> 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 things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical >>> writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science >>> and maths topics. >> >> Yyyesss. A working subject matter expert who also happens to be a >> brilliant and lucid writer would be *ideal*, but in practice someone >> with sufficient broad knowledge and writing skill to do a reasonable >> piece of (what is effectively) science journalism is what we actually >> have in the best case. And really, that's pretty good. Channel your >> inner Isaac Asimov. > > However, one of the arguments being put forward is that too much > explanation breaches the provisions against "not a textbook" and > "original research" (i.e. providing your own opinions instead of > sourcing it to others). I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, and > the view that there is a need to balance these issues that are in > tension with each other. > > Carcharoth >
Information needs to be usable by people with a wide range of competence. A well written article presents information in layers geared to the likely range of potential readers. I've had some luck with well-written textbooks, not copying them but using the way they explain things. That vitiates the original research objection. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
