On 7/29/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:
It's not so bad. It even helpfully glosses some of
the technical terms like 'mitosis' and 'histone'.
If you don't already know what DNA and genes are
then you probably need to read about those terms
first. Both articles are about as accessible to
laymen as I would expect in an encyclopaedia.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do better but from
my point of view most readers of these articles will
already have a basic familiarity with genetics / molecular
biology. To those readers wading through an explanation
of all terms from first principles (which are what?
what knowledge of biology and chemistry should we assume?)
in each article would be tiresome.
Firstly, I think a fair number of Wikipedia users who would look at a
page like chromosome will not be anything like experienced in the
field. They will be secondary school (=high school) students
beginning their study of genetics. Incidentally, this is exactly how
I found Wikipedia, doing some chemistry research into ethanoic acid,
finding myself at acetic acid, making a move suggestion on the talk
page, and I was thence hooked. But I digress.
Surely what should be done is a simple explanation at the start, for
those inexperienced in the field, and a more complex examination
later? I am confused about why this would not considered a good idea.
Perhaps "readers first" is not the best title. Perhaps "writing for
everyone" would be better. And a key factor of that is putting the
easy stuff at the beginning, so that those who don't understand the
complexities of the article don't get put off.
We do have to write to the lowest common denominator -- it's part of
being an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, some highest common factors (or
whatever the appropriate antonym is) can also be written for, but not
in a way that compromises the simple understanding of the topic. I
think that is the basis of Jon's proposal.
I struggle to find why people would argue with such an aim.
Sam