The big return of recipees.
Many months ago, and several times already, it has been discussed whether en:wikipedia should contain recipees. There was no obvious majority between "a recipee should be kept" or "a recipee should be deleted".
However, a sort of consensus has been found that some recipees of high cultural value could be kept and other moved to wikibooks. It was also rather a consensus that small articles could be kept here, and link the the recipee on wikibooks.
Some users are now not only trying to have these small articles deleted, but even eventually speedy deleted.
When that happen, first the consensus previously made is broken ; which I consider quite wrong.
And second, which is much much much more relevant is that access to information is damaged.
I wrote a note on the pump about that, but got no answer whatsoever. I would like to discuss it though.
------
Here is what I wrote
There is something bugging me in the transwiki system.
Here is an example.
* A user create a recipee * Later, someone list it on vfd, some suggest it be transwikied to wikibooks, while other try to keep it in the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the article is transwikies, but a stub kept, WITH a link to wikibooks, as it was agreed upon a few months ago. * Later, someone finds the stub and list it on vfd (or even suggests it for speedy deletion). In spite of those initially supporting keeping recipee, and in spite of the consensus, the stub is deleted. The link to the recipee subsequently disappear. Those deleting it do not particularly attempt to keep the link active somewhere, so, it is likely that all traces of the initial recipee is deleted. * This is called a forced consensus :-)
Now... here is what is bugging me. In deleting not only the content, but also the link to the wikibooks article and references to it, I consider there is a big loss of information. Other answer me it is not a loss at all since the information is kept... well stored somewhere else.
Except... that... wikipedia is FAR MORE known than wikibooks. Actually, I still am waiting to see big articles on wikibooks. I still wait to see google search leading me to wikibooks. I suspect that for many people, Wikipedia could become the everyday encyclopedia, and at least for some of us, the everyday encyclopedia should contain recipees. When the recipees are deleted entirely, the reader coming to Wikipedia and typing a recipee name... will get ... nothing. Not the recipee, nor the link to a recipee. He will not even get a more generalist article where the link to wikibooks could be. He will get just nothing at all.
Information *may* exist somewhere, but it is "hidden". The link has been broken. The network does not exist.
And I think the network should exist. Our goal is to GIVE access to information to readers. Not only to CREATE information. We must create the information, organise it, categorize it, link it, and make it accessible. Each time we delete information links from one project to another, we may not hurt the content itself, but we reduce the networkability (does that word exist ? If not, here it is) : we limit access to information. We hid it.
When information exists, but can not be found easily by readers, then we have failed. Imho. SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-------
Meanwhile, in case the redirect article is deleted, I will restore it as it was agreed last spring.
anthere
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
Anthere wrote:
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
Ah, but Anthere, the marijuana brownie holds a special place in the hearts of the subculture of non-legal cookery, that is to say foods made with controlled substances (cuisine illégale?). You can even buy them in certain parts of the US.
- David
David Friedland a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
Ah, but Anthere, the marijuana brownie holds a special place in the hearts of the subculture of non-legal cookery, that is to say foods made with controlled substances (cuisine illégale?). You can even buy them in certain parts of the US.
- Davi
d
I know that.
I just discussed this on irc, and I was told it would just be censorship to do so. I suggested adding a tag on it, so at least those countries where this type of articles will be possibly illegal, can avoid in the future, any local hosting of such articles, or mostly, any publication in books or CD distributed in the country.
I do not think it was well received.
If I may dare a comparison, many of you agreed to have image tagging precisely to have the ability to avoid publication of anything which might be problematic. For instance, a country might wish to avoid to publish fair use images because this might be legally problematic.
In France, it is illegal to give someone the idea to eat or smoke (or whatever) an illegal substance. An article suggesting to purchase an illegal substance to put it in food, might be illegal (it is called "incitation à l'usage"). Possibly not. Possibly yes.
So, I suggested that in a similar way to fair use image, we could add a tag so as to identify these potentially problematic articles. Just as it may make sense to remind at the top of the article that in some country, the use of some of the ingredients are illegal.
Now, I understand quite well that in other countries, it is legal and just all right. But it is not so everywhere. Such a cookbook would not be okay in France.
I will only say
Anthere wrote:
In France, it is illegal to give someone the idea to eat or smoke (or whatever) an illegal substance. An article suggesting to purchase an illegal substance to put it in food, might be illegal (it is called "incitation à l'usage"). Possibly not. Possibly yes.
Anti-free-speech laws like that could be problematic for a whole range of Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure we should really cater to them. For example, our article on [[cocaine]] gives what amounts to instructions for manufacturing freebase (a particularly potent smokable form of cocaine), but I don't think it's satisfactory to remove this information, as it is legitimate information, and the article is worse without it (it's impossible to research some social aspects of the drug trade if you can't find information on how they're commonly manufactured).
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.
-Mark
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:05:17 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org 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+
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@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:05:17 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org 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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
RickK
Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
No. They cannot be. To *some extent* the text description of a recipe can be, but that is limited by the fact that two sets of instructions to do the same thing are necessarily similar; there is little scope for artistic expression.
The facts and steps in instructional material cannot be copyrighted. They MAY be patented (rare in recipes) or trade secret, but not copyright.
-Matt (User:Morven)
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@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen@gmail.com 07739 785 249
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
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.
This argument is pure speculation. Can you give examples of where it in fact has happened? Any recipe can easily accomodate notes about hoe it can be varied.
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?
Wikipedia is better known because it's easier to see an elephant than a mouse. Nobody is arguing in favour of doing everything, so that's another irrelevant argument.
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.
The fight is not over whether recipes should be moved TO the encyclopedia, but whether they should be moved FROM it. In the event that the move was made it also was about whether a redirect should be retained.
Ec
My opinion:
Recipes are not per se encyclopedic. However, certain (reasonably well known) *dishes* are encyclopedic, and part of a good article on an encyclopedic dish is a recipe, which should be carefully chosen to be representative / traditional. E.g. there should be a Wikipedia article on [[Coq au vin]], and that should probably include a traditional recipe for making it.
Recipes in general, though, should go in some form of WikiCookbook, probably to be hosted at Wikibooks.
-Matt (User:Morven)
I wrote a little quick proposal here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recipes/Proposal
Please comment there.
I also announced it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29#transwiki
There has been enough discussion over the months, and enough deletion. I hope we can fix a couple of things at least. This is not perfect for everyone, but I hope we can agree on this path.
Anthere
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
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.
This argument is pure speculation. Can you give examples of where it in fact has happened? Any recipe can easily accomodate notes about hoe it can be varied.
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?
Wikipedia is better known because it's easier to see an elephant than a mouse. Nobody is arguing in favour of doing everything, so that's another irrelevant argument.
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.
The fight is not over whether recipes should be moved TO the encyclopedia, but whether they should be moved FROM it. In the event that the move was made it also was about whether a redirect should be retained. Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
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.
This argument is pure speculation. Can you give examples of where it in fact has happened? Any recipe can easily accomodate notes about hoe it can be varied.
See [[Talk:Paella]] for an example. The recipe itself was moved to Wikibooks because there was too much argument about what could and couldn't go into paella. The current [[Paella]] article discusses the kinds of ingredients that can go in paella and who thinks what about those different ingredients. It also discusses the traditional cooking method and other related info, but there is no recipe. The recipe on Wikibooks is linked to.
Hopefully, after reading the [[Paella]] article, the reader would understand the issues around the ingredients and upon encountering a recipe for paella, would be able to identify what kind of paella it was. To include recipes for all the different types of paella and the minute variations in choices and quantities of ingredients, not to mention cooking times would frankly be a waste a space. The exact quantity of rice that goes into a paella for 4 is not really encyclopedic.
Let the encyclopedia discuss the dish; let the WikiBooks Cookbook provide the recipes.
- David
David Friedland wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
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.
This argument is pure speculation. Can you give examples of where it in fact has happened? Any recipe can easily accomodate notes about hoe it can be varied.
See [[Talk:Paella]] for an example. The recipe itself was moved to Wikibooks because there was too much argument about what could and couldn't go into paella. The current [[Paella]] article discusses the kinds of ingredients that can go in paella and who thinks what about those different ingredients. It also discusses the traditional cooking method and other related info, but there is no recipe. The recipe on Wikibooks is linked to.
Having the link is important. Anthere complained correctly about people who were removing the links or redirects.
Hopefully, after reading the [[Paella]] article, the reader would understand the issues around the ingredients and upon encountering a recipe for paella, would be able to identify what kind of paella it was. To include recipes for all the different types of paella and the minute variations in choices and quantities of ingredients, not to mention cooking times would frankly be a waste a space. The exact quantity of rice that goes into a paella for 4 is not really encyclopedic.
Nobody really expects that. One can still have a traditional recipe from the place of origin, or outline the fundamental ingredients. Beyond that, this kind of recipe evolves according to what is available to the cook.
Let the encyclopedia discuss the dish; let the WikiBooks Cookbook provide the recipes.
Better still let's allow for there being some amount of overlap rather than a sharp division of jurisdictions.
Ec
Interesting point. As I understand it recipes are the most copyvioed form of writing. The basic ideas of what makes recipes work are of course beyond copyright, but the specifics present big problems because your aunt may have passed on a favorite recipe that she took from a copyright cookbook to your mom, and for you to take and publish that recipe could be a breach of copyright. But if the original cookbook was reprinting a traditional recipe maybe it may not be copyright after all no matter what the book's general copyright notice says.
In practical terms, unless there has been an exact copy from a copyright source, the presumption should be that a specific recipe is in the public domain. A wholesale copying of everything in a book should still be discouraged.
That being said, the same rules about copyright should apply to Wikibooks as to Wikipedia, so it does not have a bearing on deciding which project should have the recipe.
Ec
Rick wrote:
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
RickK
Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@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@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.
The specifics of the TEXT may be copyright, but the specifics of the RECIPE cannot be. Quantities, procedures, processes, operations -- all the domain of patent, not copyright.
So unless you are copying the EXACT WORDS in that cookbook your Aunt read in this example, no copyright infringement takes place.
-Matt
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:59:37 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Interesting point. As I understand it recipes are the most copyvioed form of writing. The basic ideas of what makes recipes work are of course beyond copyright, but the specifics present big problems because your aunt may have passed on a favorite recipe that she took from a copyright cookbook to your mom, and for you to take and publish that recipe could be a breach of copyright. But if the original cookbook was reprinting a traditional recipe maybe it may not be copyright after all no matter what the book's general copyright notice says.
In practical terms, unless there has been an exact copy from a copyright source, the presumption should be that a specific recipe is in the public domain. A wholesale copying of everything in a book should still be discouraged.
That being said, the same rules about copyright should apply to Wikibooks as to Wikipedia, so it does not have a bearing on deciding which project should have the recipe.
Ec
Rick wrote:
Aren't most recipes copyrighted?
RickK
Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@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@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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ugh. What a HORRIBLE idea!
RickK
Sj 2.718281828@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
That would be "Alice B. Toklas brownie".
David Friedland wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
Ah, but Anthere, the marijuana brownie holds a special place in the hearts of the subculture of non-legal cookery, that is to say foods made with controlled substances (cuisine illégale?). You can even buy them in certain parts of the US.
- David
Anthere stated for the record:
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
Why?
Anthere wrote:
Talking about recipees....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook%3ASpecial_brownies
should not it be really and seriously deleted ?
On a cultural level I would keep it.
On a culinary level I would consider it as a brownie variant. The strong taste of the chocolate will likely overwhelm the taste of the added herb.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
The big return of recipees. . . . And I think the network should exist. Our goal is to GIVE access to information to readers. Not only to CREATE information. We must create the information, organise it, categorize it, link it, and make it accessible. Each time we delete information links from one project to another, we may not hurt the content itself, but we reduce the networkability (does that word exist ? If not, here it is) : we limit access to information. We hid it.
When information exists, but can not be found easily by readers, then we have failed. Imho. SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you on this, as I have on previous occasions when this issue has come up. I just find this kind of situation completely depressing. It manifests itself in the recipes this time, but it's really about the broader issue that some editors have a narrow idea about what is important. Whatever falls outside of their definition of importance is trash. In their logical and mechanistic world they are blind to what others find important.
I don't think that this can be solved by reasoning with them, because in doing so we need to rely on premises that fall beyond thei view of the world. To their credit. I believe that they are acting in what they consider to be to the benefit of Wikipedia. I suppose that makes dealing with them so much tougher. What it takes is for someone with authority to tell them bluntly, "You are not respecting the honest efforts of others. You are not considering the human values that are just as important to success, as the intellectual ones."
There is a paradox in democratic institutions. One side, usually the "left" has a remarkable gift for analysis and for developing well-reasoned and ethical policies, but they are so caught up in the world of ideas that like the communards of 1871 they forget that they have to decide and do something about it. Their opponents on the "right" are as remarkable for their ability to organize and get things done; they simply lose track of what they are trying to accomplish and why.
So for as much as I believe that democratic principles should prevail, I still see that there are times when what is needed is leadership.
Meanwhile, in case the redirect article is deleted, I will restore it as it was agreed last spring.
Good!
We Need More Recipe Content.
Recipes are both extremely useful and popular.
I would be glad to see article-titles in the encyclopedia for all of the standard joy-of-cooking style recipes, with links pointing to a wikibooks cookbook. Or perhaps these individual encyclopedia articles should redirect to a single overview article, effectively a cookbook table of contents (with some discussion / explanation for each class of recipes) with links to specific subtopics (on wikipedia) and recipes (on wikibooks).
Links to, and discussion of, recipe variations or elaborate details could be left to wikibooks alone.
--Sj
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:17:07 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The big return of recipees.
Many months ago, and several times already, it has been discussed whether en:wikipedia should contain recipees. There was no obvious majority between "a recipee should be kept" or "a recipee should be deleted".