[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

zero 0000 wrote
> 3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR :
>       "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the
>       primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
>       passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation
>       of primary source material requires a secondary source."
>   That seems to be broken.  Examples of specialist knowledge
>   which might be required are the ability to read a foreign 
>   language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.

I agree. Not only is this implausible in technical areas - it looks like an extrapolation from current affairs and biography - it is self-defeating there. The whole point of making good surveys, in less technical language and aimed at the 'general reader', is to make an honest reformulation of technical literature by reducing the jargon. The aim is to end up with readable articles, with reliable sources attached. It is not at all clear that the 'general reader' should be assumed competent to compare the originals, in say general relativity, with the formulation given. In fact the more this is insisted upon, the harder it may be to write for wide comprehension.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information