Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:05 AM, wrote:
The evolved Wikipedia house style is a grey stodgy morass. Some bits are better written than others, but it's getting noted:
http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2008/05/wikipedia-enabling-th...
(that's a blog post quoting a book that isn't online)
How to fix this scalably?
You can't. We (speaking corporately) have specifically designed our policies and guidelines so the error the author points out *cannot* be remedied without massive massive amounts of work.
His example contrasts
"Ahab seeks one specific whale, Moby-Dick, a great white whale of tremendous size and ferocity. Comparatively few whaling ships know of Moby-Dick, and fewer yet have knowingly encountered the whale. In a previous encounter, the whale destroyed Ahab's boat and bit off Ahab's leg. Ahab intends to exact revenge on the whale."
with
"As he makes very clear to Starbuck, his first mate, Captain Ahab envisions in Moby-Dick the visible form of a malicious Fate which governs man thoughtlessly..." "a crazed captain whose one thought is the capture of a ferocious monster that had maimed him..." "Ahab's monomania is seen then in his determination to view the White Whale as the symbol of all the evil of the universe."
The latter fragments are certainly more interesting. But do you know what I feel instinctively as I read the latter? I feel alarm bells going off. Alarm bells which have names like NOR, NPOV, TONE, WP:PEACOCK, and so on. I can in my mind's eye see an editor adding a comment "Monomania is a specific psychological term; do we have a cite for applying it to Ahab or is this just a rhetorical flourish that should be removed per...?"
Yes, perhaps a particularly assiduous editor could track down apt citations (perhaps 3 or 4 cites could adequately armor the first quote, at least). But our current system is simply constructed so that one can only write such an article if one is willing to go to superhuman lengths in sourcing and defending it, or if one is willing to quite simply ignore policy and guideline in the interests of great prose and suffer the consequent assaults (such people seem to have a tendency to burn out. I have no idea why).
FAs can perhaps take the former route, but the rest of us? I am content to write articles whose prose is bland mediocrity but which I will not die the death of a thousand nights in the library, or of a thousand cuts.
Different subject areas require different approaches to editing, and different styles. The detached style of a technical article about advanced mathematics may be suitable for that subject, but it turns people away from reading the great works of literature. Describing a metaphor is on a par with trying to explain a joke to the one person in the room who doesn't understand it.
Ec