I agree. I do that sometimes (that is, writing
definitions within articles) in math articles, but
sometimes I feel I write too much and get slightly
off-topic. Also with math, there should be links on
the tops of math pages to some glossary of math
notation, because you can't just put a link in every
(actually, any) mathematical symbol. Although it's
probably impossible to have a *complete* set of math
notation, I think having the basics down would help.
I'm not sure if this would work, though, so please
tell me if it is feasible for me to work on.
My three cents worth (inflation, you know):
Any article in Wikipedia should present information
in such
a way that a person of average intelligence who's
motivated
to learn can interpret it and use it. In the
process, some
education is absolutely necessary. A number of
articles
start with arcane, technical language that even a
polymath
genius would have trouble deciphering if that isn't
one of
his/her knowledge areas. Presenting knowledge is a
process
of education. I assume that Rotem Dan meant that
entries
should not be pedantic in nature, with which I
agree, but
they must be educational by way of being accessible.
For
instance, if an article states something like "The
geological history of sedimentary rock is
stratigraphic in
nature," (not a real example in W.), then it should
be
rephrased to say something like "The geologic
history of
sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in nature; that
is, the
history is shown by the succession of strata, or
layers."
Then stratigraphic may be re-used without
explanation,
because it's been adequately explained. Simply
putting in a
link for stratigraphy is not sufficient (though it
should be
there) and invites the user to get lost in a maze of
multiple open windows and computer stress.
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com