Actually, I think the point of the mathematics articles, is that many of them (especially the more advanced ones) are written and used by practising mathematicians. See the comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%253AWikiProject_Mathematics&action=historysubmit&diff=408581050&oldid=408567259 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. Carcharoth On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: > This is typical sophomoric writing, sometimes literally done by 2nd year > students, actual sophomores. It is not limited to math; my particular pet > peeve is our philosophy articles. > > A skilled teacher with years of experience teaching at the college level > can often make such subjects much more understandable. > > Fred > >> There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical >> articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie >> >> (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). >> >> And more here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Guideline_status_restored >> >> And the section immediately below it. >> >> I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_difficult >> >> The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at >> least), was reverted: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&diff=prev&oldid=414368190 >> >> With the edit summary: >> >> "It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people >> can follow the link)". >> >> Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. >> >> "In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The >> topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all >> equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in >> whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth >> 3-manifolds." >> >> I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it >> said that the 3-sphere is the "the surface of the [[unit ball]] in >> four-dimensional space." I suppose adding the word "informally" might >> soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. >> >> Carcharoth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l