At 11:00 -0800 3/4/06, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 4/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using only words of four letters or less.
That easy!
:-)
a) c is the same all over
b) time x y z all same over all ways
******
In big words:
(a) constancy of the speed of light
(b) principle of equivalence for inertial frames.
YMMV,