On 4/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission
<fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is
that many of the articles I have
seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't
guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should
be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a
(red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps
even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple,
saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime,
click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to
describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would
shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy
that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Typically though you can use a simple vocabulary to define words as
you use them, though, which gives you a little room to work. "Nuclear
fission" certainly isn't in the simple 1,000 but you can build up an
explanation of an atom, a nucleus, a neutron, and so on.
Of course there's no real way to do justice to Heidegger that way, but
one should be able to get the basic points across. "Heidegger believes
that technology makes people see the world as only a resource to be
used (which he calls 'standing-reserve'). He thinks this is bad, and
that people will never be able to understand things as they really
are." Not perfect, but it's close...
FF