[WikiEN-l] More on recipes

Fri May 21 21:41:24 UTC 2004

Lainaus Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>:

> Fennec Foxen wrote:
> > [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia articles are not]] recipes. They might conceivably
> > contain recipes, or they might be about recipes (random thought- we
> > have an article anywhere about that Neiman-Marcus or however you spell
> > it cookie recipe story that you hear all over? :). However, I would
> > think that a brief description of the content of a dish would usually
> > be more encyclopedic-feeling than a recipe. And yes, the mood is one
> > of the issues.
> 
> 3 points, one a direct response to your point, and 2 others that
> I wanted to say more generally.
> 
> 1.  It is of course true that Wikipedia articles are not recipes.
> Wikipedia articles are not mathematical equations, either.  But
> Wikipedia articles can _contain_ mathematical equations, and similary
> Wikipedia articles can _contain_ recipes.
> 
> 2.  Recipes are not "inherently NPOV" any more than any other kind of
> knowledge.  Wikipedia need not _advocate_ for one particular way of
> cooking Key Lime Pie, in order to _describe_ the traditional recipe
> and variants, with the description being in the detailed format of a
> recipe.
> 
> 3.  Concerns about whether we have to include 50 recipes for something
> as mundane as Chocolate cake are valid concerns, but they are in
> principle no different from concerns in other articles as to how much
> detail to include, and the same sorts of external considerations can
> come into play just as well here.
> 
> 4.  It is of course possible for an article which includes a recipe to
> be POV.  If someone wrote: "This is the only proper way to make chili;
> all other ways are abominations not deserving of the name" then we
> would of course edit that bit out.  We'd look for some intrinsic
> "hook" by which to choose which recipe to choose, i.e. "oldest known",
> or "first published", or "a typical example" or "published by noted
> chef thus-and-so" or any of a thousand other possibilities.
> 
> So it isn't that the concerns peopel are raising aren't valid at all,
> it's just that I don't find them automatically compelling.
> 
> --Jimbo

Look, you are being much too kind. The concerns "peopel" are raising just
*aren't* valid, (and the qualification "at all" is *not* hyperbole).

If you want a reason for dismissing them out of hand, you only need to look at
the numerous maths, physics and logics etc. articles that are little more then
recipes.

Or, just to be consistent, I challenge any one to justify [[stupid sort]].

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen