On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:49 am, Jeronimo wrote:
> These pages seem to violate [[What Wikipedia is not]] number four, in my
> opinion. Also, most of these articles can never be NPOV. [[How to cook
> pasta]] could be hotly debated by other cooks that have a slightly
> different method of cooking (even more so for the somewhat more
> complicated forms of cooking).
The [[Wikipedia Cocktail Guide]], [[Wikipedia Cookbook]] and [[How-tos]]
were all largely created before I got here and reflect a time in which
wikipedia was still a bit undecided on what it really should be and was thus
taking in just about anything (this process led to the current [[What
Wikipedia is not]], BTW).
I once brought this very question up on the cookbook's talk page and was told
that these pages are poplar for visitors and that Wikipedia is not paper.
That was enough for me. And we shouldn't be too concerned with the NPOVness
of a recipe. :-)
What's more is that I now see /very/ little by the way of current editing of
these pages or the creation of similar ones so I don't think their presense
sets any type of bad precedent.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Some vandal with rotating IPs is repeatedly placing links to the oh-so-famous
goatse.cx image to many articles.
CAN WE PLEASE NOT ALLOW EXTERNAL IMAGES TO BE DISPLAYED IN PAGES.
Sorry for the shouting, but this has been asked for before and I think it is
only reasonable (if this image is ever uploaded, deleting it will be a simple
matter and the histories of repaired articles with a link to that image will
just show a broken link).
If you don't know what this image is, just visit
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom and view
revision 11:13 Aug 26, 2002.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:49 am, Karen wrote:
> Stubs like that one aren't any use to the wikipedia and
> they deserve to be deleted. True? Totally blank entries
> with no content confuse the issue and deserve to be
> deleted. True? Vandalism and gibberish deserve
> to be deleted. True? If you don't know for certain that a
> page deserves to go, but you think it does, we have a
> deletion queue to put it in. True?
Again I totally agree and I call a vote on these very points so that we can
be done with this (I'm personally sick of getting 3 Wikipedia-L digests a
day). This should be done on the talk page of the deletion policy. At:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Policy_on_permanent_deletion_o…
>On that note - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE US
> BACK THE VOTE BUTTON!!!!!!! It made things so much
> simpler...
I agree. The current setup seems odd to me though; it is now much easier to
outright delete a page instead of listing it on the deletion queue. If a
sysop has any question whether a page should be deleted the sysop has to
perform /more/ work in order to list it on the deletion queue than to simply
delete it outright. That may be why some sysops are treading into the gray
area with deletions that should probably be listed on the vote for deletion
page for a few days first.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> 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?
I have one issue which I raised earlier and today on several talk pages
that I would like to mention on the list as well.
My first objection was at [[Common phrases in different languages]]:
"It's this entire page against [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]? If we
shouldn't be adding English language dictionary entries, why would we be
adding _foreign_ language dictionary entries? While mildy interesting,
it's hardly encyclopedia material as far as I'm concerned. I think
putting a link on each website about a language to webpages containing
"X for beginners" would be more than useful. Otherwise we may as well
put other tutorials and lessons in here as well..."
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. Also, most of these articles can never be NPOV. [[How to cook
pasta]] could be hotly debated by other cooks that have a slightly
different method of cooking (even more so for the somewhat more
complicated forms of cooking).
I think some "procedural knowledge" (as it's called on [[How-tos]])
could be in Wikipedia, but it should be carefully selected. Otherwise we
could get [[How to avoid cramps just after swimming in a hot swimming
pool when eating an ice cream]] and [[How to make starch from defrosted
potatoes that have been refrosted three times]]...
I'd say we clean up this collection of pages a bit, or adjust our [[What
Wikipedia is not list]]. I personally hope the former happens, otherwise
you may see an article called [[How to write a really useless article
for Wikipedia]] appearing on the Recent Changes page soon...
Jeronimo
>"wiki pedista" <wikipedista(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I deleted the "September 11, 2201 Terrorist
>> Attack/World economic effects" page.
>> It had an history of one line, "script conversion",
>> and its content was "This page doesn't exist anymore"
>> or something like that (you can see the log).
>> Why can that be needed? Even if we want the article,
>> a link with a ? is more useful than that "article".
>> Should I have waited for a vote on "that"?
> Yes. Or something, because it caused unecessary consternation
> (in me) since I didn't know why the page was deleted. This
> page's history should be restored (go Brion Vibber!) so we can
> find out what happened to the article. It's definitely a worthy
> topic, in any case...
>
> Thanks for the explanation. There should be a better mechanism
> for explaining why a page like that is deleted.
I think you are alone in that response, Cunc. The rest of us are
willing to put a little faith in the other sysops that when they
delete a page, it really deserved it, and there's no use agonizing
over what might have been. I don't want sysops burdened with
having to explain themselves all the time, or having to put to vote
the simple deletion of complete nonsense. We have work to do here.
Just do it, and don't look back.
Andre writes:
>Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules
>that are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me
>angry and sick (literally).
Don't take the rules too seriously; they are all just suggestions. If
somebody complains by pointing to section 2, paragraph 3, sentence 1
of rule 17b, then let them have a good dose of one of our first rules,
[[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]]. And don't believe for a second that by
calling something a "policy" it mysteriously gains normative power: it
doesn't. Do what you think is right and have fun.
Axel
I deleted the "September 11, 2201 Terrorist
Attack/World economic effects" page.
It had an history of one line, "script conversion",
and its content was "This page doesn't exist anymore"
or something like that (you can see the log).
Why can that be needed? Even if we want the article,
a link with a ? is more useful than that "article".
Should I have waited for a vote on "that"?
AstroNomer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
'Kate Hudson' has no content. The previous version of it says 'hubba
hubba hubba', and the history says it was deleted and restored by
request. That is NOT an article. That is not even a pretense at an
article. That is a piece of stupidity that deserves oblivion. Why on
EARTH did someone request that that should be put back?
Gibberish is not an article. Blank pages are not an article. And
nonsense phrases posted by a casual passerby are not an article. They
just take up space that a real article could use. If it was a real
article it would say something like 'Kate Hudson is (blah blah blah)'.
Leaving this doesn't encourage the writer to make real contributions -
if anything it encourages them to leave more nonsense to clutter up the
space!
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!