[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jay JG wrote

> Do we really want "brilliant prose"?

Used to.

> Is that even possible in an
> Encyclopedia?  What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an
> Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples?  I would
have
> thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of
things
> we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an
> adamant point.

I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease.  Decent writing
always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).  In current affairs it is
far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style
book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty
good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without
distortion.

I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the
prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.

Charles

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]