Phil Sandifer wrote
But it's approach to all of its topics is that of a general encyclopedia. So even when we have an article on, say, Vermont State Highway 26, the approach is that of a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. This is a VITAL distinction in terms of understanding what the content of an article should be.
Maybe so, but not necessarily a tenable one. There are going to be articles on, say, string theory, where the content you need to approach the article at all will be behind some wikilinks. Same applied broadly across technical areas. Articles split out of general surveys, to cover something specialise in depth, should not be criticised for doing that and not something else. Not everyone likes the ten-second scroll to get to the meat.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 06/11/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Maybe so, but not necessarily a tenable one. There are going to be articles on, say, string theory, where the content you need to approach the article at all will be behind some wikilinks. Same applied broadly across technical areas. Articles split out of general surveys, to cover something specialise in depth, should not be criticised for doing that and not something else. Not everyone likes the ten-second scroll to get to the meat.
Depends. This is an editorial style consideration. It should take about half a sentence on the front to give context. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXA has a somewhat clumsy "In computing, in the X Window System, in the X.Org Server," on the front. Just a quick "you are here," with the subtext "and you probably don't want to be" for anyone who would find the article gibberish. The same should be easily possible for mathematics, science and so forth.
- d.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
Maybe so, but not necessarily a tenable one. There are going to be articles
on, say, string theory, where the content you need to approach the article at all will be behind some wikilinks.
Its not a bad thing, but the way that articles are topically differentiated falls in accord with some atomic principle which is usually very minimalist and leaves little for sake of introduction. Thats why I generally have focused on the first few paragraphs, as the proper place to define all the generally meaty things about a topic. A good lede frames everything about an article, and Ive been extremely impressed with the quality of writing in general on WP.
Coincidentally, thats what shows up in the navpopup. If it wasnt for Lupin's navpops some of the material Charles mentions wouldnt be readable at all for a novice audience. I for one would like to see those implemented standard. People might be impressed with WP and get a better sense of what hyperlinks are really about.
-SV