On 29 May 2012 00:30, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the addition of uncovered topics and
much-needed citations balances
out the inherent tendency of academics to write unnecessarily complex
prose. But maybe there are ways that folks in the General Education Program
at the WMF and in volunteer projects can start to be bolder about letting
academics know that they direly need to conform to the Wikipedia style of
"Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid
ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
Thoughts? Do people from non-English outreach programs to academics have
any similar experiences?
In general, it's much easier to find good contributors of facts than
it is to find good contributors of facts who are also good writers.
Hence the flat dull grey Wikipedia house style - it's what happens
when people who aren't good writers write. And why any idiosyncrasy is
ruthlessly stamped out.
Although it's a problem, I'd suggest you completely leave it - having
the content is an improvement on not having it. YMMV of course.
There's always judicious addition of {{technical}} at the top ... but
the trouble is when it's actually quite a precise and technical topic.
- d.