The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not: * Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional. Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
- David
That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not respect :-)
David Friedland a écrit:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
- David
This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed attitude.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content
That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not respect :-)
David Friedland a écrit:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
- David
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I understand that. Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it. I might be more relaxed if the french cooking recipees were not moved out of this encyclopedia, some with no links left to the recipee itself, not to mention cases where the article is just plain deleted. Some of these recipees have encyclopedic value, they are typical examples of a certain way of life, they are typical examples of cooking techniques. Just a dozen of recipees do not impair the quality of highly cultural articles, at least no more than the thousand of tiny american city articles. We have room. It is not because another project is about cooking that cooking should just disappear from Wikipedia. Plus it breaks international links, for other wikipedias consider recipees have value. Plus it is unnice for all the contributors (often newbies) who wrote the recipee, and who do not find articles any more. How do these few dozens recipees bother any one ? When they are famous dishes, they should not be deleted. That is bad. This is destroying information. We *have* room. And some believe this is valuable information.
And the solution is not to go claim consensus and update policies when someone try to discuss the matter.
Thinking about it, a bit of promotion :-)
This page is directly linked from our front page. It should be enriched, but well, you will get the idea I think
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recettes_du_mois
Isnot that neat ?
Ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed attitude.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content
That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not respect :-)
David Friedland a écrit:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
- David
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-
l
--- Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
I understand that. Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it. I might be more relaxed if the french cooking recipees were not moved out of this encyclopedia
Providing no link to Wikibooks' recipes when we move them is bad.
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Perhap I am misunderstood. I think all the deletions of recipes and how-to's is too strict and decreases rather than increases the encyclopedia's utility to casual users and readers.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:23:24 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content
I understand that. Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it. I might be more relaxed if the french cooking recipees were not moved out of this encyclopedia, some with no links left to the recipee itself, not to mention cases where the article is just plain deleted. Some of these recipees have encyclopedic value, they are typical examples of a certain way of life, they are typical examples of cooking techniques. Just a dozen of recipees do not impair the quality of highly cultural articles, at least no more than the thousand of tiny american city articles. We have room. It is not because another project is about cooking that cooking should just disappear from Wikipedia. Plus it breaks international links, for other wikipedias consider recipees have value. Plus it is unnice for all the contributors (often newbies) who wrote the recipee, and who do not find articles any more. How do these few dozens recipees bother any one ? When they are famous dishes, they should not be deleted. That is bad. This is destroying information. We *have* room. And some believe this is valuable information.
And the solution is not to go claim consensus and update policies when someone try to discuss the matter.
Thinking about it, a bit of promotion :-)
This page is directly linked from our front page. It should be enriched, but well, you will get the idea I think
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recettes_du_mois
Isnot that neat ?
Ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed attitude.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content
That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not respect :-)
David Friedland a écrit:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
- David
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-
l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
In the words of [[James Murray]] "we should be descrptive, not prescriptive".
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
In the words of [[James Murray]] "we should be descrptive, not prescriptive".
I agree with that proposal. For my opinion of one possible way to do it properly, look at the edit history of [[en:turkey (food)]]. It used to be a "how to cook a turkey" set of recipes, which were moved to wikibooks, but I refactored the content into an encyclopedia article about turkey as a food, that actually kept somewhere around 80% of the material from the recipe article. Things like "Turkey is often eaten with cranberry jelly, especially around the holidays in the US and UK" are encyclopedic, in my opinion, while a straight recipe with instructions on how many tablespoons of this and that to use, and how many minutes and at what degrees to bake it at, are not.
To take another example, we really need a [[guacamole]] article, but there are a zillion ways to make guacamole, so I don't think it's useful on Wikipedia to give a recipe.
Bad: "to make guacamole, here is one recipe: one tomato; half a lime; one clove garlic; three avocados. Peel avocados, and mash into a paste; finely dice the garlic and mix in, and dice the tomato and mix in. Add lime juice and optionally other flavorings, and let sit in the refrigerator for 30 minutes before serving."
Good: "Guacamole is a popular avocado-based dip, forming a major part of [[Tex-Mex]] cuisine. It is often eaten with chips, much like [[salsa]], but is also often commonly used to season a variety of other Tex-Mex foods, such as [[taco]]s. The particular ingredients used to make guacamole vary (besides the avocados, which are always present), but often include tomato, garlic, and onion. In addition, most people add a small amount of lime juice, both to give the dip some tartness, and because the acid prevents oxidation of the avocado, which would give the dip an unappetizing brown color."
(Just a first stab at it, of course.)
So, in general, I'd say "no" to "recipe for guacamole" or "how to remove viruses from your computer" and so on, but "yes" to similar information presented as an encyclopedia article. Sometimes that requires moving some excessively detailed and special-purpose information to Wikibooks, but usually it just requires just rephrasing the same information as descriptive instead of prescriptive, as in the James Murray quote.
-Mark
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
In the words of [[James Murray]] "we should be descriptive, not prescriptive".
Instructions, even though written in the imperative, are still descriptive. The only penalty may be that your cake won't rise, or worse, you may blow yourself up and earn a Darwin Award. :-\ No penalty will be applied by any other person.
Ec
On Feb 24, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Instructions, even though written in the imperative, are still descriptive. The only penalty may be that your cake won't rise, or worse, you may blow yourself up and earn a Darwin Award. :-\ No penalty will be applied by any other person.
There are are two issues here of encyclopedicity (so to speak). One is the content: encyclopedia articles should be descriptive, which instructions are. The other is style: encyclopedia articles should *sound* descriptive, which instructions don't. Thus, much of this cam be cleared up by rephrasing certain sentences.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Feb 24, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Instructions, even though written in the imperative, are still descriptive. The only penalty may be that your cake won't rise, or worse, you may blow yourself up and earn a Darwin Award. :-\ No penalty will be applied by any other person.
There are are two issues here of encyclopedicity (so to speak). One is the content: encyclopedia articles should be descriptive, which instructions are. The other is style: encyclopedia articles should *sound* descriptive, which instructions don't. Thus, much of this cam be cleared up by rephrasing certain sentences.
If it is only a question of "sounding descriptive" then your solution of rephrasing sentences would be more appropriate than destroying the work of others.
Ec
I just want to motivate this a little bit more:
Claim: Wikipedia should not include instructional material.
I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method described is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements if they believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" action. By making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the opinion that the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy clearly stands against this: "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."
Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about how different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize disagreements without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?
Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:
Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well.
vs.
Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.
Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth texture of mixing everything together all at once."
I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if there is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side of the instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and recipes use imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Much of the content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the Wikipedia, but it has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in the indicative mood, but is contextualized and/or justified.
Resolved: HOWTOs, recipes, and similar instructional materials should be located in wikibooks, and Wikipedia articles should contain only NPOV descriptions and links to the relevant pages in wikibooks.
-- David
On preview, what Delirium said. And I love that we both use guacamole as the example.
Wikipédia really needs more mothers, with feet firmly set in the ground.
David Friedland a écrit:
I just want to motivate this a little bit more:
Claim: Wikipedia should not include instructional material.
I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method described is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements if they believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" action. By making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the opinion that the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy clearly stands against this: "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."
Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about how different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize disagreements without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?
Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:
Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well.
vs.
Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.
Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth texture of mixing everything together all at once."
I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if there is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side of the instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and recipes use imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Much of the content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the Wikipedia, but it has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in the indicative mood, but is contextualized and/or justified.
Resolved: HOWTOs, recipes, and similar instructional materials should be located in wikibooks, and Wikipedia articles should contain only NPOV descriptions and links to the relevant pages in wikibooks.
-- David
On preview, what Delirium said. And I love that we both use guacamole as the example.
--- Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikip�dia really needs more mothers, with feet firmly set in the ground.
and fathers!
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
David Friedland wrote:
I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method described is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements if they believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" action. By making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the opinion that the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy clearly stands against this: "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."
This is a bizarre extension of NPOV policy. :-D If your that concerned maybe we should have a disclaimer attached to recipes. Results may vary.
Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about how different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize disagreements without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?
Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:
Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well.
vs.
Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.
Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth texture of mixing everything together all at once."
I prefer the simple instructions to the circumlocutious avoidance of purported POV.
I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if there is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side of the instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and recipes use imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Much of the content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the Wikipedia, but it has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in the indicative mood, but is contextualized and/or justified.
Where there is another side an alternative recipe can also be given.
Ec
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
I'm throwing out an argument against the concept that an encyclopedia should be "informative, not instructional", based on one datum: for many years (perhaps even now, but at least into the 1960's) it was not uncommon for people to teach themselves how to play chess from the article in the encyclopedia.
Explanations of other games would also fall under this ban. (Boy, we'd better check the articles on card & board games -- they might also provide the instructions on how to play these games.) And providing explanations of how common gadgets like a faucet or electricity work could also be instructional: I managed to figure out how to fix a leak in my bathtub yesterday from studying a diagram.
Yes, we will end up with arguments over NPOV over any set of instructions. However, we already have NPOV arguments over all kinds of information that I never suspected existed. (I'm still puzzling over the controversy over the proper name in English of the river that forms part of the border between Germany and Poland.) But some of these have been resolved. I don't see how we can't accomplish the same resolution with instructional material.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
I'm throwing out an argument against the concept that an encyclopedia should be "informative, not instructional", based on one datum: for many years (perhaps even now, but at least into the 1960's) it was not uncommon for people to teach themselves how to play chess from the article in the encyclopedia.
POV: A chessboard has 64 squares.
NPOV: Experts claim that a chessboard has 64 squares.
I wonder where this leads us. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
I'm throwing out an argument against the concept that an encyclopedia should be "informative, not instructional", based on one datum: for many years (perhaps even now, but at least into the 1960's) it was not uncommon for people to teach themselves how to play chess from the article in the encyclopedia.
POV: A chessboard has 64 squares.
NPOV: Experts claim that a chessboard has 64 squares.
I wonder where this leads us. :-)
Ec
More like:
POV: Don't wait too long to castle or you may leave your king in an easily attacked position.
NPOV: Some chess analysts say that failure to castle early in the game results in the king being in a position that is easily attacked. Others instead argue that waiting to castle leaves with you more options for protecting the king.
(I just made this up, I know almost nothing about chess strategy)
The point is you don't have to give instructions to explain how a game is played. You can just _explain_ how the game is played.
And besides:
NPOV: Most chessboards have 64 squares, although some variants of chess are played on larger or smaller boards.
-- David
Geoff Burling wrote:
I'm throwing out an argument against the concept that an encyclopedia should be "informative, not instructional", based on one datum: for many years (perhaps even now, but at least into the 1960's) it was not uncommon for people to teach themselves how to play chess from the article in the encyclopedia.
But I think we can do this from the "informative, not instructional" standpoint. Our articles on chess already provide a good foundation for someone interesting in learning, including both a general description of the game and specific strategies for various parts of the game and various situations (even a database of common openings and counters!). And it's all from a descriptive point of view, not a "how to play chess" point of view.
I just really don't like the condescending tone of "this is how you do this". Just *describe* things. We are in no position to give instructions, because we just report on what other people say; we don't do original research and come up with our own tutorials, because that's well outside our mission (which explicitly states "no original research").
-Mark
David Friedland wrote:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
- Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.
IIRC when I first joined up there were some wishful comments from Jimbo about having practical information on Wikipedia, but Wikibooks did not yet exist. I have no problem with Wikipedia articles using an instructional imperative.
Ec