2012/5/29 David Gerard :
> No, I think it's incorrect to assume "readable" is a euphemism for
> "dumbed down". Frankly, many academics are terrible writers. Because
> most people are terrible writers.
Indeed. As Wikipedia is a general reference work I think that
readability is part of the quality.
On 29 May 2012 05:41, Ms. Anne Frazer wrote:
> However, when I read your words, the essence of your comments is clear in
> that part of your message is couched in attacking good prose because it is
> too difficult to read and understand. I remind myself that you don't mean to
> engage in a call f
On 29 May 2012 00:30, Steven Walling wrote:
> I think the addition of uncovered topics and much-needed citations balances
> out the inherent tendency of academics to write unnecessarily complex
> prose. But maybe there are ways that folks in the General Education Program
> at the WMF and in volun
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Ms. Anne Frazer wrote:
>
> However, when I read your words, the essence of your comments is clear in
> that part of your message is couched in attacking good prose because it is
> too difficult to read and understand. I remind myself that you don't mean
> to engage
sight that this is a bad thing; but it seems a less than
desirable trend.
Anne Frazer
Secretary
Wikimedia Australia
- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Walling"
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
>
> Thoughts?
> Steven
>
> 1.
>
> http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https
2012/5/29 Steven Walling :
> Thoughts? Do people from non-English outreach programs to academics have
> any similar experiences?
Depends on the particular project and the people involved.
In a project about Tort law we got several dozens of Hebrew articles
about the subject and they were long, de
On 5/28/2012 5:08 PM, Anya Shyrokova wrote:
My main thought is that the statement: "Writing should be clear and
concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or
unnecessarily complex wording" is somewhat self-contradictory. Jargon
exists in order to increase precision and
My main thought is that the statement: "Writing should be clear and
concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or
unnecessarily complex wording" is somewhat self-contradictory. Jargon
exists in order to increase precision and decrease vagueness/ unnecessary
wording. That
Hey folks,
Today I was browsing the many fine articles that have been edited on EN as
part of the Wikipedia initiative by the Association for Psychological
Science.[1] There is no doubt that the articles which these professors and
students have worked are better by any measure of quality.
But I w
10 matches
Mail list logo
