If an encyclopedia were really a compendium of all human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary.
Mark
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:15:10 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp wrote:
I fully agree. Recipes alone are just stubs that need to be enhance (history, diffusion, etc.) like other stubs.
I really fear that interest the majority of wikipedian have on a subject become the main factor to determine what is encyclopedic or not. <irony>Sure, the recipes have really no interest while [[geek code]] is really more important for the humanity!</irony>.
The definition of "encyclopedia" we can found in all French dictionary is "compendium of all human knowledges". [[en:Encyclopedia]] don't speak about that, so perhaps we are mistaken about Wikipedia goal? I'd really appreciate if Jimbo could define what kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia.
Aoineko
Sabine Cretella wrote:
I am cutting all the first part - and really this is my consideration after having read most of the messages.
But, as long as there is NO rule, it is just a question of balance. Regular edit wars you would say. Another very bold editor can come and become the new gardian later. And possibly be an inclusive gardian of dish articles, so many recipees will find their way back.
If it is a rule, then those restoring may be blocked for not respecting a rule. Huge difference.
In effect, looking at the past 3 months, I think there are not much new recipes, so I suppose any daring adding one is immediately stopped in its activity. So, the result is just that a branch of wikipedia was cut in its growth. We made a bonsai !
Imho wikipedia is much more than only an encyclopedia - it is THE encyclopedia that not only gives definitions, but also helps to understand other cultures. Food is part of a culture. Every Nation/region has its food or cuisine par excellance and many habits can be explained through this.
What would Italy be without Pizza? What would the Pizza-culture (yes, in some countries it became a real culture) be without the mother of all pizzas, the Pizza Margherita, named after a Queen, created in Naples made of the Italian national colours to honour the queen (at least this is what is known)? So this recipe IS culture and should be trasmitted to many people. So why not create just the recipe in the hope that someone who knows the whole story will add the rest? An only recipe would be nothing else than a stub - stubs are to be completed.
Other Examples are: Christmas pudding Cheesecake Stollen Mustaccioli Pannettone Lebkuchen Pasta al pomodoro (noodles with tomato sauce) Spaghetti (originally from China as much as I remember) Rice dishes Sushi Sauerkruaut Wienerwürstel (the "Viennese sausages" that are called "Frankfurter" in Vienna) etc. etc. etc.
I don't feel that there's a need to discuss about this - it is clear in itself as wikipedia is clear in itself. Stubs were made for first steps on a certain theme - cuisine is a theme, recipes are subtitles of "French cuisine, Mediterranean cuisine, German cuisine, British cuisine, American cuisine".
This is the huge difference of Wikipedia to ordinary encyclopedias - you/we have the possibility to give all this information - people who are not interested in it simply don't read it, but people who are interested will prefer Wikipedia 1000 and more times to a paperwork where they then need to buy other books and kitchen encyclopedias (the exist) in order to have complete overviews.
Why destroy one of the huge powers of Wikipedia? The power of being different, the power of digging deeper and deeper.
My 2 cts ;-)
Ciao, Sabine
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l