JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com I would agree that Ec overstates the case. The point that seems to need making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant prose, which is one thing we also want. If clumsily or over-insistently applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing. Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating awesomeness in the encyclopedia. I like to think in terms of two extremes, Blandopedia and Gonzopedia. The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out. But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's existing strengths.
Do we really want "brilliant prose"? Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
I'm sure that a lot of authors of software manuals live with the illusion that their writing is clear and concise.
Brilliant prose keeps the reader engaged. When a writing needs to deal with opposing views on a subject coherent narative prose is even more important. If each sentence must immediately be followed by a sentence expressing the alternate POV it will be much less readable than if the pros and cons can be expressed in two separate paragraphs. Awkward prose chases readers away.
Ec