Charles Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > So it tells you what QFT does, not what it is (unsurprising, with the jury > still out).
Hm.. "Quantum field theory (QFT) *is* a claimed theoretical framework for constructing quantum-mechanical models of systems classically described by fields of of many-body systems." "Alleged.." might work too. 'Jury still out?' For 80 years? Maybe the folks working on String Field Theory (SFT) can suffice as a kind of 'jury' on QFT? > But neutrality means, surely, that treatments > that are really "introduction to X from the POV of Y" are out of place, > or at least to be seriously deprecated. WWIN might be the actual place to say that 'Wikipedia is not a place for introductory-level articles.' It's a valid argument, even if it confronts our natural desire to explain things, but is it another paradox? Does our encyclopedic constraint put a severe limitation on the educational potential of our articles? Does the "sum of all *information*" limitation represent an obstacle to explanationism? If the subject matter is too high-level for someone, then the real issue for editors is that just stating its constituent concepts is probably not enough for those readers. Well-edited topic-boxes serve quite well to at least get a sense of the conceptual scope, and that helps. What might work in such cases is maybe outlining all or most of the prerequisite concepts in maybe a separate standard type of "Prerequisites" section, which shows link-trees/branches/chains for the main required prerequisites necessary for understanding most of the subject. This might fulfill the "introduction" concept to some degree, even if that kind of article "section" would be an innovation as far as encyclopedias go. WP:Concept deals with most of the rest. -Stevertigo WP:The real 'discovery' channel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
