From: "Charles Matthews"
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
I would agree that Ec overstates the case. The point that seems to need
making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant
prose, which is one thing we also want. If clumsily or over-insistently
applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing.
Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating
awesomeness in the encyclopedia. I like to think in terms of two extremes,
Blandopedia and Gonzopedia. The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out.
But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's
existing
strengths.
Do we really want "brilliant prose"? 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.
Jay.