[WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content

Tue Feb 24 19:33:52 UTC 2004

David Friedland wrote:

> I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an 
> instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method 
> described is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements 
> if they believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" 
> action.  By making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the 
> opinion that the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy 
> clearly stands against this: "assert facts, including facts about 
> opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves." 

This is a bizarre extension of NPOV policy. :-D   If your that concerned 
maybe we should have a disclaimer attached to recipes.  Results may vary.

> Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about 
> how different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize 
> disagreements without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?
>
> Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:
>
>    Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. 
> Mix well.
>
>    vs.
>
>    Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. 
> Mix well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.
>
> Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest 
> setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients 
> together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the 
> guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth 
> texture of mixing everything together all at once." 

I prefer the simple instructions to the circumlocutious avoidance of 
purported POV.

> I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if 
> there is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side 
> of the instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and 
> recipes use imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. 
> Much of the content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the 
> Wikipedia, but it has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in 
> the indicative mood, but is contextualized and/or justified. 

Where there is another side an alternative recipe can also be given.

Ec