At the end of my last post, the impression might have been given (passive ) that I didn’t want the wikibook to be newbie friendly somehow. I didn’t mean that.
Here, I’m not interested in what LD4all is, I’m interested in what the wikibook is not. Going through each item:
Informs: I think it does, in more detail than the LD4all site excluding forum.
Entertains: I don’t know, the Induction Techniques section gets pretty dry; possibly adding images would help. Not smileys though, I don’t know why. On LD4all the site has plenty of beautiful artwork but on the forum it’s up to the individual posters. I suppose most are upbeat and entertaining .
Motivators: If you mean people, the wikibook won’t provide that, and I don’t mind. If you mean reasons, they’re right there in the Introduction section. (If some are missing, add them or tell me). I wouldn’t want it to read like a self-help book where there are promises throughout the book. I don’t want to sing praises of lucid dreaming. I don’t want to say it’s great when lucid nightmares can happen. So it doesn’t end up very motivating!
To make a suggestion is to criticise. “You should add more info on MILD” <=> “There is not enough info on MILD”. Don’t let that discourage you from making criticism, constructive or no. Actually, non-constructive criticism sucks.
Finally: It is not “my” work in authorship nor in ownership. (Wow, I just love that sentence I wrote! ) I didn’t write all of it (I don’t think I wrote most of it) and I certainly don’t own it. And that is cool and fun .
I don’t really see anything wrong with the wiki book. Keep in mind it is a work in progress. You can say that this section or that section is weak or confusing. You can moan and groan about it or you could try and add to it. I am probably not one to lecture on that since I have not yet added anything to it but, I want to point out it is not fair to give r3m0t a hard time about it either.
milod789: I don’t think anybody has been. It can be fixed without them taking the time to edit it, but not if they don’t put up exactly what it is that’s not so great about the current version.
I’m not sure if this was brought before, but there is a link to the alt.dreams.lucid FAQ (in the appendices), also known as Lars’ Lucid Dreaming FAQ. It seems to me that the FAQ doesn’t have reliable information, but some unchecked methods info and things that are simply not true - they’re all mentioned as fact, though.
(That’d be enough to scare skeptic like me from lucid dreaming forever. )
I don’t think this FAQ should be included in the wiki, at least not in the appendices section and without any disclaimer about its reliability.
How do you decide what is true information and what is false. Even in the example you provided if you added a disclaimer to it you would just be trading one opinion for another.
I’ve known for a long time that FAQ had shitty techniques nobody has ever used, but I didn’t consider it an issue. The shared dreaming thing, though, might be worth a disclaimer.
That much I think we can definitely agree on. As far as faq’s go it does kind of suck. Perhaps you could have a ranking system for each link. Or add a reader reviews section under each link like they have for books on amazon.com.
I thought that the monthly hit stats had been removed, but they haven’t. I’ve updated this accordingly.
The wikibook appears to have been stunningly popular. To the main page, ~1300 hits in July, ~2000 in August, ~1500 in September, and probably ~1700 in October. (See this noting the date it was generated.)
at the moment I have 3 Wiki related sites , actually more tikiwiki sites. And thought of creating one for LD4ALL but now I see that you guys have one and it rocks! keep up the good work. If you would need some help in tweaking this thing, let me know I’ve done some tweaking for my job
It looks like the lucid dreaming wikibook will be the book of the month (by vote). This will mean that it gets a nice place on the front page, and there might be a synopsis and/or a picture involved. (Like the front page of the English Wikipedia).
Anyway, I’m going to open a new page on wikibooks for the “short synopsis”.
We got the book of the month award for February! The grand result can be seen on the front page of wikibooks. Yes, a valuable space on the front page!
Also I can put a nice red box at the top of the wikibook saying how wonderful I am.
We got 12 votes, and the runners-up were “Physics Study Guide” (6), “US History” (4), “Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide” (3), and “General Biology” (2). See?
I just discover that the Wikibook got the month award for February 2005 ! Congrats !
About the odd comment, you have to know that there are a lot of people who are sure that they have understood the whole universe.
Moreover, he says that lucidity means understanding how your brain works. I’m sorry for him, but
a lot of neuropsychiatrists know exactly how it works and this don’t give them the faintest LD. If it was the case, LD’s would be far better known by neuropsychiatrists.
the definition of lucidity is “knowing you’re dreaming” and not “knowing how you brain works by night”.
I hope the wikibook will not be polluted by such people who don’t obviously know anything about LDing. These sort of stupid problems are the counterpart of celebrity !
) that I didn’t want the wikibook to be newbie friendly somehow. I didn’t mean that.
.
) I didn’t write all of it (I don’t think I wrote most of it) and I certainly don’t own it. And that is cool and fun 
.
.
)
keep up the good work. If you would need some help in tweaking this thing, let me know I’ve done some tweaking for my job 
and, of course, 
Congrats ! 
