On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:52:47 +1100 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 2/19/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
Even with a general site disclaimer, the above information may be
non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a pharmacist, a drug
I find it frustrating how often useful information is removed under the single principle of "Wikipedia is not a ...". Explaining how to use a coffee plunger? "Wikipedia is not a how-to..." - yes, but what surely an explanation is an essential part of the article. Links to articles that demonstrate the concept of [[One deal a day]]? "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Mentioning the local tourist attractions and best restaurants of a small town? "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" - yes, but that's probably the most useful thing you could write about a small town.
Is it time we replaced WP:NOT with "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. It's unique, and it's just trying to be useful to people, dammit."
Steve Hi,
Wikibooks or Wikitravel would be good homes for the items mentioned above. Part of Wikipedia's appeal, at least to me, is that good authors are very picky about choosing relevant information that best illustrates an abstract subject. To borrow the example: I know that a pancake comes from a Bisquick box, but what if I want to know what a pancake **really** is?
-George en: [[User:GChriss]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything belongs in here. Travel info belongs in Wikitravel. Dictionary stuff belongs in Wiktionary and so on. The fact it's not a doctor or a pharmacist is just common sense. You may think giving the advice is useful, but it isn't unless it comes from an expert.
Mgm
On 2/19/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:52:47 +1100 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 2/19/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
Even with a general site disclaimer, the above information may be
non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a pharmacist, a drug
I find it frustrating how often useful information is removed under the single principle of "Wikipedia is not a ...". Explaining how to use a coffee plunger? "Wikipedia is not a how-to..." - yes, but what surely an explanation is an essential part of the article. Links to articles that demonstrate the concept of [[One deal a day]]? "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Mentioning the local tourist attractions and best restaurants of a small town? "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" - yes, but that's probably the most useful thing you could write about a small town.
Is it time we replaced WP:NOT with "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. It's unique, and it's just trying to be useful to people, dammit."
Steve Hi,
Wikibooks or Wikitravel would be good homes for the items mentioned above. Part of Wikipedia's appeal, at least to me, is that good authors are very picky about choosing relevant information that best illustrates an abstract subject. To borrow the example: I know that a pancake comes from a Bisquick box, but what if I want to know what a pancake **really** is?
-George en: [[User:GChriss]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything belongs in here. Travel info belongs in Wikitravel. Dictionary stuff belongs in Wiktionary and so on.
The first problem with this simplistic view is that there is a huge amount of overlap. For example: "Lyon is a city in France with 1 million inhabitants" - WikiTravel, Wikipedia, or both? Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both? It is served by two airports and is a major stop on the Paris-Marseille TGV line - same question.
I think the answer to those three is all "both". Probably even true for a statement like "According to the Lonely Planet, Lyon is not a must-see destination, but a worthwhile detour while heading south to Provence."
The second problem is that the different projects aren't really "complementary" in the sense that they fit nicely together. WikiTravel isn't even a WMF project. The standard at Wiktionary is far below that of Wikipedia. And Wikibooks? The format is so different, and the standard even lower. And at the end of the day, I'm really not interested in the other projects - Wikipedia is *the one*. Not a single other project (including commons, wiktionary, wikispecies etc) has yet to make the slightest impact on popular culture.
Rather than say "this would be better in project X", let's restrict ourselves to saying "this must not go in Wikipedia under any circumstances".
You may think giving the advice is useful, but it isn't unless it comes from an expert.
I'm not saying we should give medical advice. What I'm saying is that a cake recipe can be perfectly encyclopaedic, if it comes from the right source.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything belongs in here. Travel info belongs in Wikitravel. Dictionary stuff belongs in Wiktionary and so on.
The first problem with this simplistic view is that there is a huge amount of overlap. For example: "Lyon is a city in France with 1 million inhabitants" - WikiTravel, Wikipedia, or both? Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both? It is served by two airports and is a major stop on the Paris-Marseille TGV line - same question.
The way I look at it is that WP is a "compendium" of knowledge, that is to say a condensed summary. There is a 400-page biography of Charles Lindbergh, but I don't expect WP's Lindbergh article to be 400 pages long. Similarly for scientific papers - we often mention papers' results, but don't normally include every data table and experimental setup. My ideal for the Lyon article would be to say only "Lyon has 30 3-star restaurants, including the historic [[Lying Lion]]" :-), while the Wikitravel version lists all 30, their addresses, specialties, etc, just like a travel book does.
Stan
On 2/20/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
setup. My ideal for the Lyon article would be to say only "Lyon has 30 3-star restaurants, including the historic [[Lying Lion]]" :-), while the Wikitravel version lists all 30, their addresses, specialties, etc, just like a travel book does.
Yeah, nicely put. Actually I think it only has one or two 3-stars. And I do seem to recall a restaurant with a pun on the word lion/Lyon, but its name escapes me now.
Steve
Of course there's gonna be overlap.
"The first problem with this simplistic view is that there is a huge amount of overlap. For example: "Lyon is a city in France with 1 million inhabitants" - WikiTravel, Wikipedia, or both?" That is geographical information perfectly acceptable for both an encyclopedic article and a travel guide.
"Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both?" Neither. Those are the visitor attractions of any city that has them. It provides no helpfulm information. If they're all named with address and details: WikiTravel. Famous landmarks and buildings can also be mentioned in Wikipedia.
"It is served by two airports and is a major stop on the Paris-Marseille TGV line - same question." Both
On 2/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
setup. My ideal for the Lyon article would be to say only "Lyon has 30 3-star restaurants, including the historic [[Lying Lion]]" :-), while the Wikitravel version lists all 30, their addresses, specialties, etc, just like a travel book does.
Yeah, nicely put. Actually I think it only has one or two 3-stars. And I do seem to recall a restaurant with a pun on the word lion/Lyon, but its name escapes me now.
Steve
Precisely my point. There's some things that simply don't belong on Wikipedia under any circumstances. I just believe that channeling such energy to other projects is more productive than simply removing it without any comment on alternative placement.
On 2/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
"Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both?" Neither. Those are the visitor attractions of any city that has them. It provides no helpfulm information. If they're all named with address and
Not sure I get your logic. If a casino is a visitor attraction for any city that has them, then you would not include the sentence "It is renowned for its casinos" in [[Las Vegas]]?
But anyway we are broadly in agreement.
Steve
There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about Vegas. "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By the way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
Mgm
On 2/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
"Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both?" Neither. Those are the visitor attractions of any city that has them. It provides no helpfulm information. If they're all named with address and
Not sure I get your logic. If a casino is a visitor attraction for any city that has them, then you would not include the sentence "It is renowned for its casinos" in [[Las Vegas]]?
But anyway we are broadly in agreement.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about Vegas. "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By the way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
Mgm
Reno? Monte Carlo?
"It is reknowned for its casinos" could easily refer to either of them, among others.
-- Jonel
On 2/21/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about Vegas. "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By the way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
Mgm
Reno? Monte Carlo?
"It is reknowned for its casinos" could easily refer to either of them, among others.
-- Jonel
True, but renowned for its casinos can apply only to a limited number of places, the line I quoted could applies to virtually any town on the face of the planet.
Mgm
On 2/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about Vegas. "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By the way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
"Gastronomic restaurants" is neither - ee [[gastronomy]]. But this quibble is pretty pointless, don't you think?
Steve
On 19/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything belongs in here. Travel info belongs in Wikitravel. Dictionary stuff belongs in Wiktionary and so on. The fact it's not a doctor or a pharmacist is just common sense. You may think giving the advice is useful, but it isn't unless it comes from an expert.
Mgm
First, I've neglected my e-mail for a little while so apologies for the late post. I just skimmed this thread so further apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has said.
Giving the effective dose of a drug (in, say, mg/kg) isn't intended to advise our readers. We are simply describing a pretty basic property of the drug. The effective dose is important pharmacological information and is an indicator of the affinity and efficacy of the drug. It is similar to giving the boiling point in an article about a natural element. At which dose a drug is effective should be provided in every article on any drug.
You also said earlier "the whole point of prescription drugs is that a doctor needs to determine a dosage." This isn't true. Drugs which have a capacity for abuse, which are lethal at low doses or which have unpleasant side-effects are usually prescription. What's more, prescription drugs vary from country-to-country: in some states a drug will be available over-the-counter, while in others it will require a prescription. My point is that being a prescription drug is not a good place to draw the line when it comes to removing information from articles.
On 2/20/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote: borrow the example: I know that a pancake comes from a Bisquick box, but what if I want to know what a pancake **really** is?
How is your question better answered by "flour, eggs and milk in various proportions", than by "According to Mrs Beeton, 8 oz flour, 4 eggs..."?
Steve