[WikiEN-l] HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperativecontent

[Ray Saintonge]

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Delirium wrote:
>
>>I just really don't like the condescending tone of "this 
>>is how you do this".  Just *describe* things.  We are 
>>in no position to give instructions, because we just 
>>report on what other people say; we don't  do original 
>>research and come up with our own tutorials, because 
>>that's well outside our mission (which explicitly states 
>>"no original research"). 
>>
>Exactly. The goal of Wikibooks is to instruct, the goal of Wikipedia, at least
>the English Wikipedia, is to inform. We can still inform readers how some
>people instruct others, but we should *not* be the ones doing the instructing.
>To do so would be a violation of our NPOV policy as practiced in the context of
>Wikipedia. 
>
There's a great deal of overlap between instruct and inform.  For some 
of us instruct is only a form of inform to deal with practical skills. 
 Everybody who has been here for any length of time accepts NPOV, but it 
is a variable term whose application can vary with circumstance.  There 
is a big difference between how NPOV relates to a fractious political 
issue, and how it relates to practical instruction.  None of the current 
debate on recipes has been based on who has the best recipe for making 
whatever dish,  The NPOV argument has focused on whether the use of the 
imperative mood implies POV, and that is debatable.

>This was one of the main reasons why I proposed a different neutrality policy
>for Wikibooks. The compromise was to use NPOV but to limit the focus of
>textbooks so that they are still useful in instruction. 
>
I don't think that the nature of NPOV alone should be the key 
distinguishing factor between two projects.  We can do much better.  I 
support Wikibooks but don't spend much time there.  My own vision of it 
is as a place for the more organized and comprehensive treatment of 
various subjects.  There is considerable room for overlap between the 
two projects.

>But different cultures will have different ideas about what is appropriate to
>include in an encyclopedia or textbook, so I don't pretend to extend this
>concept to the other language Wikipedias (where instructional material may very
>well be appropriate to have in an encyclopedia for their culture). 
>
These cultural differences go beyond just language.  Different 
English-speaking cultures can deal differently with this, and they 
should all be respected.

>Wikipedia is already a run-away success. Let's not impoverish Wikibooks by
>duplicating that project's content and mission. 
>
Some duplication and overlap of material would not be harmful.  A 
restrictive view about what is included would.  If a reader finds a 
topic useless, he simply won't look at it.

Ec

>