[WikiEN-l] Being bold doesn't work anymore, or why our prose is so bad.

[Ben Yates]

We really, really need stable versions.  There's no point in trying to
spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we
get them; I gave up a long time ago.

On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a
> particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce
> goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
>
> Here are my changes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&oldid=151904678
>
> And the (partial) revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldid=156028841
>
> The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes
> "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is
> particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as
> for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable
> energy and may cause considerable damage ".
>
> Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is
> this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the
> payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much
> weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of
> clarity and readability?
>
> Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com