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 is why academics, or really any community of professionals, tend to develop it. However, if one uses too much of it, the reader begins to feel that he needs a higher level degree to understand what's going on. People who are not good writers tend to poorly handle the balance between needing to use common language and being precise. Getting people to "conform" to a style of writing that is somewhat contradictory and may require a skilled eye to interpret seems to me a bit of an unnecessarily complex battle. But I agree that maybe more can be done to highlight to people that they aren't really writing in a way that others understand. Or even somehow flagging to other editors who are better at writing that re-styling may be necessary. I'm all for making it easy for people to contribute their knowledge in a way they are comfortable with and then making it easy for others to make that knowledge more accessible. Divide and conquer, so to speak. On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

2012/5/29 Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>om>: 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, detailed, very well-referenced - and barely readable because of the legalese. Which is a shame, because this topic is quite useful for the general public. In another project about political economy, we got articles about potentially hard-to-understand things like Monetary union and Trade tariffs. They were of comparable quality with regards to referencing and comprehensiveness, but they were very readable, too (at least to me, and I'm not an economist). The lecturer with whom we worked on this project understood that Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible and demanded this in the assignment description. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Steven, In wanting to express thoughts, in the form of writing them, we can stumble when attempting to make a message clear and concise, as do we all from time to time. We are not alone in recognising that the act of writing requires careful editing. I have been selective (above) in picking out just some of the words and phrases you use in your emailed paragraphs; this is a willful act on my part, and more than likely is imbued with unfairness on my part, as to the selection. My selection of your words could be said to be presented 'out of context', and I would agree with that call. 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 for the dumbing down of articles in the 'Wikipedia Encyclopedia' when you suggest that they are too difficult to comprehend by 'the man in the street', (my phrase, and a commonly used one) by which I mean the 'ordinary citizen', the 'ordinary person'; it is a much used phrase I sardonically use in tandem with an apology to women. But here I have strayed from the clear and concise message I would like to be able to convey to you; so back on track... Good writing requires attention to good rules on writing; to a degree this is the rule rather than the exception. The magnificent work-in-progress that is the Wikipedia encyclopedia becomes much-lauded because people from all over the world and from all walks of life will and do contribute to it growth. If we begin to consider lowering the bar of excellence to some point of middle acceptance we are acting exclusively; we are not acting in good faith; we are not acting inclusively. Another personal comment if I may. It is my experience that those who, metaphorically speaking, 'cry' about having to read too many words are often too used to not wanting to read much and who have developed an ability to concentrate for shorter periods than others. Who is to say without the benefit of hindsight that this is a bad thing; but it seems a less than desirable trend. Anne Frazer Secretary Wikimedia Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Walling" <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible writing > 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. > > > That's not to say the articles written by regular volunteers are always so > concise and clear. But I think it's pretty obvious that professors and > grad > students in particular have trouble adapting to a more general interest > audience. This is an issue that could seriously impact how useful > Wikipedia > is to most of our potential readership around the world. > > 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? > > Steven > > 1. > http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiat… > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >

On 29 May 2012 00:30, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.