On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:42:06AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:58:18 +1000, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Maybe they are, but I have to express some dissappointment about our Physics articles. Many of them are over-complex and in particular do not lead into the complexity with a simple introduction so the reader who knows nothing about the topic will at least get an idea of what the article is about.
This is certainly true of some of the more obscure topics. I am reasonably well educated (good honours degree in electrical engineering), but have found at least half a dozen articles on physics topics that were close to unintelligible.
Some of this is due to the articles I get drawn to: in most cases it's because some loon is trying to rewrite the article to more accurately explain this Great New Way of looking at it that the journals inexplicably fail to follow up. If you get my drift.
I get your drift and this can be a problem. However, I suspect the problem is that many physicists think rigour is more important than being understood. Just my POV i guess. I can point ot articles that have just slowly been made unintelligible by people whose motives are pure.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l