[Cz-editcouncil] CZ EC Resolution 0009

[M. BALDWIN-EDWARDS]

Dear EC member,

Below are the comments privately emailed concerning Resolution 0009. The 
open discussion phase will now proceed, for a period of time to be 
determined by the Chair for this resolution.  A further email will be sent 
concerning the Forum discussion page, official statements on the wiki and 
the time allocated for open discussion.

Best wishes

Martin
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with the proposal to create a new subpages template, and with the
> standards and regulations as currently listed under CZ: Recipes. I have no
> substantive comments, though i would suggest that:
>
> 1) for the benefit of a larger population of English-speaking readers a
> metric conversion tool be included (perhaps as a MediaWiki extension
> including a widget placed within the subpage, or else as an additional
> text provided in the text by the author) so that ingredients can be listed
> in either metric or non-metric units;
>
> 2) the notes section be organized in a numbered list fashion, as footnotes
> linked by superscript number from the ingredients, preparation, or yield
> sections.
>
> Simon Overduin
> CZ Editorial Council
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the points made about how to include what recipes are very valid; I 
am baffled as to why this problem finally reared its head on this subject. 
Perhaps, it is because almost every one who cooks uses a slightly different 
recipe and everyone who eats has a favorite one. Or perhaps it is because 
without listing specific recipes, this would be a very short article.

However, my point is this issue exists to a certain extent with many many 
other subjects. Just a few that I am involved with: Martial Arts and many of 
its subcategories (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, etc) where each of its 
subcategories could have almost as many variations as a chocolate chip 
cookie.

Others could be meditation, religion(s), fashion, and any other subject 
where there is no clear cut scientifically proven only or best way, 
description, explanation, etc. Even where one concept or school of thought 
is widely accepted; there is almost always others who think differently 
without necessarily being malicious. And they may not be wrong (otherwise 
the world would still be flat).

I think this is one of the main reasons Wikipedia is such a mess. There is 
no way for competing (legitimate and less legitimate)) points of view to get 
their own recognition of seemingly equal status or weight.

I know different points of view can appear on the same page; but, somehow 
that hasn't worked very well on Wikipedia. Maybe it is a question of listing 
order, amount of space devoted, etc. that upsets people.

Perhaps it would get tooooooo unwieldy; but, if we could come up with a 
tabbed system (or whatever) for other variations to have their exposure on 
their own page, we would provide a means for the public to hear more points 
of views without all of the back and forth deleting that happens on the big 
W. As long as their tab or whatever meets our guidelines, they could have 
more freedom of expression which can make more information available with 
less jockeying for position.

Also, an author's work will have a greater chance of staying as that 
author's work without being edited quite as much as many of them are now.

I think the public would be more inclined to open up tabs which are in front 
of them than to go back to search results and hit on a page which came up 
with lower relevance than the one they opened up first. Especially when they 
may have no background in the subject at all.

Of course the editors and constables will have to keep things sane and 
orderly; but, I think it would be worthwhile if we could  develop this kind 
of system for every subject.

Authors would then have to write a general descriptive page with or without 
tabs of their own. Others could then become "authors" of "tabbed" pages 
which would have to meet our same standards.

Perhaps one would need to get permission to add a tab to a page even before 
it is written. However, I think if that is agreed to, it cannot be left up 
to the original author.

I apologize for the length of this comment. But, this is a concept I have 
been considering for a long time and this seemed a great place to jump in.

Cheers,
Gary Giamboi

==============================================
The resolution to create a Recipe Subpage type strikes me as very 
straightforward and reasonable. I can think of no legitimate reason to 
reject this. Given the general popularity of cookbooks, etc., it also 
strikes me as a very sensible addition.

Roger Lohmann

===============================================
I really have no comments on this resolution. I was hoping it would be 
adopted without the need for a full vote.

Best regards,

John Moffett
CZ Editorial Council


===============================================

I suggest we only include recipes that can include reliable nutrition 
information, at least serving size and, per serving, calories 
(kilocalories); calories from fat, carbohydrate, and protein; calories from 
saturated and trans fat; and sodium.  Reason: CZ strives for quality not 
quantity; recipes merit quality.  Implementation: one way, find the 
published recipes that have that information; request permission if 
necessary.  Get nutritionists involved.



Perhaps some people care less about nutrition. Does that mean CZ should care 
less?  We should keep up with the times and set standards.  A tuna casserole 
recipe should make note of types of tuna and current data on mercury and 
other harmful ingredients within the ingredient. One could go on. --



Anthony.Sebastian