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 similar to those used in the SEED >> magazine article? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture >> >> http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_is_the_poincare_conjecture/ >> >> I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I found the SEED magazine >> article more accessible and I learnt more from it. > Unfortunately the magazine article completely ducks the issue of what > the conjecture is. Even on a charitable view, it confuses a necessary > with a sufficient condition, which would be the *whole point*. This kind > of this is actually why this one has not been solved yet on WP: we > (rightly) don't allow people to waffle around the facts in order to > claim they are explaining. (If you think we do badly, have a look at a > standard mathematical encyclopedia: http://eom.springer.de/p/p073000.htm.)
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. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l