> My first objection was at
> [[Common phrases in different languages]]
> "It's this entire page against [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]?
I totally fail to see your point here. It's not a dictionary
entry at all--it's an article that gives the flavor of a group
of languages. I think it's a great article, and exactly the
kind of thing that should be in Wikipedia. I think most paper
encyclopedias have articles like this as well. It's nothing at
all like a dictionary entry.
> Stephen Gilbert next pointed me at the following page,
> [[How-tos]]. I found that page rather scary, as I discovered
> Wikipedia has articles like
> [[How to avoid cramps while swimming]] and
> [[How to make starch from frosted potatoes]]. AstroNomer then
> mentioned that there is also a [[Wikipedia Cookbook]] and a
> [[Wikipedia Cocktail Guide]].
> These pages seem to violate [[What Wikipedia is not]] number
> four, in my opinion.
Sorry, I don't see any resemblance there either. The guideline
you mention is "wikipedia is not a usage guide.", and these
articles have nothing at all to do with language usage.
Besides which, I think you're taking "what Wikipedia is not"
far too seriously and literally. Just because we don't want
Wikipedia to /become/ a dictionary, or a usage guide, or any
number of other things, that doesn't mean it can't /contain/
the occasional article that looks like those things, when that's
appropriate. When it's appropriate is a matter of judgment.
> Also, most of these (how-to) articles can never be NPOV.
Firstly that's clearly not true (it's just as easy to attribute
opinions on a how-to page as anywhere else), and secondly such
articles are /expected/ to contain opinions or even outright
moral exhortation, as Larry himself wrote. That's an important
function of how-tos.
Again, use some judgment instead of blindly following rules.
Are they good articles? Are they interesting, well written? Do
they provide useful information?