[WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I
>> agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to
>> make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical
>> writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science
>> and maths topics.
>
> Yyyesss. A working subject matter expert who also happens to be a
> brilliant and lucid writer would be *ideal*, but in practice someone
> with sufficient broad knowledge and writing skill to do a reasonable
> piece of (what is effectively) science journalism is what we actually
> have in the best case. And really, that's pretty good. Channel your
> inner Isaac Asimov.

However, one of the arguments being put forward is that too much
explanation breaches the provisions against "not a textbook" and
"original research" (i.e. providing your own opinions instead of
sourcing it to others). I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, and
the view that there is a need to balance these issues that are in
tension with each other.

Carcharoth