There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical
articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie
(That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again).
And more here:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article
incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED
magazine article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture
This is typical sophomoric writing, sometimes literally done by 2nd year
students, actual sophomores. It is not limited to math; my particular pet
peeve is our philosophy articles.
A skilled teacher with years of experience teaching at the college level
can often make such subjects much more
Actually, I think the point of the mathematics articles, is that many
of them (especially the more advanced ones) are written and used by
practising mathematicians. See the comment here:
On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I
agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to
make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical
writers and
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I
agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to
make
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article
incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED
magazine article?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article
incorporate explanatory aspects
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I
agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to
make
On 17 February 2011 17:09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hmm. Tricky one. Would you put a link to that magazine article in the
external links? It might be missing the point, but it does give a
different perspective and a less dry one.
Something technical but right is 100%
On 17 February 2011 17:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right
is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But
then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good
writing.
Or is
On 17/02/2011 17:09, Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia
Here is my attempt at a historical explanation for the way things are
at the moment.
First, mathematicians in general are often reluctant to say things
that are mostly right but formally incorrect. It's part of the culture
of the field, which was reinforced by a certain writing style that
became
13 matches
Mail list logo
