On 2 June 2010 12:42, David Lindsey <dvdlndsy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So, then, why are we trying? Why do the
"best" Wikipedia articles look more
and more like (poorly done) journal literature reviews full of technical
terms and requiring substantial background knowledge to understand? I, for
one, despite several years of college mathematics find nearly all math
articles largely incomprehensible because they are clearly not aimed at the
general reader. But, the general reader IS Wikipedia's audience, and we
should write the articles that best serve him.
It's because ability to look up and cite facts is a lot more common
than actually being a good writer. There's little cure for this apart
from actual good writing being applied.
The "best" articles are the creation of algorithmic and
judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
How to measure good writing?
Personally I would prefer an article to have all the details on a
subject and imperfect lumpy writing than be polished with details
smoothed away. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I see nothing
wrong with that being visible. But that's just me, I wouldn't
generalise it to everyone.
The easy thing concerned Wikipedians could do is at least make sure
article summary intros are well-written and concise without losing
important detail - remember that the lead should ideally be a
standalone short article in itself. (The mobile gateway presents
articles this way by default, for instance.)
That said, sometimes I'm freshly amazed by this thing we've built. I
looked up [[Betelgeuse]] yesterday (because of the rumours that it was
about to finally go supernova [*]) and, of course, found myself with
about thirty tabs on supernovae, giant stars, neutrinos, why neutrinos
have mass ... it was all *really good*, *impeccably referenced* and
*up to date*. Some of the writing was clunky, but I'm enough of an
editor and popular science fan to have been able to untangle bits.
This Wikipedia thing - it's often really very good indeed, you know.
- d.
[*] Bad Astronomy: Is Betelgeuse about to blow?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/01/is-betelgeuse-abo…