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

[Rich Holton]

Anthony wrote:
> On 9/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> K P wrote:
>>> On 9/9/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/9/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/9/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
>>>>>> Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
>>>>> But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is
>>>>> notable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a
>>>>>> link and that shows you the first paragraph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article -
>>>>>> not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that
>>>>>> specific subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching
>>>>> around for stuff to delete.  But I would think the times "normal
>>>>> people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more
>>>>> information about that subject are extremely rare.
>>>> I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's
>>>> often an interesting way to learn new things.  If articles didn't say
>>>> quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jonel
>>> Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important.  Also
>>> David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for
>>> those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible
>>> information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
>>>
>>> And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
>>>
>>> KP
>> Right! It's not at all unusual to come across someone's name in such a
>> way that does NOT give you any real context about that person.
>>
>> Just one example that comes to my mind: A few years back I was looking
>> at the lyrics to an old pop song called "Year of the Cat". One of the
>> lines goes (something like) "You go strolling through the crowd like
>> Peter Lorre contemplating a crime." At the time, I had no idea who Peter
>> Lorre was, but Wikipedia eliminated my ignorance. This sort of thing is
>> not all that unusual.
>>
> Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was
> notable while having no idea who he was.  He was notable because he
> was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
> 
>> One good thing about having the birth and death dates in the first line
>> is that it helps as a sort of "disambiguation". Since names are not
>> unique, it's not always clear that you have the right person when you
>> look someone up. But a date will often help to determine if you've found
>> the person you're looking for.
>>
> If you mean birth and death years, then I agree.  If you really do
> mean dates, I disagree for the reason I mentioned before.  It's too
> hard to be sure that you've got the birth and death date right
> (especially birth dates).  You wind up using a quote from some
> pop-magazine article or something, which most likely did no fact
> checking to make sure the date was correct.  I think in most cases
> it's best to just leave the birth date out, unless there's some
> significance to the particular date, it's trivia.
> 
Thanks for that clarification, Anthony. I did mean "years" not the full 
dates. I agree that the full dates are too much for the opening line, 
even if there's no question of getting them correct.

-Rich