"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote in message news:fb7fdd9c05071105545dabd943@mail.gmail.com... On 7/10/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/07/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Take, for example, paracetamol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Mechanism_of_Toxicity What the hell does that mean?! It is, frankly, total garbage. Completely correct, no doubt, but meaningless to the vast amjority of people - and a lot of people want to know why paracetamol can kill them so easily.
Now that's a good example of overusing scientific terms. If someone had described the role of the pathways and what they actually were in the article (did they?) a simply explaining what oversaturation is would do the trick.
That section has, at time of reading, one single wikilink.
This presents a very good case for raising the bar on frequency of linking to allow the first instance in any given section to be linked, rather than in the whole article: I don't want to have to scroll up an unknown distance to find where [[conjugation]] might be linked just so that I can find out WTF it means, for example.
I wonder if there is also a problem wherein people are afraid to make short, simple articles defining technical terms, which would cut down drastically on duplication and allow wider linking, because of the perceived mania for "getting rid of stubs" and "moving definitions to wiktionary".
HTH HAND