[WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles

[Fred Bauder]

> 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
>

Information needs to be usable by people with a wide range of competence.
A well written article presents information in layers geared to the
likely range of potential readers. I've had some luck with well-written
textbooks, not copying them but using the way they explain things. That
vitiates the original research objection.

Fred