[WikiEN-l] It's not a good Unified Field Theory unless...
b_duke at bigpond.net.au
Sun Jul 1 10:51:21 UTC 2007
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:42:06AM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:58:18 +1000, Brian Salter-Duke
> <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >Maybe they are, but I have to express some dissappointment about our
> >Physics articles. Many of them are over-complex and in particular do not
> >lead into the complexity with a simple introduction so the reader who
> >knows nothing about the topic will at least get an idea of what the
> >article is about.
> This is certainly true of some of the more obscure topics. I am
> reasonably well educated (good honours degree in electrical
> engineering), but have found at least half a dozen articles on physics
> topics that were close to unintelligible.
> Some of this is due to the articles I get drawn to: in most cases it's
> because some loon is trying to rewrite the article to more accurately
> explain this Great New Way of looking at it that the journals
> inexplicably fail to follow up. If you get my drift.
I get your drift and this can be a problem. However, I suspect the
problem is that many physicists think rigour is more important than
being understood. Just my POV i guess. I can point ot articles that have
just slowly been made unintelligible by people whose motives are pure.
> Guy (JzG)
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Brian Salter-Duke b_duke at bigpond.net.au
[[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia.
Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
More information about the WikiEN-l