On 02/02/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What is troubling here is that this should be a
guideline. The standards of what makes a good introduction are
uncontroversial, widely known, and relatively straightforward.
It's not quite so straightforward, actually the details of
introductions seem to vary somewhat depending on what they are
introducing, an introduction for an essay is different to the
introduction for a book, is different to the introduction for an
encyclopedia article. You would hope that people would look at what an
encyclopedia article's introduction should look like from multiple
sources, but this apparently hasn't happened at all.
What, exactly, do people object to?
There seems to be a lot of reverts on 'consensus' grounds,
particularly about what the primary purpose (whatever that means
really) of the introduction should be, without ever referring to any
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.