NOT a rhetorical question.
I've been very puzzled by an apparent consensus or policy--one with which I obviously do not agree--that recipes in particular, and didactic or "how-to" articles in general, do not belong in Wikipedia. I can give cogent-to-me reasons for not agreeing with this. But I don't want to discuss that now.
Here's what I want to know. Is this an example of a difficult, carefully-threshed-out consensus that newer Wikipedians, having not participated in that consensus, may be unaware of?
(And if so why isn't it documented on any of the policy pages I've been able to find?)
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
It is unfortunately not a consensus at all; which explain it is not in policy pages. If you find it in policy pages, then that is a non consensual policy. This case is rather the perfect example of a "bullying" process from one side :-) It might be pointed to newer Wikipedians as an example of what "not to do".
-----
Since I am at it, advertisement time... I invite you to consult the page I maintain on the french wikipedia :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recettes_du_mois
Careful, that is a special page in Wikipedia space, where we are a bit pov and citing authors as well :-)
I consider it a bit like a barn raising page ;-)
Anthere
Daniel P.B.Smith a écrit:
NOT a rhetorical question.
I've been very puzzled by an apparent consensus or policy--one with which I obviously do not agree--that recipes in particular, and didactic or "how-to" articles in general, do not belong in Wikipedia. I can give cogent-to-me reasons for not agreeing with this. But I don't want to discuss that now.
Here's what I want to know. Is this an example of a difficult, carefully-threshed-out consensus that newer Wikipedians, having not participated in that consensus, may be unaware of?
(And if so why isn't it documented on any of the policy pages I've been able to find?)
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
I've been very puzzled by an apparent consensus or policy--one with which I obviously do not agree--that recipes in particular, and didactic or "how-to" articles in general, do not belong in Wikipedia.
If so many people want them, why not make a new project -- WikiHowto? Either that, or extend the scope of Wikibooks slightly.
Timwi
~You miss the point. Many people do consider many recipees are encyclopedic, as some have cultural value.
Plus, do you have (or did you ever see ?) a paper version of the first encyclopedia set by the encyclopedists ? It was definitly a practical encyclopedia. Some people do consider that howtos belong to an encyclopedia.
Timwi a écrit:
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
I've been very puzzled by an apparent consensus or policy--one with which I obviously do not agree--that recipes in particular, and didactic or "how-to" articles in general, do not belong in Wikipedia.
If so many people want them, why not make a new project -- WikiHowto? Either that, or extend the scope of Wikibooks slightly.
Timwi
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Anthere wrote:
~You miss the point. Many people do consider many recipees are encyclopedic, as some have cultural value.
The central basis on which I argue on vfd when these things come up is that wikipedia should be descriptive not prescriptive. Instructive works come under the remit of wikibooks so that is where they should go.
So a description of how a food is made is encyclopedic, but instructions on how to make that food are not encyclopedic.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Anthere wrote:
~You miss the point. Many people do consider many recipees are encyclopedic, as some have cultural value.
The central basis on which I argue on vfd when these things come up is that wikipedia should be descriptive not prescriptive. Instructive works come under the remit of wikibooks so that is where they should go.
So a description of how a food is made is encyclopedic, but instructions on how to make that food are not encyclopedic.
The descriptive/prescriptive distinction is very narrow in this case. I prefer to avoid a pompous definition of what is encyclopedic.
Ec
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So a description of how a food is made is encyclopedic, but instructions on how to make that food are not encyclopedic.
The descriptive/prescriptive distinction is very narrow in this case. I prefer to avoid a pompous definition of what is encyclopedic.
Not really, the instructive case tells you how to make a specific version of a food product but the descriptive case tells you how it is made in general.
To look at a very simple case consider boiling rice, a specific recipe could tell you to use a kettle to pre-boil water, another could state the entire procedure should be done on a hob, yet another could suggest using a microwave. And that's before you start considering things such as whether you should add salt and how much you should add.
On the other hand a descriptive version could just be "the rice is heated in boiling water".
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So a description of how a food is made is encyclopedic, but instructions on how to make that food are not encyclopedic.
The descriptive/prescriptive distinction is very narrow in this case. I prefer to avoid a pompous definition of what is encyclopedic.
Not really, the instructive case tells you how to make a specific version of a food product but the descriptive case tells you how it is made in general.
To look at a very simple case consider boiling rice, a specific recipe could tell you to use a kettle to pre-boil water, another could state the entire procedure should be done on a hob, yet another could suggest using a microwave. And that's before you start considering things such as whether you should add salt and how much you should add.
On the other hand a descriptive version could just be "the rice is heated in boiling water".
These descriptions of different procedures for prparing rice are clearly all encyclopedic, though that last sentence may be too superficial for inclusion.
Ec
Imran Ghory a écrit:
To look at a very simple case consider boiling rice, a specific recipe could tell you to use a kettle to pre-boil water, another could state the entire procedure should be done on a hob, yet another could suggest using a microwave. And that's before you start considering things such as whether you should add salt and how much you should add.
On the other hand a descriptive version could just be "the rice is heated in boiling water".
Imran
plain rice cooked in boiled water... Sad meal...:-(
Hi!
On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:36:16 +0200, Anthere wrote:
~You miss the point. Many people do consider many recipees are encyclopedic, as some have cultural value.
Actually, the German WP allows some recipies, namely those of very traditional and well-known dishes, including local ones. However, only one is allowed, so that people can see what a particularly famous dish is; an article is not supposed to be a collection of recipies.
Greetings from Cologne Alex
I would like to note that we discussed this matter in February, and although perhaps no consensus was formed on policy, I continue to stand by my statements on the topic, particularly that how-tos, recipes, and similar didactic texts are inherently POV and don't belong on Wikipedia proper.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010873.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html
Note, however, that information about this kind of content is decidedly NPOV.
For examples of articles about culturally-important dishes that are not ridiculous strawmen, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guacamole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paella
There was a small edit war/debate about what ingredients are permitted in Paella (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paella). One can only imagine what kind of chaos that debate would have engendered if there had been a recipe. And who knows if the resulting recipe would have even been edible! :-)
In any case, the point is that there is no such thing as a neutral recipe, only a neutral "meta-recipe".
- David
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
NOT a rhetorical question.
I've been very puzzled by an apparent consensus or policy--one with which I obviously do not agree--that recipes in particular, and didactic or "how-to" articles in general, do not belong in Wikipedia. I can give cogent-to-me reasons for not agreeing with this. But I don't want to discuss that now.
Here's what I want to know. Is this an example of a difficult, carefully-threshed-out consensus that newer Wikipedians, having not participated in that consensus, may be unaware of?
(And if so why isn't it documented on any of the policy pages I've been able to find?)
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Friedland wrote:
I would like to note that we discussed this matter in February, and although perhaps no consensus was formed on policy, I continue to stand by my statements on the topic, particularly that how-tos, recipes, and similar didactic texts are inherently POV and don't belong on Wikipedia proper.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010873.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html
Note, however, that information about this kind of content is decidedly NPOV.
It is completely ridiculous to say that because the verbs in a recipe are in the imperative mood, they are inherently POV. The imperative mood can be instructive by nature, and does not imply an order to do things that will be enforced by anybody. If you don't follow the recipe the meal may be a flop, but the cook proceeds at his own risk. We have a general disclaimer which should apply when the recipe doesn't work.
But if a recipe is POV, then so too is its deletion.
This intent to delete articles of practical instruction communicates a view that the content of an encyclopedia should be restricted to a narrow and snobbishly academic range of subjects.
In any case, the point is that there is no such thing as a neutral recipe, only a neutral "meta-recipe".
If your solution were really to turn a recipe into a "meta-recipe" then go ahead and do that. It would be better than deleting, though the downside for you would be the requirement to do constructive work.
Ec
On May 13, 2004, at 5:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It is completely ridiculous to say that because the verbs in a recipe are in the imperative mood, they are inherently POV. The imperative mood can be instructive by nature, and does not imply an order to do things that will be enforced by anybody. If you don't follow the recipe the meal may be a flop, but the cook proceeds at his own risk. We have a general disclaimer which should apply when the recipe doesn't work.
The mood is not, for me, the issue. Certainly, the imperative mood is useful in such articles. However, there is a difference between the only way to do it and the "best" way to do it. If there is a finite number (such as one) of ways to do something (such as replace a bulb in a particular lamp), all of these should be documented or none at all. Anything else is POV.
Recipes are tricky. If you provide a recipe for chocolate cake as a "chocolate cake" recipe, that's POV: you're asserting that *this* is chocolate cake. If you include "Le Grand Pain's famous chocolate cake recipe", that's the only one of *those*. It's all in the presentation.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Peter Jaros wrote:
On May 13, 2004, at 5:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It is completely ridiculous to say that because the verbs in a recipe are in the imperative mood, they are inherently POV. The imperative mood can be instructive by nature, and does not imply an order to do things that will be enforced by anybody. If you don't follow the recipe the meal may be a flop, but the cook proceeds at his own risk. We have a general disclaimer which should apply when the recipe doesn't work.
The mood is not, for me, the issue. Certainly, the imperative mood is useful in such articles. However, there is a difference between the only way to do it and the "best" way to do it. If there is a finite number (such as one) of ways to do something (such as replace a bulb in a particular lamp), all of these should be documented or none at all. Anything else is POV.
Recipes are tricky. If you provide a recipe for chocolate cake as a "chocolate cake" recipe, that's POV: you're asserting that *this* is chocolate cake. If you include "Le Grand Pain's famous chocolate cake recipe", that's the only one of *those*. It's all in the presentation.
Your distortion of NPOV as an excuse for getting rid of something you don't like in Wikipedia boggles the imagination! Deletion is also an expression of POV, as been pointed out in the discussion about offensive images. And what could be so offensive about the recipes?
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time suffering fools gladly.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
I see this as more a place for a Wikibook recipes book. An article that consists of 15 pages listing all the variations on chocolate cake is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't the place to get detailed how-to instructions, but to get conceptual information. This is why the article on, say [[C programming language]] describes the language, rather than being an intro to programming in C tutorial---if you want a detailed intro to C, that's what an "intro to programming in C" wikibook would be for.
I don't even see why this is an argument---it's so completely ridiculous to have recipes in an encyclopedia, barring some famous ones, that I'm baffled people are actually seriously defending the idea.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
I see this as more a place for a Wikibook recipes book. An article that consists of 15 pages listing all the variations on chocolate cake is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't the place to get detailed how-to instructions, but to get conceptual information. This is why the article on, say [[C programming language]] describes the language, rather than being an intro to programming in C tutorial---if you want a detailed intro to C, that's what an "intro to programming in C" wikibook would be for.
I don't even see why this is an argument---it's so completely ridiculous to have recipes in an encyclopedia, barring some famous ones, that I'm baffled people are actually seriously defending the idea.
What happens in Wikibooks is a different matter. My involvement there has been so minimal that it would be inappropriate for me to comment about what they should or should not accept. It is an autonomous project, and it is not up to the rest of us to dictate their rules.
This is about whether recipes (and other forms of practical knowledge) belong in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia covers all sorts of knowledge, not just those forms that a self-appointed elite would allow. Is there really a 15 page article of chocolate cake variations in Wikipedia? I doubt it. This is nothing more than a straw-man argument created for the sole purpose of making an opposing argument look ridiculous. (I don't know enough about C-language to be able to say anything about that.)
I'm baffled by people who want to exclude such material. I agree that the mainstream English-language encyclopedias like Britannica have traditionally omitted this kind of material, but we are not them, and we have no need to restrict ourselves to the academic trappings that they chose to adopt for their own purposes.
To take the matter even further afield (I've been reading Ivan Illich) we are dealing with an attitude that reflects something that is wrong with education in general, and universities in particular. Wikipedia is bound to appeal to a community of autodidacts with an incredible variety of backgrounds. No sphere of knowledge is so inferior that it needs be ignored. Education has become a process of buying into "The System", of paying one's dues thereto, and receiving accreditation to elite circles. For the less capable it is intended to insure compliance. The freeing of knowledge thus applies to ALL aspects of knowledge.
The eventual third-world barely literate reader of our encyclopedia is not going to open it to read about how the rich and powerful got there, or about their complex science for launching astronauts, or about the strutting gliterati gazing into the navel of their own foolishness. These only add acuity to their poverty. For them, simple techniques to enable them to bring a few of those things in their lives that we take for granted will be greatly appreciated.
Ec
On May 14, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
What happens in Wikibooks is a different matter. My involvement there has been so minimal that it would be inappropriate for me to comment about what they should or should not accept. It is an autonomous project, and it is not up to the rest of us to dictate their rules.
Ah! I believe we may have hit upon the crux of the matter. I see Wikibooks as the place for many things which I would otherwise put in the Wikipedia. If you don't share this sentiment, I understand your position much better.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
I see this as more a place for a Wikibook recipes book. An article that consists of 15 pages listing all the variations on chocolate cake is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't the place to get detailed how-to instructions, but to get conceptual information. This is why the article on, say [[C programming language]] describes the language, rather than being an intro to programming in C tutorial---if you want a detailed intro to C, that's what an "intro to programming in C" wikibook would be for.
I don't even see why this is an argument---it's so completely ridiculous to have recipes in an encyclopedia, barring some famous ones, that I'm baffled people are actually seriously defending the idea.
What happens in Wikibooks is a different matter. My involvement there has been so minimal that it would be inappropriate for me to comment about what they should or should not accept. It is an autonomous project, and it is not up to the rest of us to dictate their rules.
This is about whether recipes (and other forms of practical knowledge) belong in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia covers all sorts of knowledge, not just those forms that a self-appointed elite would allow. Is there really a 15 page article of chocolate cake variations in Wikipedia? I doubt it. This is nothing more than a straw-man argument created for the sole purpose of making an opposing argument look ridiculous. (I don't know enough about C-language to be able to say anything about that.)
I'm baffled by people who want to exclude such material. I agree that the mainstream English-language encyclopedias like Britannica have traditionally omitted this kind of material, but we are not them, and we have no need to restrict ourselves to the academic trappings that they chose to adopt for their own purposes.
To take the matter even further afield (I've been reading Ivan Illich) we are dealing with an attitude that reflects something that is wrong with education in general, and universities in particular. Wikipedia is bound to appeal to a community of autodidacts with an incredible variety of backgrounds. No sphere of knowledge is so inferior that it needs be ignored. Education has become a process of buying into "The System", of paying one's dues thereto, and receiving accreditation to elite circles. For the less capable it is intended to insure compliance. The freeing of knowledge thus applies to ALL aspects of knowledge.
The eventual third-world barely literate reader of our encyclopedia is not going to open it to read about how the rich and powerful got there, or about their complex science for launching astronauts, or about the strutting gliterati gazing into the navel of their own foolishness. These only add acuity to their poverty. For them, simple techniques to enable them to bring a few of those things in their lives that we take for granted will be greatly appreciated.
Ec
I *deeply* agree with this.
It's rude to quote a huge block of text and just say "me, too" but I'm going to do it anyway. Anthere says that she deeply agrees with Ray here... well, me too.
Anthere wrote:
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
I see this as more a place for a Wikibook recipes book. An article that consists of 15 pages listing all the variations on chocolate cake is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't the place to get detailed how-to instructions, but to get conceptual information. This is why the article on, say [[C programming language]] describes the language, rather than being an intro to programming in C tutorial---if you want a detailed intro to C, that's what an "intro to programming in C" wikibook would be for.
I don't even see why this is an argument---it's so completely ridiculous to have recipes in an encyclopedia, barring some famous ones, that I'm baffled people are actually seriously defending the idea.
What happens in Wikibooks is a different matter. My involvement there has been so minimal that it would be inappropriate for me to comment about what they should or should not accept. It is an autonomous project, and it is not up to the rest of us to dictate their rules.
This is about whether recipes (and other forms of practical knowledge) belong in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia covers all sorts of knowledge, not just those forms that a self-appointed elite would allow. Is there really a 15 page article of chocolate cake variations in Wikipedia? I doubt it. This is nothing more than a straw-man argument created for the sole purpose of making an opposing argument look ridiculous. (I don't know enough about C-language to be able to say anything about that.)
I'm baffled by people who want to exclude such material. I agree that the mainstream English-language encyclopedias like Britannica have traditionally omitted this kind of material, but we are not them, and we have no need to restrict ourselves to the academic trappings that they chose to adopt for their own purposes.
To take the matter even further afield (I've been reading Ivan Illich) we are dealing with an attitude that reflects something that is wrong with education in general, and universities in particular. Wikipedia is bound to appeal to a community of autodidacts with an incredible variety of backgrounds. No sphere of knowledge is so inferior that it needs be ignored. Education has become a process of buying into "The System", of paying one's dues thereto, and receiving accreditation to elite circles. For the less capable it is intended to insure compliance. The freeing of knowledge thus applies to ALL aspects of knowledge.
The eventual third-world barely literate reader of our encyclopedia is not going to open it to read about how the rich and powerful got there, or about their complex science for launching astronauts, or about the strutting gliterati gazing into the navel of their own foolishness. These only add acuity to their poverty. For them, simple techniques to enable them to bring a few of those things in their lives that we take for granted will be greatly appreciated.
Ec
I *deeply* agree with this.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 14 May 2004 02:29:44 -0700, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I see this as more a place for a Wikibook recipes book. An article that consists of 15 pages listing all the variations on chocolate cake is ridiculous for an encyclopedia.
Indeed. We *have* a Wikibook for recipes, last I checked, and it's supposedly where all those "transwiki to recipes and delete" stuff goes. Of course, Wikibooks isn't quite Wikipedia.
[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia articles are not]] recipes. They might conceivably contain recipes, or they might be about recipes (random thought- we have an article anywhere about that Neiman-Marcus or however you spell it cookie recipe story that you hear all over? :). However, I would think that a brief description of the content of a dish would usually be more encyclopedic-feeling than a recipe. And yes, the mood is one of the issues.
Fennec Foxen wrote:
[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia articles are not]] recipes. They might conceivably contain recipes, or they might be about recipes (random thought- we have an article anywhere about that Neiman-Marcus or however you spell it cookie recipe story that you hear all over? :). However, I would think that a brief description of the content of a dish would usually be more encyclopedic-feeling than a recipe. And yes, the mood is one of the issues.
3 points, one a direct response to your point, and 2 others that I wanted to say more generally.
1. It is of course true that Wikipedia articles are not recipes. Wikipedia articles are not mathematical equations, either. But Wikipedia articles can _contain_ mathematical equations, and similary Wikipedia articles can _contain_ recipes.
2. Recipes are not "inherently NPOV" any more than any other kind of knowledge. Wikipedia need not _advocate_ for one particular way of cooking Key Lime Pie, in order to _describe_ the traditional recipe and variants, with the description being in the detailed format of a recipe.
3. Concerns about whether we have to include 50 recipes for something as mundane as Chocolate cake are valid concerns, but they are in principle no different from concerns in other articles as to how much detail to include, and the same sorts of external considerations can come into play just as well here.
4. It is of course possible for an article which includes a recipe to be POV. If someone wrote: "This is the only proper way to make chili; all other ways are abominations not deserving of the name" then we would of course edit that bit out. We'd look for some intrinsic "hook" by which to choose which recipe to choose, i.e. "oldest known", or "first published", or "a typical example" or "published by noted chef thus-and-so" or any of a thousand other possibilities.
So it isn't that the concerns peopel are raising aren't valid at all, it's just that I don't find them automatically compelling.
--Jimbo
Lainaus Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com:
Fennec Foxen wrote:
[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia articles are not]] recipes. They might conceivably contain recipes, or they might be about recipes (random thought- we have an article anywhere about that Neiman-Marcus or however you spell it cookie recipe story that you hear all over? :). However, I would think that a brief description of the content of a dish would usually be more encyclopedic-feeling than a recipe. And yes, the mood is one of the issues.
3 points, one a direct response to your point, and 2 others that I wanted to say more generally.
- It is of course true that Wikipedia articles are not recipes.
Wikipedia articles are not mathematical equations, either. But Wikipedia articles can _contain_ mathematical equations, and similary Wikipedia articles can _contain_ recipes.
- Recipes are not "inherently NPOV" any more than any other kind of
knowledge. Wikipedia need not _advocate_ for one particular way of cooking Key Lime Pie, in order to _describe_ the traditional recipe and variants, with the description being in the detailed format of a recipe.
- Concerns about whether we have to include 50 recipes for something
as mundane as Chocolate cake are valid concerns, but they are in principle no different from concerns in other articles as to how much detail to include, and the same sorts of external considerations can come into play just as well here.
- It is of course possible for an article which includes a recipe to
be POV. If someone wrote: "This is the only proper way to make chili; all other ways are abominations not deserving of the name" then we would of course edit that bit out. We'd look for some intrinsic "hook" by which to choose which recipe to choose, i.e. "oldest known", or "first published", or "a typical example" or "published by noted chef thus-and-so" or any of a thousand other possibilities.
So it isn't that the concerns peopel are raising aren't valid at all, it's just that I don't find them automatically compelling.
--Jimbo
Look, you are being much too kind. The concerns "peopel" are raising just *aren't* valid, (and the qualification "at all" is *not* hyperbole).
If you want a reason for dismissing them out of hand, you only need to look at the numerous maths, physics and logics etc. articles that are little more then recipes.
Or, just to be consistent, I challenge any one to justify [[stupid sort]].
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
jheiskan@welho.com wrote:
Look, you are being much too kind.
Well, that's my job. :-)
Almost always when people raise concerns of various kinds, even if I don't agree with them, or even if consensus goes against them for the most part, usually there is a certain validity to what they are getting at.
I find that by embracing the good in what someone is saying, and trying to find a way to accomodate as many people as possible, we get a lot more done.
--Jimbo
On May 21, 2004, at 9:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
- Concerns about whether we have to include 50 recipes for something
as mundane as Chocolate cake are valid concerns, but they are in principle no different from concerns in other articles as to how much detail to include, and the same sorts of external considerations can come into play just as well here.
I think chocolate cake is a broad enough topic to have sections, or perhaps separate articles, about different kinds of chocolate cake, each of which can be illustrated by an appropriate example recipe. Presumably, any food topic this broad will be similarly divisible.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Peter Jaros wrote:
I think chocolate cake is a broad enough topic to have sections, or perhaps separate articles, about different kinds of chocolate cake, each of which can be illustrated by an appropriate example recipe. Presumably, any food topic this broad will be similarly divisible.
Where there are identifiable distinct types that are commonly made, that makes sense. In many cases though, you can vary almost any of the ingredients, which results in an exponential number of possible recipes. It'd make more sense (to me) to describe it in a prose style instead of a recipe style, saying things like "in some areas walnuts or chestnuts are commonly added on top", or "a number of other ingredients, including orange peel, nutmeg, coffee grinds, ... are sometimes added" (examples made up on the spot).
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
I think chocolate cake is a broad enough topic to have sections, or perhaps separate articles, about different kinds of chocolate cake, each of which can be illustrated by an appropriate example recipe. Presumably, any food topic this broad will be similarly divisible.
Where there are identifiable distinct types that are commonly made, that makes sense. In many cases though, you can vary almost any of the ingredients, which results in an exponential number of possible recipes. It'd make more sense (to me) to describe it in a prose style instead of a recipe style, saying things like "in some areas walnuts or chestnuts are commonly added on top", or "a number of other ingredients, including orange peel, nutmeg, coffee grinds, ... are sometimes added" (examples made up on the spot).
Coffee grounds???? Uggh!
Ec
On May 22, 2004, at 4:17 PM, Delirium wrote:
Where there are identifiable distinct types that are commonly made, that makes sense. In many cases though, you can vary almost any of the ingredients, which results in an exponential number of possible recipes. It'd make more sense (to me) to describe it in a prose style instead of a recipe style, saying things like "in some areas walnuts or chestnuts are commonly added on top", or "a number of other ingredients, including orange peel, nutmeg, coffee grinds, ... are sometimes added" (examples made up on the spot).
I'll agree, but I think the prose makes more sense after a basic recipe for illustrative purposes.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Peter Jaros wrote:
On May 21, 2004, at 9:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
- Concerns about whether we have to include 50 recipes for something
as mundane as Chocolate cake are valid concerns, but they are in principle no different from concerns in other articles as to how much detail to include, and the same sorts of external considerations can come into play just as well here.
I think chocolate cake is a broad enough topic to have sections, or perhaps separate articles, about different kinds of chocolate cake, each of which can be illustrated by an appropriate example recipe. Presumably, any food topic this broad will be similarly divisible.
Adding my two cents . . .
I took a look at the article [[Chili]] (properly [[Chili con carne]]) just to get a feel for how the problems that might arise from including recipes have been dealt with (or have failed to be dealt with). I selected this dish because it is one place where I expect that we will have NPOV disputes over recipies. This is what I noticed:
*There is an introductory paragraph, that explains a little about the dish. *There are several recipes, only one of which (i.e. "Cincinnati Chili") goes into some detail about the background. *There are a number of omissions in this article.
Let me develop that last point further. I am not by any means a Chili expert (although I do enjoy a good bowl of chili), but I did miss reference to the following facts:
*There is an annual Texas Chili contest. IIRC a Wall Street Journal article from several years ago, one entrant made his chili without beans, meat, chocolate or several other expected ingredients. *The state of New Mexico is known for having regional varieties of Chilis *A source for the recipies that were provided. (Did they come from a cookbook? Or from a family recipie? If so, can we localize this family, say in Texas?)
In short, if one were to remove these recipies, the Chili article becomes a scrappy little article that is barely more than a stub. There is almost no information about how Chili is a significant part of some American regional cultures, & the various ways one can make Chili helps to distinguish between them. (Similar to pasta in Italy, beer in Britain & Germany, & countless other examples I hope that find their way into Wikipedia.)
I'm not against the inclusion of recipies in Wikipedia: I'm something of an agnostic on the issue. It's like including quotations in an article, where quoting an authority or well-explained POV can make a lot more sense than paraphrasing (or using weasel words like "some experts think"). However, an article should not be simply a collection of recipies or practical instructions -- otherwise, we end up with the same problem voiced in another thread about the article on the [[XFree86 logfile]].
Geoff
On May 14, 2004, at 1:34 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your distortion of NPOV as an excuse for getting rid of something you don't like in Wikipedia boggles the imagination! Deletion is also an expression of POV, as been pointed out in the discussion about offensive images. And what could be so offensive about the recipes?
I should be clearer: not including any chocolate cake recipe (because there's more than one) does not express a POV, except a POV on what should be in an encyclopedia. But that's a meta- POV and not what I meant. Is that what you meant.
I have no objection to documenting ALL the ways to put in a light bulb. (There are more than one ways.) Just because the first person to post on the subject has only presented one way of doing something does not in itself make that contribution POV. If it is the only POV it is necessarily neutral. If there are other POVs, the solution begins with others presenting them, not with censoring the one that's already there.
Unless it's unfeasible to include every POV, such as every chocolate cake recipe, which I think it is, in an encyclopedia. A wiki(cook)book, on the other hand, would do nicely.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time suffering fools gladly.
I wouldn't have it any other way, Ec. :)
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
On May 11, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
Here's what I want to know. Is this an example of a difficult, carefully-threshed-out consensus that newer Wikipedians, having not participated in that consensus, may be unaware of?
Difficult, yes. Carefully-threshed-out, sort of. Consensus, no. At least I never heard a definitive one. However, I was left with the impression that prescriptive material doesn't belong in the Wikipedia, but can often be reworded to be descriptive. The conversion process seems to weed out the POV. But, no, that's not really a consensus, and that's why it's not in the policy.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --