On 29 May 2012 00:30, Steven Walling <steven.wall...@gmail.com> 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 volunteer projects can start to be bolder about letting
> academics know that they direly need to conform to the Wikipedia style of
> "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid
> ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
> Thoughts? Do people from non-English outreach programs to academics have
> any similar experiences?
In general, it's much easier to find good contributors of facts than
it is to find good contributors of facts who are also good writers.
Hence the flat dull grey Wikipedia house style - it's what happens
when people who aren't good writers write. And why any idiosyncrasy is
ruthlessly stamped out.
Although it's a problem, I'd suggest you completely leave it - having
the content is an improvement on not having it. YMMV of course.
There's always judicious addition of {{technical}} at the top ... but
the trouble is when it's actually quite a precise and technical topic.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
