Anthere wrote:
Yes, on an article about human, it is perfectly logical to see a human in its natural state : nude.
Yes - there should be a photo with a naked man and naked women just standing side by side. I think Erik mentioned he knew of a public domain photo like that that was on a one of the gold plates on either a Pioneer or Voyager mission....
Yes - some photo is needed. I would suggest a photo of an African tribesman and a female companion in their traditional clothes since humans looked pretty much like that for most of our history. That would negate the need for completely naked photos too.
In this case, the topic of the article is the *penis*
And as already has been stated, a large number of penises are circumcised - especially in the United States.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:52:13AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
And as already has been stated, a large number of penises are circumcised - especially in the United States.
And as already has been stated, United States != world. [[Curcumcision]] says that a sixth of penises worldwide are circumcised. I would argue that that is not a large enough number in the current context.
<dangerous topic> What about FGM? You're probably asking "well, what about it" because it doesn't happen in the United States. But since it is widespread in certain cultures should we have pictures of it alongside the female genitalia? </dangerous topic>
Arvind
A notice for everyone who writes often on Wikipedia:
***Users do not read the page; they just scan it!***
See http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
Personally I agree completely with the article, which of course I haven't read but just scanned it and scrolled quickly from start to end picking interesting words to understand what it is all about.
May you Have PEACE PROFOUND, --Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:51:02AM -0800, Nikos-Optim wrote:
A notice for everyone who writes often on Wikipedia:
***Users do not read the page; they just scan it!***
I've read this (the whole series); it applies to marketers etc who want to "push" information on to readers and not to an academic entity where readers come to _get_ information. The style of an encyclopedia should be scholarly, more like a book than a brochure.
Nonetheless several of the ideas in those articles are general and would apply to us as well, such as express only one idea per paragraph.
Arvind
As a matter of fact, after scannig those lines at useit.com, one gets the impression that it is the same as with books. Good readers (and people reading WP articles are -for my part- assumed to be good readers do not read word by word EVER. Even a book. It is absolutely hideous and the worst way to get information. Only in the interent people read faster because they do not look for verbose info (even less for style).
One idea per paragraph is a basic style concept. highlighting, sub-headings. lists, etc.. well that is pretty obvious if the reader looks for SPECIFIC DETAILS. Not necessarily so in an encyclopedia (which needs to give also circumstancial details).
etc...
In any case, good sectioning, structuring and heading are the keys for any text to be started to be read.
Pedro.
At 12:11 PM 1/12/04 +0100, you wrote:
As a matter of fact, after scannig those lines at useit.com, one gets the impression that it is the same as with books. Good readers (and people reading WP articles are -for my part- assumed to be good readers do not read word by word EVER. Even a book. It is absolutely hideous and the worst way to get information. Only in the interent people read faster because they do not look for verbose info (even less for style).
Many good readers--and I count myself as one--read at least some books word for word. And when we write--which is what we're doing for Wikipedia--we intend every word to be read.
Yes, it is possible to scan certain documents. Textbooks in particular are often written so that readers in a hurry can get an overview by reading just the first sentence of each paragraph. But readers who have more time will learn more by reading the whole text. Otherwise, why would anyone bother writing it, instead of just writing the first sentences?
Sure, we should write so that the reader can learn something even if she only has time, or desire, to read part of the article. And yes, well-organized sections and headers are helpful. But if nobody is going to read something, I see no point in writing and publishing it.
On Jan 12, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Sure, we should write so that the reader can learn something even if she only has time, or desire, to read part of the article. And yes, well-organized sections and headers are helpful. But if nobody is going to read something, I see no point in writing and publishing it.
Yes, people will read the details, but if we can make articles more accessible to people looking for only a sense of the topic, as well as people scanning a specific detail, all the better.
Peter
--- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show
On Saturday 10 January 2004 12:52, Daniel Mayer wrote:
And as already has been stated, a large number of penises are circumcised - especially in the United States.
I estimate that, of 3,000,000,000 available penises in the world, only around 650,000,000 are circumcised, while 2,350,000,000 are not.