Of course. But knowing/deciding how much to cite and how much to place in context is also part of the problem. Because everyone has a unique interpretation of words (and a unique graph of concepts), it can be difficult to know how much must be spelt out and how much one can rely on common understandings. A complicating factor has to do with the ability to estimate your audience's diligence, energy, and interest in looking things up and/or thinking things through. And another complicating factor involves the semantic density of the words/phrases/expressions. If you use obscure but standard words, you assume the audience knows the dictionary. If you use jargon, you assume the audience is already familiar with the domain lexicon or is willing to learn it in order to listen to you.
All the above argues against compressed/thin descriptions and for fuller/thick descriptions. On 08/01/2016 01:28 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don't think a reader should be forced to choose between (1) or (2), but I would prefer that the writer be aware enough to refer to context rather than restating it as if it were their invention.
-- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
