On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
