On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:30 AM Steven Walling <steven.wall...@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.wall...@gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
