David Gerard wrote:
Argument intelligent enough, use of "notable" is off-base though since for us notability is an attribute of topics.
Charles
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Argument intelligent enough, use of "notable" is off-base though since for us notability is an attribute of topics.
He's describing WP for an external audience. Not his fault that we have internal jargon which is not entirely aligned with outside standard english.
A lot of scientists hate science writers for imprecise writing. But it's unavoidable - you lose something when you step away from the jargon, and if you don't step away from the jargon then the mass readership loses you immediately.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Argument intelligent enough, use of "notable" is off-base though since for us notability is an attribute of topics.
He's describing WP for an external audience. Not his fault that we have internal jargon which is not entirely aligned with outside standard english.
Actually, Charles was probably referring to these sentences:
"...the debate over which sources are notable..."
"...since there's consensus that the [New York] Times is a notable source..."
Doctorow (the author of the article) should have said *reliable* sources, not notable sources.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Argument intelligent enough, use of "notable" is off-base though since for us notability is an attribute of topics.
He's describing WP for an external audience. Not his fault that we have internal jargon which is not entirely aligned with outside standard english.
Actually, Charles was probably referring to these sentences:
"...the debate over which sources are notable..."
"...since there's consensus that the [New York] Times is a notable source..."
Doctorow (the author of the article) should have said *reliable* sources, not notable sources.
Ah, missed that. I sit corrected.