On 2/27/07, T P t0m0p0@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting articles will establish context. They should be able to
show why the subject is interesting to someone who isn't already a fan/scholar/whatever of the subject. I would particualrly note that I think we'd be in much better shape if we stopped talking about notability and started talking about interestingness. This would put us in a position to give more of a pass to well-written, thorough articles on odd but cool topics. This is good - it has demonstrably proven itself to be something people expect from Wikipedia. [[Heavy Metal Umlaut]] anybody?
I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with someone who wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related [the subject] to people's lives". Frankly I don't think we need to "sell" a topic to the audience. People look up articles in an encyclopedia because they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a magazine where you come across the topic randomly.
Adam
I would say it's not really the same issue. Making an article interesting should not entail sexing it up. Some subjects are naturally boring, so it's key to write in a style that can maintain the reader's interest and focus. That's more important than adding in irrelevant minutiae in an attempt to keep the reader interested, which loses the point of the article - to focus on its subject, and to focus on it in a way that keeps the reader's attention.
Johnleemk