David Gerard wrote:
Michael Snow (wikipedia@earthlink.net) [050121 14:33]:
Also, the way we traditionally handle certain types of POV - one of the main complaints about recipes - is by attributing that POV to a credible source (not by removing it entirely). A recipe from a standard cookbook for a given style of cuisine, or from a noteworthy cook (not your Aunt Tillie, in other words), can satisfy this angle too.
I think I am about to go wild with my (precioussssss) Bee Nilson.
Who in the world is Bee Nilson, and why isn't there a Wikipedia article about her when I want to look her up?
Sorry, playing the ignorant American for a bit there. But this just illustrates how woefully undercovered cooking topics are, along with almost all other traditionally "domestic" subjects, which is partly why we're having this whole debate over recipes for the nth time now. If we had decent encyclopedia articles about these things, which is almost never the case, then it would be less of an issue. I think a lot of the visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the instructions are given in significant detail.
--Michael Snow
MS> Sorry, playing the ignorant American for a bit there. But this just MS> illustrates how woefully undercovered cooking topics are, along with MS> almost all other traditionally "domestic" subjects, which is partly why MS> we're having this whole debate over recipes for the nth time now. If we MS> had decent encyclopedia articles about these things, which is almost MS> never the case, then it would be less of an issue. I think a lot of the MS> visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently MS> overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the MS> instructions are given in significant detail. MS> --Michael Snow
Well, I wouldn't have anything against recipes in Wikipedia - except that we have Wikibooks now, which is far more suited for that kind of information.
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
MS> Sorry, playing the ignorant American for a bit there. But this just MS> illustrates how woefully undercovered cooking topics are, along with MS> almost all other traditionally "domestic" subjects, which is partly why MS> we're having this whole debate over recipes for the nth time now. If we MS> had decent encyclopedia articles about these things, which is almost MS> never the case, then it would be less of an issue. I think a lot of the MS> visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently MS> overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the MS> instructions are given in significant detail. MS> --Michael Snow
Well, I wouldn't have anything against recipes in Wikipedia - except that we have Wikibooks now, which is far more suited for that kind of information.
I am amazed about the amount of words that has been used on this subject. To me a few things stand out.
*There are inclusionists and deletionists. * Many arguments about why we should NOT have arguments do not cut it as we have plenty of room. Hard disks are cheap nowadays. *The importance of food is culturally indicated, therefore people who do not get "it", are not likely to get "it", this makes the discussion pointless. *Spain has an excellent modus vivendi and I would really urge people to adopt it so that we can move on. In essence no recipies on their own, only in combination with a whole article. *The idea that there is a consensus for deleting recipies has been proven a fallacy, the only arguments to the contrary I can think of are formalistic.Wiki is not much on formality.
The suggestion of using wikibooks has some merits except that we do not have our interproject links yet. Without these we will get the old quarrel of no outside references again. My personal opinion is that you want at least one recipy that is typical for the dish. Variations can then be in wikibooks.
Thanks, GerardM
GM> The suggestion of using wikibooks has some merits except that we do not GM> have our interproject links yet. Without these we will get the old GM> quarrel of no outside references again. My personal opinion is that you GM> want at least one recipy that is typical for the dish. Variations can GM> then be in wikibooks.
Well, we have the interproject box templates for now...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:03:06 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote
- Many arguments about why we should NOT have arguments do not cut it as
we have plenty of room. Hard disks are cheap nowadays
Decisions to remove articles or content from articles are not based on a (nonexistant) lack of disk space; they're motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia neutral, easily readable, and free of extraneous information.
The suggestion of using wikibooks has some merits except that we do not have our interproject links yet. Without these we will get the old quarrel of no outside references again. My personal opinion is that you want at least one recipy that is typical for the dish. Variations can then be in wikibooks.
Wouldn't having only one recipe in Wikipedia imply some sort of bias towards that particular preparation?
--Slowking Man
What I like about your observations is that they serve only your own side of the debate.
Mark
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:03:06 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
MS> Sorry, playing the ignorant American for a bit there. But this just MS> illustrates how woefully undercovered cooking topics are, along with MS> almost all other traditionally "domestic" subjects, which is partly why MS> we're having this whole debate over recipes for the nth time now. If we MS> had decent encyclopedia articles about these things, which is almost MS> never the case, then it would be less of an issue. I think a lot of the MS> visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently MS> overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the MS> instructions are given in significant detail. MS> --Michael Snow
Well, I wouldn't have anything against recipes in Wikipedia - except that we have Wikibooks now, which is far more suited for that kind of information.
I am amazed about the amount of words that has been used on this subject. To me a few things stand out.
*There are inclusionists and deletionists.
- Many arguments about why we should NOT have arguments do not cut it as
we have plenty of room. Hard disks are cheap nowadays. *The importance of food is culturally indicated, therefore people who do not get "it", are not likely to get "it", this makes the discussion pointless. *Spain has an excellent modus vivendi and I would really urge people to adopt it so that we can move on. In essence no recipies on their own, only in combination with a whole article. *The idea that there is a consensus for deleting recipies has been proven a fallacy, the only arguments to the contrary I can think of are formalistic.Wiki is not much on formality.
The suggestion of using wikibooks has some merits except that we do not have our interproject links yet. Without these we will get the old quarrel of no outside references again. My personal opinion is that you want at least one recipy that is typical for the dish. Variations can then be in wikibooks.
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Michael Snow (wikipedia@earthlink.net) [050121 18:09]:
David Gerard wrote:
I think I am about to go wild with my (precioussssss) Bee Nilson.
Who in the world is Bee Nilson, and why isn't there a Wikipedia article about her when I want to look her up?
The book I'm referring to is 'The Penguin Cookery Book', 1952, some 1970s updates. Nilson died some time ago and Penguin has done a recent edition, but it's crap. The book synopsises basic British cooking (of the old-school lard is good, boil until the stone goes soft sort). It 's the sort of book people keep in their kitches forever. My wife's copy was given to her as a girl; we still use it. I can't say how annoyed I am at Penguin doing a new crap edition rather than just reprinting the old. If there could be a high standard reference for British cooking, Bee Nilson is the one.
I think a lot of the visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the instructions are given in significant detail.
I like the Spanish solution a whole lot. Andre, Anthere, what do you think?
- d.
David Gerard a écrit:
I like the Spanish solution a whole lot. Andre, Anthere, what do you think?
- d.
But David... of course I would agree with it.
This was basically the essence of my proposal last october : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal
It was not supposed to be a rule, but only a set of guidelines.
But there could be no final agreement on it since
* there were some people strongly in favor of full removal of all recipes. So they opposed it in principle (Gentgeen and Andre I suppose would)
* there were some people strongly in favor of keeping them all in Wikipedia. So they opposed it because they feared some recipes would be moved (Jamesday for exemple)
* and many people who just generally agreed.
But since there were people willing to keep it all and others willing to delete it all, nothing got out of it.
Conclusion : all recipes were removed, according to Gentgeen by consensus. His consensus.
What else to say ?
All I felt I could do was at least to remove a rule which is obviously not making consensus amongst ourselves. I think it is ridiculous to have rules which were never voted for and are clearly not agreed upon. Only on anarchic Wikipedia could we find such a situation :-)))) Funny Wikipedia.
Anthere
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:57:33 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I like the Spanish solution a whole lot. Andre, Anthere, what do you think?
I 100% agree with that solution. A recipe as an EXAMPLE in a complete article about a dish is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia. Well-known dishes are suitable subjects for an encyclopedia. A recipe for a dish I invented last Saturday is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia.
Arguments about recipes being necessarily POV do not, in my opinion, disqualify them from being in an encyclopedia. Our NPOV policy does not mean we have to remove all non-neutral statements, but rather that we have to be explicit about the source of them.
I don't think a recipe by itself is a sufficient encyclopedia article. If a surrounding article cannot be written about a recipe, it's probably a good indicator that the subject isn't important enough to document here ...
-Matt (User:Morven)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org