I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
On this page, it is written that recipes should not be kept in Wikipedia. So, now, Gentgeen has a argument to revert me, and possibly even the right to block me if I restore a recipe.
My question :
* why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
Ant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
Hello,
I guess things tend to change. Things that were acceptable some months ago are no more accepted by the community.
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
Maybe you should add entries in a "Request to undelete" page instead of abusing your sysop rights against the community choice (aka restauring a page that got deleted with the approval of the community).
<snip>
- why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
For me, if the community decide that receipe should be deleted, it's no more about "a couple of bold people", but the community as a whole.
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history, description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
cheers,
- -- Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history, description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major variants noted. This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong. It is true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry which explains the history, description, use, cultural context, geographical extent, etc. But such descriptions can be very well enhanced by having a recipe as well.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history, description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major variants noted. This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong. It is true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry which explains the history, description, use, cultural context, geographical extent, etc. But such descriptions can be very well enhanced by having a recipe as well.
--Jimbo
Exactly my point, thanks. In my previous message I tried to explain that a recipe alone is not enough :)
Ashar Voultoiz a écrit:
Exactly my point, thanks. In my previous message I tried to explain that a recipe alone is not enough :)
I tend to agree with you Hashar. But it is not even the problem. If the page contains only a recipe, it is deleted If the page contains a recipe and encyclopedic content, the encyclopedic reference is kept and the recipe removed.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:20:19 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major variants noted. This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong. It is true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry which explains the history, description, use, cultural context, geographical extent, etc. But such descriptions can be very well enhanced by having a recipe as well.
But exactly because it's so fine, it is not usable. There are all kinds of recipes for the same dish, and they all are different. Either you go POV and say that one recipe is good, and the other is bad, or you keep yourself to such generalities that what remains is a "description" rather than a "recipe". I prefer the second.
Andre Engels
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:00:59PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:20:19 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major variants noted. This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong. It is true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry which explains the history, description, use, cultural context, geographical extent, etc. But such descriptions can be very well enhanced by having a recipe as well.
But exactly because it's so fine, it is not usable. There are all kinds of recipes for the same dish, and they all are different. Either you go POV and say that one recipe is good, and the other is bad, or you keep yourself to such generalities that what remains is a "description" rather than a "recipe". I prefer the second.
Could you state your opinion on recipes/descriptions like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutia
I think it's perfectly fine for an encyclopedia.
Ashar Voultoiz a écrit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
Hello,
I guess things tend to change. Things that were acceptable some months ago are no more accepted by the community.
No, things do not change. This was added in spring 2004. The discussions occured for months and months and months and last ones were from october 2004.
And show no clear support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_recipes/Delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
Maybe you should add entries in a "Request to undelete" page instead of abusing your sysop rights against the community choice (aka restauring a page that got deleted with the approval of the community).
Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.
The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice of deletion. I merely did a revert.
I rarely use sysop powers :-)
<snip>
- why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
For me, if the community decide that receipe should be deleted, it's no more about "a couple of bold people", but the community as a whole.
IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page. This is ONE person.
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history, description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
cheers,
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
You are entitled your opinion. What is problematic here is that it is not the opinion of the community to do so, but done nevertheless.
Anthere
Anthere wrote:
Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.
The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice of deletion. I merely did a revert.
I rarely use sysop powers :-)
Fine. It did not understand that when reading your message :o) At first it was a bit disturbing to read you had restored a deleted article, but if that is just an edit war ... it is fine 8-)
<snip>
IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page. This is ONE person.
Have a talk with him, maybe he is not aware of previous talk related to receipes deletion / removal ?
cheers,
Ashar Voultoiz a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.
The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice of deletion. I merely did a revert.
I rarely use sysop powers :-)
Fine. It did not understand that when reading your message :o) At first it was a bit disturbing to read you had restored a deleted article, but if that is just an edit war ... it is fine 8-)
Yeah, it was I who was unclear Hashar. Not using the right term.
IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page. This is ONE person.
Have a talk with him, maybe he is not aware of previous talk related to receipes deletion / removal ?
cheers,
Oh yes ! He is aware of it. He is the main supporter of moving them. And the one who transwikied the majority of them. And the one who revert each time some restore them. He is the gardian of recipes :-)
It is hopeless :-)
Just hopeless.
I tried to find a middle way, to make a suggestion, but there could be no agreement because Gentgeen and a few decided the recipes should not be there, while others decided all recipes belong to the encyclopedia.
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 !
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
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
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
Mark Williamson wrote:
If an encyclopedia were really a compendium of all human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary.
Mark
Exactly! If Wikipedia was a compendium of human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary because Wiktionary excluded some linguistic knowledge from the main encyclopedia. Now, some wikipadians would like to exclude some cooking knowledge. What next? What is the argument to say what is encyclopedic or not? Actually, Wikipedians are not representative at all of human diversity (sex, age, culture, etc.) so, imho, majority's opinion is not relevant to answer this question. So I ask again to Jimbo, "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia?"
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
If an encyclopedia were really a compendium of all human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary.
Mark
Exactly! If Wikipedia was a compendium of human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary because Wiktionary excluded some linguistic knowledge from the main encyclopedia. Now, some wikipadians would like to exclude some cooking knowledge. What next? What is the argument to say what is encyclopedic or not? Actually, Wikipedians are not representative at all of human diversity (sex, age, culture, etc.) so, imho, majority's opinion is not relevant to answer this question. So I ask again to Jimbo, "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia?"
Aoineko
When you look outside the "wikipedia" box, still being in the "wikimedia" box, you will find your dictionary information. When we finally have our "interproject links" it will even be obvious that there IS information within our projects about the lexicological information for a word. Like with the pictures and recordings in Commons, there is a technical reason why there is merit in having the lexicological information seperate from the encyclopedic information. This will become even more obvious when we get the hoped for "ultimate wiktionary".
So to answer Aoineko, we are inclusive, it is all in the projects. We want to present the whole spectrum of human knowledge and make it available to all who can absorb it.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Exactly! If Wikipedia was a compendium of human knowledge, we wouldn't need Wiktionary because Wiktionary excluded some linguistic knowledge from the main encyclopedia. Now, some wikipadians would like to exclude some cooking knowledge. What next? What is the argument to say what is encyclopedic or not? Actually, Wikipedians are not representative at all of human diversity (sex, age, culture, etc.) so, imho, majority's opinion is not relevant to answer this question. So I ask again to Jimbo, "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia?"
Aoineko
When you look outside the "wikipedia" box, still being in the "wikimedia" box, you will find your dictionary information. When we finally have our "interproject links" it will even be obvious that there IS information within our projects about the lexicological information for a word. Like with the pictures and recordings in Commons, there is a technical reason why there is merit in having the lexicological information seperate from the encyclopedic information. This will become even more obvious when we get the hoped for "ultimate wiktionary".
So to answer Aoineko, we are inclusive, it is all in the projects. We want to present the whole spectrum of human knowledge and make it available to all who can absorb it.
Thanks, GerardM
I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia but it's not the point. Move cooking information (or a day sport, tv, celebrities, etc.) outside of the encyclopedia is not legitimate as far as you don't give reason why is not encyclopedic (witch is impossible if we don't all us the same definition of what a encyclopedia is). "Present the whole spectrum of human knowledge" is close to my own definition, but I'm not sure everybody where have the same definition and it's clearly not the way we are following removing recipes. I agree the fact we need some limit to the "whole spectrum", but I'd like to have a definition of this limit. "Things that didn't interfere life of wide human group" ?
Aoineko
GB> I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't GB> be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia
I do. Imagine having dictionary definitions, grammatical information, equivalents in other languages for the article name and all names that redirect to that name in the same article...
Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski a écrit :
GB> I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't GB> be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia
I do. Imagine having dictionary definitions, grammatical information, equivalents in other languages for the article name and all names that redirect to that name in the same article...
Feasible into a new Wikipedia namespace with special rules ;o) Again, it's not the point.
Aoineko
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:42:51 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp wrote:
I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia but it's not the point. Move cooking information (or a day sport, tv, celebrities, etc.) outside of the encyclopedia is not legitimate as far as you don't give reason why is not encyclopedic (witch is impossible if we don't all us the same definition of what a encyclopedia is). "Present the whole spectrum of human knowledge" is close to my own definition, but I'm not sure everybody where have the same definition and it's clearly not the way we are following removing recipes. I agree the fact we need some limit to the "whole spectrum", but I'd like to have a definition of this limit. "Things that didn't interfere life of wide human group" ?
In my opinion, an encyclopedia is in the first place a work of reference, and from that I get my idea of what should be in Wikipedia: All that normally would be found in some reference work (some "encyclopedia of such-and-such"). That also makes me more deletionist than people like you, probably.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels a écrit :
I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia but it's not the point. Move cooking information (or a day sport, tv, celebrities, etc.) outside of the encyclopedia is not legitimate as far as you don't give reason why is not encyclopedic (witch is impossible if we don't all us the same definition of what a encyclopedia is). "Present the whole spectrum of human knowledge" is close to my own definition, but I'm not sure everybody where have the same definition and it's clearly not the way we are following removing recipes. I agree the fact we need some limit to the "whole spectrum", but I'd like to have a definition of this limit. "Things that didn't interfere life of wide human group" ?
In my opinion, an encyclopedia is in the first place a work of reference, and from that I get my idea of what should be in Wikipedia: All that normally would be found in some reference work (some "encyclopedia of such-and-such"). That also makes me more deletionist than people like you, probably.
Andre Engels
Does that mean all recipes we can found into cooking encyclopedias are legitimate on Wikipedia? I can't imagine a consensus about an exhaustive list of references, so your definition moves the debate to "what a reference is?". Personally, I think the "reference" concept is not relevant outside of science domain. In science, the pertinence criteria are concrete: accuracy of formula and reproducibility of experience. What are the pertinence criteria for culture?
Aoineko
There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot in Wikipedia? Heavens no.
Mark
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:13:14 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp wrote:
Andre Engels a écrit :
I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia but it's not the point. Move cooking information (or a day sport, tv, celebrities, etc.) outside of the encyclopedia is not legitimate as far as you don't give reason why is not encyclopedic (witch is impossible if we don't all us the same definition of what a encyclopedia is). "Present the whole spectrum of human knowledge" is close to my own definition, but I'm not sure everybody where have the same definition and it's clearly not the way we are following removing recipes. I agree the fact we need some limit to the "whole spectrum", but I'd like to have a definition of this limit. "Things that didn't interfere life of wide human group" ?
In my opinion, an encyclopedia is in the first place a work of reference, and from that I get my idea of what should be in Wikipedia: All that normally would be found in some reference work (some "encyclopedia of such-and-such"). That also makes me more deletionist than people like you, probably.
Andre Engels
Does that mean all recipes we can found into cooking encyclopedias are legitimate on Wikipedia? I can't imagine a consensus about an exhaustive list of references, so your definition moves the debate to "what a reference is?". Personally, I think the "reference" concept is not relevant outside of science domain. In science, the pertinence criteria are concrete: accuracy of formula and reproducibility of experience. What are the pertinence criteria for culture?
Aoineko _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson schrieb:
There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot in Wikipedia?
Of course! We can pipe these articles into my map software, and render Jimbo for future generations to come! :-)
Magnus
Mark Williamson (node.ue@gmail.com) [050121 08:21]:
There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot in Wikipedia? Heavens no.
Recipe encyclopedias are not equivalent to this hypothetical example. Do you have any real examples?
- d.
1. I never said they were. I just said that there are many different encyclopedias, and illustrated that it was not practical to use what is included in a single encyclopedia as a criterium for inclusion, especially when the encyclopaedia isn't one of general knowledge.
2. Can you prove they're not equivalent?
3. If you can prove they're not equivalent, can you prove they're not analogous?
Mark
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:19:16 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Williamson (node.ue@gmail.com) [050121 08:21]:
There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot in Wikipedia? Heavens no.
Recipe encyclopedias are not equivalent to this hypothetical example. Do you have any real examples?
- d.
The main argument of those who would like to remove recipes from Wikipedia is a recipe is just a POV of a given dish. I would like to point 2 things: - A picture is always the point of view of the photographer (= he can choose what he wants to show and therefore, the feeling he wants to transmit). Does that mean we must remove all pictures from Wikipedia in the name of NPOV? I don't think so. Even if pictures are always POV, they give as information as they are useful to understand a concept (ie. Show picture of tsunami devastations is a good shortcut to explain its power). - I think there a two kind of recipes: 1) the personal way of cooking a dish 2) the minimal requirement to make a given dish. The first kind of information is, imho, non pertinent for an encyclopedia. The second is essential! A "crepe" is not a crepe because it's making with flour, milk and egg, but because those ingredients are present in a particular proportion and because they are mixed in a particular way.
I would like to make a proposal for Wikipedia:
- A dish's article can contain one recipe (the minimal requirements to make a dish what is it) - Each ingredient is express in range of proportion (to be representative of variations) - Non essential information (like flavors, decoration, etc.) is explained into the article's text (this must be a representative variation, not a personal taste). - Dish's recipe alone is a stub that must be enhanced. - If it's obvious that there is no intention to improve the stub (recipe alone), it can be proposed at VfD.
I think, the only case we can't found a consensus about proportion range to make a given dish, imho, mean that two dishs sharing the same name (for example Japanese Kuri are very far from Indian one). What do you think about my proposal?
Aoineko
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:05:46 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard
I would like to make a proposal for Wikipedia:
- A dish's article can contain one recipe (the minimal requirements to
make a dish what is it)
- Each ingredient is express in range of proportion (to be
representative of variations)
- Non essential information (like flavors, decoration, etc.) is
explained into the article's text (this must be a representative variation, not a personal taste).
- Dish's recipe alone is a stub that must be enhanced.
- If it's obvious that there is no intention to improve the stub (recipe
alone), it can be proposed at VfD.
I like this. With the additional note that an article can contain multiple recipes as long as each one represents a 'major' variation; imagine a bread article with a single recipe for bread!
(for example Japanese Kuri are very far from Indian one).
Another good example.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, either.
We should define what bread is by how it is made, but we should not go so far as to give recipies.
Thus, "Bread usually includes a powdery substance of one sort or another, a smaller amount of insects, and either copper, lead, uranium, mercury, or nitric acid." (not realistic obviously). If the way it is cooked or the order you mix the ingredients make it different from another kind of food, then it should be included - "the powdery substance is put in first, if it is put in second it will instead be gread and if it is put in third it will be sread" or "it must be burnt, if it is baked it is yread, if it is fried it is mread, and if it is boiled in molten aluminium it is fread".
This is very easily done without giving a recipie, and already some articles on foods link to the Wikibooks recepie (or in some cases, multiple recipies) for that food for somebody who wants to make it.
Mark
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:41:47 -0500, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:05:46 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard
I would like to make a proposal for Wikipedia:
- A dish's article can contain one recipe (the minimal requirements to
make a dish what is it)
- Each ingredient is express in range of proportion (to be
representative of variations)
- Non essential information (like flavors, decoration, etc.) is
explained into the article's text (this must be a representative variation, not a personal taste).
- Dish's recipe alone is a stub that must be enhanced.
- If it's obvious that there is no intention to improve the stub (recipe
alone), it can be proposed at VfD.
I like this. With the additional note that an article can contain multiple recipes as long as each one represents a 'major' variation; imagine a bread article with a single recipe for bread!
(for example Japanese Kuri are very far from Indian one).
Another good example.
-- +sj+ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson (node.ue@gmail.com) [050121 11:39]:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:19:16 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Williamson (node.ue@gmail.com) [050121 08:21]:
There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot in Wikipedia? Heavens no.
Recipe encyclopedias are not equivalent to this hypothetical example. Do you have any real examples?
- I never said they were. I just said that there are many different
encyclopedias, and illustrated that it was not practical to use what is included in a single encyclopedia as a criterium for inclusion, especially when the encyclopaedia isn't one of general knowledge. 2. Can you prove they're not equivalent?
You're the one making the assertion that they are, not me.
- If you can prove they're not equivalent, can you prove they're not analogous?
And again. Your argument goes "1. I compare it to this ridiculous idea. 3. Therefore it is ridiculous." As the one making the argument, it's up to you to substantiate "2. It is equivalent or analogous to this ridiculous idea."
- d.
You're the one making the assertion that they are, not me.
But I never said they were equivalent. See #1.
And again. Your argument goes "1. I compare it to this ridiculous idea. 3. Therefore it is ridiculous." As the one making the argument, it's up to you to substantiate "2. It is equivalent or analogous to this ridiculous idea."
It is analogous:
Some articles in specialised encyclopedias may not be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, an article's inclusion in a specialised encyclopedia does not nessecarily justify its inclusion in Wikipedia.
Conclusion: An article's inclusion in any given cooking encyclopedia does not nessecarily justify its inclusion in Wikipedia.
While the logic isn't totally sound, I think in general the assumptions I have made are warranted.
Mark
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
I think this is wrong. A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes to be very compelling. Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
But, I don't always get my way.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
I think this is wrong. A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes to be very compelling. Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
But, I don't always get my way.
--Jimbo
If we were a tiny minority to support that Jimbo, I would say nothing. I would just say "well, fine". If you remember well, this is what I said for Wikinews :-)
The problem is that we are not a tiny minority at all.
A couple of mails http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010882.html (optim) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010885.html (Fred) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010881.html (Mark) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html (David) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010903.html (Geoff) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010907.html (Ec) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010904.html (Ec) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010889.html (Mark) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010891.html (Theresa) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010895.html (JIMBO) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010899.html (Erik) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010902.html (dpb) * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010913.html (Elian)
More discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_recipes Which mentions that there is a page with discussion
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal A proposal I made which shows no clear support for plain removing the recipe either
-------
What bugs me is that it is perfectly okay that Gentgeen is bold and remove them. What is not bold is that it is a rule when it is obviously far from globally agreed and that someone restoring a recipe could be reverted on sight or even blocked.
I do not thing this is how rules should be set.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
I think this is wrong. A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes to be very compelling. Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
But, I don't always get my way.
--Jimbo
Incidently, the most recent discussion on the topic is this proposal I made : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal It was advertised on the pump as well.
Several supported it, and among the ones opposing it, there were both some willing to have it all removed, and some willing to have it all kept, neither of the two willing to find a middle agreement;
So, people are getting tired to discuss at all, and just finally let Gentgeen remove all recipees entirely. So, instead of one middle position, one of the those having the most extremist view got their way.
But, there is no evidence there is community support, just tired people who just give up.
So, it is grossly unfair to make a rule from automatic removal.
It is certainly a habit, but making it a rule, which allow punishement for those who do not respect it, is not correct. It is management by the bolder.
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think this is wrong. A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes to be very compelling. Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
Encyclopedia articles about particular dishes are not the same as recipes. The former is aimed at being a comprehensive summary (with a good deal of history and discussion of variations) while the later is supposed to be list of instructions on making a particular dish. So saying 'no recipes' is correct, IMO, but deleting encyclopedia articles about food dishes is not.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Anthere wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
Has anyone maintained a list of articles that were deleted at the second or later trial on VfD by any chance? I know there is a "precedents" page that proves the community has become more deletionist over time.
There is a problem with our processes if double jeopardy is acceptable in getting things deleted, but we do not allow articles to be recreated.
My main problem with the transwiki'ing thing is that Wikibooks has considerably different rules, where the major contributors to a specific "book" get more say in what can go in and what cannot, or what they want it to look like.
I personally think that is downright antiwiki, but when I tried to get involved I was met with stiff opposition from Gentgeen who is obsessed about territorialism and the like, and said that the current antiwiki policy had been decided by "community consensus".
Among other things decided on Wikibooks by "community consensus", at least one addition to [[b:en:What Wikibooks is not]] was added by "consensus" with the final poll results being 1-0, Gentgeen having been the only one to vote for it. In addition, voting by Wikipedians in matters such as VfD, VfU, RfA, and just about anything else is completely disregarded by Gentgeen unless they are "regular" contributors to Wikibooks, although notably he DOES count them when it benefits his position.
The current policy on Wikibooks is tantamount to me saying on Wikipedia "OK, I wrote this article, so since I'm the main contributor, I have a large amount of control over what goes".
Mark
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:58:23 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
On this page, it is written that recipes should not be kept in Wikipedia. So, now, Gentgeen has a argument to revert me, and possibly even the right to block me if I restore a recipe.
My question :
- why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
Ant
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
My main problem with the transwiki'ing thing is that Wikibooks has considerably different rules, where the major contributors to a specific "book" get more say in what can go in and what cannot, or what they want it to look like.
As the person who coined the term "transwiki" I need to comment on its intent. It was meant precisely to deal with the kind of problem that you mention. This is a completely different problem from deciding _what_ should be transferred. For purposes of this discussion let's at least assume that choosing to transfer was the right course of action.
The assumption was also made that a person in one project would NOT be familiar with the rules and customs of the receiving project, nor would he even know if the material existed there, though perhaps with a different title. (That difference may be the result of different naming policies that he would not be expected to know like the Esperanto Wikipedia's policy of putting surnames in all capitals.) He probably also has no wish to become an regular participant in the receiving project.
So he copies the article on Topic A as it appears to [[Transwiki:Topic A]] on the receiving project. A member of the receiving project can then start the procedure of dealing with it in accordance witho that project's rules.
Ec
I haven't commented on recipes before, so I'll just say briefly: Good recipes are great, dense sources of information. They are important parts of any good description of a given dish. So any dish which is deserving of an encyclopedia entry should include at least one recipe, if not one for each culturally significant variant.
Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertrand_sereno/550528/
Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book, film, or famous wit. The thought of recipes being banned from WP [by people who clearly know nothing about them, nor have any idea of the number of significant literary works inspired by or devoted to recipes] gives me indigestion.
+sj+
[ As with any new type of content, there is a need for good models of encyclopedic usage for others to follow. Suggestions from recipe lovers? ]
Sj wrote:
Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book, film, or famous wit.
Hear hear. I'm just waiting for someone to complain that articles shouldn't mention specific examples of a general concept, because picking an example makes it seem more important than the unmentioned examples, and we can't have pictures, because it's "POV" to only depict one object and not any of the others...
NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)
Stan
I don't know, I personally think it's POV in most cases to quote something as a representation of an entire work - you might take it out of context, or it might not be the "good part" (or you may think it is but others disagree), some might say it misrepresents the work, etc.
Mark
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:59:14 -0800, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Sj wrote:
Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book, film, or famous wit.
Hear hear. I'm just waiting for someone to complain that articles shouldn't mention specific examples of a general concept, because picking an example makes it seem more important than the unmentioned examples, and we can't have pictures, because it's "POV" to only depict one object and not any of the others...
NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)
No, NPOV applies whether or not something is disputed. People have argued about what NPOV is meant to accomplish, but it most definitely applies to _every single thing_ in the article namespaces.
So while you may be hard-pressed to find somebody who says that the death of 300 innocent people from a bridge crashing is not unfortunate, we don't say "Unfortunately" or "Tragic event" or "unfortunate event" or "tragedy" because that is passing judgement and, more importantly, it is not NPOV.
Ultimately there is always somebody who argues "Well, since nobody actually disagrees with it, it isn't POV". The response to that is: "I disagree with it strongly". Then the other party will most likely take one of two actions, saying "OK, you're right, it's POV" or they will go on to throw insults and profanity at you for having a viewpoint (for example, if I say "I strongly disagree with the assertion that murder is wrong", the other party involved might say "What kind of crazy idiot are you?").
However NPOV policy doesn't apply to the whole world (although if you're a Wikipediholic, you may have had the experience of hearing somebody say something POV in real life and wanting to click the "edit" button). It may or may not apply outside of the article namespace. Some people say it doesn't apply to the mainpage, some people say it doesn't apply to Wikipedia: pages, some people say it *does* apply to User: pages, although nobody argues it applies to talkpages (after all, that's what talkpages are for, aren't they? expression of an individual's POV?). There are differing viewpoints - I for one believe it applies to everything on every Wikipedia, including the interface, with the exception of talkpages, userpages, and other pages specifically intended to be safe harbors for POV on Wikipedia (for example, on WP:RfA, I can say "____ isn't a good editor" even though it isn't a talkpage or a userpage, nobody would disagree with that most likely), but it seems to me the majority opinion is that it only really applies to articles and article titles, and thus it's OK to put on our logo "I don't care what your mama says, Christmas is number o-one, I don't care what your papa says, Christmas is really fu-un" or write in a UI message "If you don't click 'ok', you are an idiot and must not be my religion". But those are extreme cases not likely to happen, so really they don't work well.
Mark
Salut Anthere, I regret to hear that the recipies have been deleted. Obviously someone put the effort in collecting the information and posting it.
There are other places on Wikimedia's sister projects where the information would be welcome. For example, wiktionary, where if I were to visit 'gazpacho' I would hope there'd be a simple recipe I could find, because it describes the dish by giving its way of making the soup. Also Wikibooks would be a great resource, a Wikirecipe Book would be an excellent solution. Or Wikisource where a text or collection of texts could be posted on step-by-step recipies for dishes.
But all these solutions aside, the first step would be to talk this out before anyone gets delete-finger happy. Watching out for abuse and misuse is entirely understandable, but deleting recipies without discussion and a call for solutions seems contrary to wikietiquette. At least in my point of view.
Let the recipies find a home!
Since, Jay B.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:58:23 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
On this page, it is written that recipes should not be kept in Wikipedia. So, now, Gentgeen has a argument to revert me, and possibly even the right to block me if I restore a recipe.
My question :
- why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
Ant
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Recipies "lacking a home" is not a problem here, plenty of recipies exist in Wikibooks and many of those deleted on en.wikipedia are actually /moved/ to Wikibooks.
Mark
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:27:51 -0500, ilooy ilooy.gaon@gmail.com wrote:
Salut Anthere, I regret to hear that the recipies have been deleted. Obviously someone put the effort in collecting the information and posting it.
There are other places on Wikimedia's sister projects where the information would be welcome. For example, wiktionary, where if I were to visit 'gazpacho' I would hope there'd be a simple recipe I could find, because it describes the dish by giving its way of making the soup. Also Wikibooks would be a great resource, a Wikirecipe Book would be an excellent solution. Or Wikisource where a text or collection of texts could be posted on step-by-step recipies for dishes.
But all these solutions aside, the first step would be to talk this out before anyone gets delete-finger happy. Watching out for abuse and misuse is entirely understandable, but deleting recipies without discussion and a call for solutions seems contrary to wikietiquette. At least in my point of view.
Let the recipies find a home!
Since, Jay B.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:58:23 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
On this page, it is written that recipes should not be kept in Wikipedia. So, now, Gentgeen has a argument to revert me, and possibly even the right to block me if I restore a recipe.
My question :
- why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they be used to revert the others ?
I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added it to show me where this was supported initially.
Ant
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
ilooy.gaon@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:27:51 -0500, ilooy ilooy.gaon@gmail.com wrote:
But all these solutions aside, the first step would be to talk this out before anyone gets delete-finger happy. Watching out for abuse and misuse is entirely understandable, but deleting recipies without discussion and a call for solutions seems contrary to wikietiquette. At least in my point of view.
There's been lots of discussion and calls for solutions. We've had this discussion years ago, and it comes up every now and again. What we do not have is an outcome that everyone agrees with. The only strength of your arguments is that it is how we always do things - the person wanting to remove something is always wrong, the person wanting to keep or add something never is. I am getting sick of that.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org