Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: Exactly my point, thanks. In my previous message I tried to explain that a recipe alone is not enough :) -- Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:20:19 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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

Ashar Voultoiz a écrit: 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 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 :-) IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page. This is ONE person. 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

Ashar Voultoiz a écrit: Yeah, it was I who was unclear Hashar. Not using the right term. 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 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:

Mark Williamson 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

Gerard Meijssen 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" ? Aoineko

Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski a écrit : Feasible into a new Wikipedia namespace with special rules ;o) Again, it's not the point. Aoineko

Andre Engels a écrit : 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

Mark Williamson schrieb: Of course! We can pipe these articles into my map software, and render Jimbo for future generations to come! :-) Magnus

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 &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:05:46 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard 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! Another good example. -- +sj+

Mark Williamson (node.ue(a)gmail.com) [050121 11:39]: You're the one making the assertion that they are, not me. 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.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit: 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.

Mark Williamson wrote: 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

Sj wrote: 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

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

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 &lt;ilooy.gaon(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: