt Qt

title: Qt


text:
User talk:Tremmel

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. Webaware talk 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tremmel


text:
User talk:Kloo~enwikibooks

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. Webaware talk 05:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kloo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kloo~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kloo~enwikibooks


text:
User talk:220.225.68.69

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. --Az1568(Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:220.225.68.69


text:
User talk:165.228.80.246

Regarding edits made during February 26 2007
Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. Az1568(Talk) 07:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:165.228.80.246


text:
User talk:Rajivd

The Google sandbox is an alogrithmic filter devised by Google with a purpose of flitering out span sites by placing all new websites under quarantine for a period of assessment.

title: User talk:Rajivd


text:
User talk:82.99.219.16

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikibooks for advertising, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. -- Herby talk thyme 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:82.99.219.16


text:
Cookbook:Light Fluffy Pancakes

| American cuisine | Breakfast Cuisine | Vegetarian Cuisine

Ingredients

 * 1 cup all-purpose bleached flour
 * 2 teaspoons sugar
 * ½ teaspoon salt
 * ½ teaspoon baking powder
 * ¼ teaspoon baking soda
 * ¾ cup buttermilk
 * ¼ cup milk
 * 1 large egg
 * 2 tablespoon unsalted butter, melted
 * 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
 * Vegetable oil for brushing griddle

Procedure

 * 1) Heat a large non-stick skillet or griddle over low heat while preparing ingredients.
 * 2) Mix flour, sugar, salt, baking powder, and baking soda in medium bowl.
 * 3) Microwave buttermilk and milk in a 2-cup Pyrex measuring cup until room temperature (20–30 seconds).
 * 4) Whisk in egg, butter, and vanilla.
 * 5) Add wet ingredients to dry ingredients and whisk until just mixed.
 * 6) Return batter to measuring cup, stirring in 1–2 teaspoons water if necessary to make a thick but pourable batter.
 * 7) Increase heat to medium and generously brush skillet or griddle with oil.
 * 8) When oil starts to spider, but before it starts to smoke, ladle in batter about ¼ cup at a time to make pancakes. Work in batches, if necessary, to avoid overcrowding.
 * 9) When pancake bottoms are golden brown and tops start to bubble (2–3 minutes), flip pancakes.
 * 10) Cook until pancakes are golden brown on remaining side.
 * 11) Repeat, brushing skillet or griddle with oil between batches of pancakes.
 * 12) Serve hot.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Use bleached flour to make a tender pancake.
 * If using salted butter, reduce salt to ¼ teaspoon.
 * Pancake batter should pour, not glug! On the other hand, runny batter makes thin, oddly-shaped pancakes that frequently collide on the griddle. Stir in a touch more flour into thin batter. For batter that's too thick, whisk in water a teaspoon at a time.
 * The temperature of the pan or griddle is important: too hot and the pancakes are dark and raw; too cool and they're blond and hard. For tender, golden brown pancakes, heat the pan or griddle on low while you make the batter. Then increase the heat to medium and generously brush the pan or griddle with oil. It's ready when the oil starts to shimmer and, in any skillet or griddle other than non-stick, sends out tendrils that resemble an octopus or spider. But if the pan starts to smoke, set it down off the burner until the smoking subsides and the oil cools a bit.
 * This recipe easily doubles for a crowd.

title: Cookbook:Light Fluffy Pancakes


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Biopsychology

Biological psychology is the scientific study of the biological bases of behavior and mental states. Because all behavior is controlled by the central nervous system, it is sensible to study how the brain functions in order to understand behavior. This is the approach taken in behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, and neuropsychology. Neuropsychology is the branch of psychology that aims to understand how the structure and function of the brain relate to specific behavioral and psychological processes. Often neuropsychologists are employed as scientists to advance scientific or medical knowledge. Neuropsychology is particularly concerned with the understanding of brain injury in an attempt to work out normal psychological function.

The approach of cognitive neuroscience to studying the link between brain and behavior is to use neuroimaging tools, such as fMRI, to observe which areas of the brain are active during a particular task.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Cognitive Psychology

The nature of thought is another core interest in psychology. Cognitive psychology studies cognition, the mental processes underlying behavior. It uses information processing as a framework for understanding the mind. Perception, learning, problem solving, memory, attention, language and emotion are all well researched areas. Cognitive psychology is associated with a school of thought known as cognitivism, whose adherents argue for an information processing model of mental function, informed by positivism and experimental psychology.

Cognitive science is very closely related to cognitive psychology, but differs in some of the research methods used, and has a slightly greater emphasis on explaining mental phenomena in terms of both behavior and neural processing.

Both areas can use computational models to simulate phenomena of interest. Because mental events cannot directly be observed, computational models provide a tool for studying the functional organization of the mind. Such models give cognitive psychologists a way to study the "software" of mental processes independent of the "hardware" it runs on, be it the brain or a computer.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Branches of Psychology

Psychology is an extremely broad field, encompassing many different approaches to the study of mental processes and behavior. Below are the major areas of inquiry that comprise psychology, divided into fields of research psychology and fields of applied psychology. A comprehensive list of the sub-fields and areas within psychology can be found at the list of psychological topics and list of psychology disciplines.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Developmental Psychology

Mainly focusing on the development of the human mind through the life span, developmental psychology seeks to understand how people come to perceive, understand, and act within the world and how these processes change as they age. This may focus on intellectual, cognitive, neural, social, or moral development. Researchers who study children use a number of unique research methods to make observations in natural settings or to engage them in experimental tasks. Such tasks often resemble specially designed games and activities that are both enjoyable for the child and scientifically useful, and researchers have even devised clever methods to study the mental processes of small infants. In addition to studying children, developmental psychologists also study aging and processes throughout the life span, especially at other times of rapid change (such as adolescence and old age). Urie Bronfenbrenner's theory of development in context (The Ecology of Human Development - ISBN 0-674-22456-6 is influential in this field, as are those mentioned in "Educational psychology" immediately below, as well as many others. Developmental psychologists draw on the full range of theorists in scientific psychology to inform their research.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Personality Psychology

Personality psychology studies enduring psychological patterns of behavior, thought and emotion, commonly called an individual's personality. Theories of personality vary between different psychological schools. Trait theories attempts to break personality down into a number of traits, by use of factor analysis. The number of traits have varied between theories. One of the first, and smallest, models was that of Hans Eysenck, which had three dimensions: extraversion—introversion, neuroticism—emotional stability, and psychoticism. Raymond Cattell proposed a theory of 16 personality factors. The theory that has most empirical evidence behind it today may be the "Big Five" theory, proposed by Lewis Goldberg and others.

A different, but well known, approach to personality is that of Sigmund Freud, whose structural theory of personality divided personality into the ego, superego, and id. Freud's theory of personality has been criticized by many, including many mainstream psychologists.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Clinical Psychology

Clinical psychology is the application of abnormal psychology research to the understanding, treatment, and assessment of psychopathology. This primarily includes behavioral and mental health concerns. It has traditionally been associated with psychological treatment and psychotherapy, although modern clinical psychology may take an eclectic approach, including a number of therapeutic approaches. Typically, although working with many of the same clients as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists do not, in general, prescribe psychiatric drugs. Several branches of the armed forces have in the past, and a few graduate schools are presently offering a psychopharmacology specialty for psychologists for them to be able to prescribe mental health medication. Some clinical psychologists may focus on the clinical management of patients with brain injury. This area is known as clinical neuropsychology.

In recent years and particularly in the United States, a major split has been developing between academic research psychologists in universities and some branches of clinical psychology. Many research psychologists believe that many contemporary clinicians use therapies based on discredited theories and unsupported by empirical evidence of their effectiveness. From the other side, these clinicians believe that the research psychologists are ignoring their experience in dealing with actual patients. The disagreement resulted in the formation of the Association for Psychological Science by the research psychologists as a new body distinct from the American Psychological Association.

The work performed by clinical psychologists tends to be done inside various therapy models. A popular model is the Cognitive-Behavioral therapy (CBT) framework. CBT is an umbrella term that refers to a number of therapies which focus on changing cognitions and/or behaviors, rather than changing behavior exclusively, or discovering the unconscious causes of psychopathology (as in the psychodynamic school). The two most famous CBT therapies are Aaron T. Beck's cognitive therapy and Albert Ellis's rational emotive behavior therapy, i.e., RET (with cognitive therapy being, by far, the most extensively studied therapy in contemporary clinical psychology).

Counseling
Counseling psychology is a psychology specialty that facilitates personal and interpersonal functioning across the lifespan with a focus on emotional, social, vocational, educational, health-related, developmental, and organizational concerns. Counseling psychology differs from clinical psychology in that it is focused more on normal developmental issues and everyday stress rather than serious mental disorders. Counselling psychologists are employed in a variety of settings, including universities, schools, businesses, private practice, and community mental health centers.

The emerging field of relationship counseling, which characterizes ordinary human relationship successes and failures in concrete terms, has the specific appeal of avoiding psychology's practice of ascribing pathology to individuals who seek assistance. Current health insurance reimbursement for psychological services commonly involves the assignment of mental disease nomenclature(a feature that potential clients may find offensive, and that could potentially be iatrogenic, i.e., when a treatment creates other problems).

Relationship counseling, also referred to as "relationship education", includes psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. It is based on decades of university-based research, drawing on knowledge gained through close observation and analysis of both successful and unsuccessful marriages and family units.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Educational Psychology

Educational psychology is the study of how humans learn in educational settings, the effectiveness of educational interventions, the psychology of teaching, and the social psychology of schools as organizations. The work of child psychologists such as Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget and Jerome Bruner have been influential in creating teaching methods and educational practices.

The work and theories of the above-mentioned psychologists will be linked from this site soon.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Forensic Psychology

Psychology and Law
Together, Forensic psychology and Legal Psychology compose the area known as Psychology and Law.

Most typically, forensic psychology is practiced by clinical psychologists, and involves a clinical analysis of a particular individual and an assessment of some specific psycho-legal question. Typically, referrals to forensic practices constitute assessments for individuals that have ostensibly suffered neurologic insult(s). These patients have sought legal recourse, and the job of the forensic psychologist is to demonstrate that there is or is not (depending on their employment by either the prosecution or defense) a cause-and-effect relation between the accident and the subsequent (again, ostensible) neurologic change.

Legal psychology is a research-oriented field populated with researchers from several different areas within psychology (although Social Psychologists are typical).


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Health Psychology

Health psychology is the application of psychological theory and research to health, illness and health care. Whereas clinical psychology focuses on mental health and neurological illness, health psychology is concerned with the psychology of a much wider range of health-related behavior including healthy eating, the doctor-patient relationship, a patient's understanding of health information, and beliefs about illness. Health psychologists may be involved in public health campaigns, examining the impact of illness or health policy on quality of life or in research into the psychological impact of health and social care.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology (I/O) is among the newest fields in psychology. Industrial Psychology focuses on improving, evaluating, and predicting job performance while Organizational Psychology focuses on how organizations impact and interact with individuals. In 1910, through the works and experiments of Hugo Munsterberg and Walter Dill Scott, Industrial Psychology became recognized as a legitimate part of the social science [3]. Organizational Psychology was not officially added until the 1970s and since then, the field has flourished. The Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology has approximately 3400 professional members and 1900 student members. These two numbers combine to make up only about four percent of the members in the American Psychology Association but the number has been rising since 1939 when there were only one hundred professional I/O psychologists [3].

I/O psychologists are employed by academic institutions, consulting firms, internal human resources in industries, and governmental institutions. Various universities across the United States are beginning to strengthen their I/O Psychology programs due to the increase of interest and job demand in the field [3].

Industrial organizational psychologists look at questions regarding things such as who to hire, how to define and measure successful job performance, how to prepare people to be more successful in their jobs, how to create and change jobs so that they are safer and make people happier, and how to structure the organization to allow people to achieve their potential.[3]

Human factors psychology is the study of how cognitive and psychological processes affect our interaction with tools and objects in the environment. The goal of research in human factors psychology is to better design objects by taking into account the limitations and biases of human mental processes and behavior.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Scientific Experiment

Experimental psychological research is conducted in the laboratory under controlled conditions. This method of research attempts to rely on an application of the scientific method to understand behavior and mental processes. Examples of such measurements of behavior include reaction time and various psychometric measurements. Experiments are conducted to test a particular hypothesis.

As an example of a psychological experiment, one may want to test people's perception of different tones. Specifically, one could ask the following question: is it easier for people to discriminate one pair of tones from another depending upon their frequency? To answer this, one would want to disprove the hypothesis that all tones are equally discriminable, regardless of their frequency. (See hypothesis testing for an explanation of why one would disprove a hypothesis rather than attempt to prove one.) A task to test this hypothesis would have a participant seated in a room listening to a series of tones. If the participant would make one indication (by pressing a button, for example) if they thought the tones were two different sounds, and another indication if they thought they were the same sound. The proportion of correct responses would be the measurement used to describe whether or not all the tones were equally discriminable. The result of this particular experiment would probably indicate better discrimination of certain tones based on the human threshold of hearing.

Experimental psychological research is not restricted to the laboratory. In a natural setting, a manipulation of the situation can be made to see what is its effect on behavior. For example, one piece of research in environmental psychology measured the littering behavior of picnickers in a park as the result of litter already at the site. On random hours and random days, when the picnic area was vacant, the researchers made the area clean or left trash, and then observed how the site was left after the next picnickers visited.

The key phrase to describe an experiment is similar people in different situations. The similarity of the people is achieved by random assignment (This resembles the phrase 'random selection', but they are very different in meaning and in practice). The different situations are created by manipulation of some situational variable. In the previous paragraph, that variable was the absence or presence of litter when the picnickers arrived.


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Field Study

A longitudinal study is a research method which observes a particular population over time. For example, one might wish to study specific language impairment (SLI) by observing a group of individuals with the condition over a period of time. This method has the advantage of seeing how a condition can affect individuals over long time scales. However, such studies can suffer from attrition due to drop-out or death of subjects. In addition, since individual differences between members of the group are not controlled, it may be difficult to draw conclusions about the populations.

title: Introduction to Psychology/Field Study


text:
Introduction to Psychology/Neuropsychology

Neuropsychology involves the study of both healthy individuals and patients, typically who have suffered either brain injury or mental illness.

Cognitive neuropsychology and cognitive neuropsychiatry study neurological or mental impairment in an attempt to infer theories of normal mind and brain function. This typically involves looking for differences in patterns of remaining ability (known as 'functional disassociation's') which can give clues as to whether abilities are comprised of smaller functions, or are controlled by a single cognitive mechanism.

In addition, experimental techniques are often used which also apply to studying the neuropsychology of healthy individuals. These include behavioral experiments, brain-scanning or functional neuroimaging - used to examine the activity of the brain during task performance, and techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, which can safely alter the function of small brain areas to investigate their importance in mental operations.

Computational modeling is a tool often used in cognitive psychology to simulate a particular behavior using a computer. This method has several advantages. Since modern computers are extremely fast, many simulations can be run in a short time, allowing for a great deal of statistical power. Modeling also allows psychologists to visualise hypotheses about the functional organization of mental events that couldn't be directly observed in a human.

Several different types of modeling are used to study behavior. Connectionism uses neural nets to simulate the brain. Another method is symbolic modeling, which represents many different mental objects using variables and rules. Other types of modeling include dynamic systems and stochastic modeling.


text:
Cookbook:Almond Pancakes

| American cuisine | Breakfast Cuisine | Vegetarian Cuisine

Ingredients

 * 1 cup (150 g / 5.3 oz) bleached all-purpose flour
 * 2 teaspoons granulated sugar
 * ½ teaspoon salt
 * ½ teaspoon baking powder
 * ¼ teaspoon baking soda
 * ¾ cup (180 ml / 6.1 oz) buttermilk
 * ¼ cup (60 ml / 2 oz) milk
 * 1 egg
 * 2 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted
 * 1 teaspoon almond extract
 * Vegetable oil for brushing griddle

Procedure

 * 1) Heat a large non-stick skillet or griddle over low heat while preparing ingredients.
 * 2) Mix flour, sugar, salt, baking powder, and baking soda in medium bowl.
 * 3) Microwave buttermilk and milk in a 2-cup Pyrex measuring cup to room temperature, 20 to 30 seconds.
 * 4) Whisk in egg, butter, and almond extract.
 * 5) Add wet ingredients to dry ingredients and whisk until just mixed.
 * 6) Return batter to measuring cup, stirring in a teaspoon or two of water, if necessary, to make a thick, but pourable batter.
 * 7) Increase heat to medium and generously brush skillet or griddle with oil.
 * 8) When oil starts to spider, but before it starts to smoke, pour batter, about ¼ cup (60 ml) at a time.
 * 9) Work in batches, if necessary, to avoid overcrowding.
 * 10) When pancake bottoms are golden brown and tops start to bubble, 2 to 3 minutes, flip pancakes.
 * 11) Cook until pancakes are golden brown on remaining side.
 * 12) Repeat, brushing skillet or griddle with oil.
 * 13) Serve hot.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Use all-purpose flour (which is softer than unbleached), not unbleached flour to make a tender pancake.
 * If using salted butter, reduce salt to ¼ teaspoon.
 * You can substitute a tablespoon of lemon juice or vinegar in milk for the buttermilk.
 * Pancake batter should pour, not glug. On the other hand, runny batter makes thin, oddly shaped pancakes that frequently collide on the griddle. Stir in a touch more flour into thin batter. For batter that's too thick, whisk in water, a teaspoon at a time.
 * The temperature of the pan or griddle is important: too hot and the pancakes are dark and raw; too cool and they're blond and hard. For tender, golden brown pancakes, heat the pan or griddle on low while you make the batter. Then increase the heat to medium and generously brush the pan or griddle with oil. It's ready when the oil starts to shimmer and, in any skillet or griddle other than non-stick, sends out tendrils that resemble and octopus or spider. But if the pan starts to smoke, set it down off the burner until the smoking subsides and the oil cools a bit.
 * This recipe easily doubles for a crowd.

title: Cookbook:Almond Pancakes


text:
Cookbook:Banana Nutmeg Pancakes

| American cuisine | Breakfast Cuisine | Vegetarian Cuisine

Ingredients

 * 1 cup all-purpose bleached flour
 * 2 teaspoons sugar
 * ½ teaspoon salt
 * ½ teaspoon baking powder
 * ¼ teaspoon baking soda
 * ½ teaspoon nutmeg
 * ¾ cup buttermilk
 * ¼ cup milk
 * 1 large egg
 * 2 tablespoon unsalted butter, melted
 * 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
 * Vegetable oil for brushing griddle
 * 2 small bananas, thinly sliced

Procedure

 * 1) Heat a large non-stick skillet or griddle over low heat while preparing ingredients.
 * 2) Mix flour, sugar, salt, baking powder, and baking soda in medium bowl.
 * 3) Whisk nutmeg into dry ingredients.
 * 4) Microwave buttermilk and milk in a 2-cup Pyrex measuring cup to room temperature, 20 to 30 seconds.
 * 5) Whisk in egg, butter, and vanilla.
 * 6) Add wet ingredients to dry ingredients and whisk until just mixed.
 * 7) Return batter to measuring cup, stirring in a teaspoon or two of water, if necessary, to make a thick, but pourable batter.
 * 8) Increase heat to medium and generously brush skillet or griddle with oil.
 * 9) When oil starts to spider, but before it starts to smoke, pour batter, about ¼ cup at a time. Work in batches, if necessary, to avoid overcrowding.
 * 10) Drop 5 or 6 slices of banana over the uncooked side of each pancake as it cooks.
 * 11) When pancake bottoms are golden brown and tops start to bubble, 2 to 3 minutes, flip pancakes.
 * 12) Cook until pancakes are golden brown on remaining side.
 * 13) Repeat, brushing skillet or griddle with oil.
 * 14) Serve hot.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Use all-purpose bleached flour to make a tender pancake.
 * If using salted butter, reduce salt to ¼ teaspoon.
 * You can substitute a tablespoon of lemon juice (or vinegar) in milk for the buttermilk.
 * Pancake batter should pour, not glug! On the other hand, runny batter makes thin, oddly shaped pancakes that frequently collide on the griddle. Stir in a touch more flour into thin batter. For batter that's too thick, whisk in water, a teaspoon at a time.
 * The temperature of the pan or griddle is important: too hot and the pancakes are dark and raw; too cool and they're blond and hard. For tender, golden brown pancakes, heat the pan or griddle on low while you make the batter. Then increase the heat to medium and generously brush the pan or griddle with oil. It's ready when the oil starts to shimmer and, in any skillet or griddle other than non-stick, sends out tendrils that resemble and octopus or spider. But if the pan starts to smoke, set it down off the burner until the smoking subsides and the oil cools a bit.
 * This recipe easily doubles for a crowd.

title: Cookbook:Banana Nutmeg Pancakes