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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au
[[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia.
Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity