"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
wrote in message news:fb7fdd9c05071105545dabd943@mail.gmail.com...
On 7/10/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/07/05, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
Take, for example, paracetamol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Mechanism_of_Toxicity
What the hell does that mean?! It is, frankly, total garbage.
Completely correct, no doubt, but meaningless to the vast amjority of
people - and a lot of people want to know why paracetamol can kill
them so easily.
Now that's a good example of overusing scientific terms. If
someone
had described the role of the pathways and what they actually were in
the article (did they?) a simply explaining what oversaturation is
would do the trick.
That section has, at time of reading, one single wikilink.
This presents a very good case for raising the bar on frequency of linking
to allow the first instance in any given section to be linked, rather than
in the whole article: I don't want to have to scroll up an unknown distance
to find where [[conjugation]] might be linked just so that I can find out
WTF it means, for example.
I wonder if there is also a problem wherein people are afraid to make short,
simple articles defining technical terms, which would cut down drastically
on duplication and allow wider linking, because of the perceived mania for
"getting rid of stubs" and "moving definitions to wiktionary".
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]