Marc Riddell wrote:
From: "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com
Yes, this is problematic, but if the "experts" use so much jargon that the
lay reader cannot use the article, which is often the case, then it's as good as no article, because experts probably aren't consulting Wikipedia for information in their field. This is another area where it is hard to get some Wikipedia editors to see the problem, that using jargon, first isn't necessary, and that second, blue-linking jargon doesn't make it acceptable, and that third, if you can't explain it without the jargon maybe someone else should be writing it.
KP,
I absolutely agree with you. As I said somewhere else, the real test of an "expert" is their ability to explain something to someone who isn't. There are many, many fields I don't have a technical clue about, but I do have the curiosity to want to know something about. Therefore, my questions are going to be very basic ones, and it's a joy to come across a source that has the ability to answer these basic question in terms I can understand.
In Wikipedia, if an Article is written by an "expert" in the field, and it cannot be understood by someone who is not, it should be edited by another "expert" in that field with the ability to make it understood.
I'm led to believe that we have many articles on mathematics that could use this kind of treatment. :-)
People familiar with the jargon tend to be blind to the effect on the learnng of others. The use of WP: shortcuts on this mailing list is an example of this.
Ec