[Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible writing

[Ms. Anne Frazer]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> But I was left with a nagging annoyance: these articles are almost all
> incomprehensible to someone without a advanced college education and a 
> high
> degree of proficiency in English. Topics as basic as [[job satisfaction]]
> or [[social network game]] are written like a literature review or a paper
> for a journal. When an article about gaming on Facebook is that academic, 
> I
> think we might have a problem. ;-)

>'...articles written by regular volunteers...'

 >'...adapting to a more general interest audience.'

>'to write unnecessarily complex prose.'

>'"Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid 
>ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."'

Hi Steven,
In wanting to express thoughts, in the form of writing them, we can stumble 
when attempting to make a message clear and concise, as do we all from time 
to time. We are not alone in recognising that the act of writing requires 
careful editing. I have been selective (above) in picking out just some of 
the words and phrases you use in your emailed paragraphs; this is a willful 
act on my part, and more than likely is imbued with unfairness on my part, 
as to the selection. My selection of your words could be said to be 
presented 'out of context', and I would agree with that call.

However, when I read your words, the essence of your comments is clear in 
that part of your message is couched in attacking good prose because it is 
too difficult to read and understand. I remind myself that you don't mean to 
engage in a call for the dumbing down of articles in the 'Wikipedia 
Encyclopedia' when you suggest that they are too difficult to comprehend by 
'the man in the street', (my phrase, and a commonly used one) by which I 
mean the 'ordinary citizen', the 'ordinary person'; it is a much used phrase 
I sardonically use in tandem with an apology to women. But here I have 
strayed from the clear and concise message I would like to be able to convey 
to you; so back on track...

Good writing requires attention to good rules on writing; to a degree this 
is the rule rather than the exception. The magnificent work-in-progress that 
is the Wikipedia encyclopedia becomes much-lauded because people from all 
over the world and from all walks of life will and do contribute to it 
growth. If we begin to consider lowering the bar of excellence to some point 
of middle acceptance we are acting exclusively; we are not acting in good 
faith; we are not acting inclusively.

Another personal comment if I may. It is my experience that those who, 
metaphorically speaking, 'cry' about having to read too many words are often 
too used to not wanting to read much and who have developed an ability to 
concentrate for shorter periods than others. Who is to say without the 
benefit of hindsight that this is a bad thing; but it seems a less than 
desirable trend.

Anne Frazer
Secretary
Wikimedia Australia


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Walling" <steven.walling at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible writing


> Hey folks,
>
> Today I was browsing the many fine articles that have been edited on EN as
> part of the Wikipedia initiative by the Association for Psychological
> Science.[1] There is no doubt that the articles which these professors and
> students have worked are better by any measure of quality.
>
> But I was left with a nagging annoyance: these articles are almost all
> incomprehensible to someone without a advanced college education and a 
> high
> degree of proficiency in English. Topics as basic as [[job satisfaction]]
> or [[social network game]] are written like a literature review or a paper
> for a journal. When an article about gaming on Facebook is that academic, 
> I
> think we might have a problem. ;-)
>
> That's not to say the articles written by regular volunteers are always so
> concise and clear. But I think it's pretty obvious that professors and 
> grad
> students in particular have trouble adapting to a more general interest
> audience. This is an issue that could seriously impact how useful 
> Wikipedia
> is to most of our potential readership around the world.
>
> I think the addition of uncovered topics and much-needed citations 
> balances
> out the inherent tendency of academics to write unnecessarily complex
> prose. But maybe there are ways that folks in the General Education 
> Program
> at the WMF and in volunteer projects can start to be bolder about letting
> academics know that they direly need to conform to the Wikipedia style of
> "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid
> ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
>
> Thoughts? Do people from non-English outreach programs to academics have
> any similar experiences?
>
> Steven
>
> 1.
> http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>