On Thursday 16 September 2004 15:54, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
and don't
agree with usage of the term 'general audience' since that
implies (to me at least) a forking of content based on detail alone.
I don't think the term "general audience" implies any such thing.
I have here a book on stochastic differential equations from my old
days in hardcore mathematical financial theory. When I open the book
and start to read, I immediately notice that the book assumes a
certain context that I, sadly, no longer have. The book is
inappropriate for a general audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_mathematics on the other hand,
is a list of articles which, by and large, are appropriate for a
general audience. Many of them are quite challenging, to be sure, but
they are all written quite differently from a text on the subject
which assumes that you already know what you need to know to get
started.
It might be true for financial mathematics, but the level of detail presented
in category theory is far beyond "general audience", e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(category_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell's_embedding_theorem
This is why _I_ would say that we are not a "general audience" encylcopedia
anymore.
I would put it this way: topics the general audience could be interested in,
e.g. financial mathematics, should be written in such a way that they are
understandable for "general audience". But this does not imply that articles
beyond "general audience" should be forbidden. Articles about category theory
are fine, as are article about stochastic DE, even if they are not
understandable for "general audience".
best regards,
Marco