I think this is a classic example of feature bloat.
Yes, recipes are neat.
Yes, a Wikicookbook is neat.
But recipes, well, there's an awful lot of them. And I can just imagine
the NPOV fights on them. (Chile with or without beans? Chocolate chip
cookies with nuts? White or dark meat chicken? Does a dash of cumin
improve the dish?) And they're not something that most people would
think to go to an encyclopedia about.
Not every good thing should go into the Wikipedia. If it tries to do
everything, it only serves to obsure the things it genuinely does well
with. The fact that wikibooks is not as successful as the English
encyclopedia does not negate it. It means that more work needs to be
done. Should we kill the foreign language encyclopedias for their
failure to do as well as the English one too, and just have all the
foreign language articles in one main encyclopedia?
Yes, our recipe coverage on wikibooks is not great. Perhaps if the
people fighting over whether we should move them to the encyclopedia
were to go and add some recipes, though, it would do better.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 9, 2004, at 1:51 PM, Rick wrote:
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
RickK
Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that recipies should be included in the main wikipedia -
providing they are not stupid and do actually work. I would love to
give a shot at cooking things (Delia Smith gets on my tits) and
anything to help me learn to cook would be great.
This may lead to edit wars with people fiddling each others recipies,
so this will have to be watched.
Mabye a wikirecipies site?
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 03:35:51 -0400, Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:05:17 -0400, Delirium
wrote:
I'd say a fairly high percentage of our articles on drugs have
something
that at least one government will find objectionable, so we'd have to
tag pretty much all of them.
This might not be a terrible idea. It should be as easy as possible
to provide
various views of the encyclopedia which are inoffensive, in turn, to
a) governments, b) children, c) the pious, etc. Giving reusers the
ability to
choose a limited subset of encyclopedia content is not censorship
(though
one might argue that it makes targeted censorship easier). I can
think of
a few cases in which I would find it appropriate to remove "a fairly
high
percentage of our articles on drugs," among other things, from a
particular
snapshot or CD.
+sj+
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen(a)gmail.com
07739 785 249
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l