Wikipedia talk:Make articles useful for readers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supporters of "make articles useful for readers" include:

Opponents include:

Supporters of "consider the audience" include:

Opponents include:

  • 24 (as a protest--law and physics and economics like to steal short words and make them meaningless to everyone else, e.g. "cause", "Standard Model", "fiat"--we are not writing textbooks here with one point of view of one professor--if a field steals a short word, we should challenge that theft if their usage is anything but completely general.)
I protest the usurpation of the word "charm" by physicists!

Counter-argument: This is only relevant to Wikipedians who spend a lot of time here. New and infrequent contributors should only worry about doing stuff that's interesting to them; they can worry about "what's best for the community" later.

I see the two versions above as not too dissimilar. There is opportunity in a project such as this to layer the knowledge through a succession of links that go ever deeper. A top level article on physics may do little more than explain what physics is, and list its various branches; it should be written accordingly for the benefit of those who may need only that. Deeper level articles can then be more technical. Eclecticology

Contents

[edit] Jargon

I like that the first paragraph promotes equality of tasks, making explicit that it is the same whether one writes articles or spellchecks and fixes those articles, both help wikipedia.

However, the second paragraph is redundant with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader, which I find better. I don't see why there should not be an interdisciplinary discussion of rap that would use terms that are new for some readers, especially if these terms would add insight to and knowledge of rap. The opposite example, to assume that no one with pre-existing knowledge would like to learn about music on wikipedia, seems equally or more condesending; see:Wikipedia:Explain jargon.

Lastly, from the title of this page I assumed it would promote "practical" knowledge and provide a definition of "useful", and I think it would be a great addition to the policy. Hyacinth 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Many exceptions

I can see how this policy (keep audience in mind) is useful to understand how technical the article can go. But I don't think it helps to speak to a particular audience in other circumstances. That, in fact, defeats the purpose of a encyclopedia and potentially promote POVs. As an example, the hinduism articles sometimes tends to assume a Christian background of the reader and compare the religious practices to make the info readable to a westerner. Comparisons are acceptable sometimes but not when you are stating simple practices that don't need an example to be understood. Another place I found this is the Vegetarianism article. The editors assume a western audience (who make up maybe 15 % of vegetarians worldwide) and present it from that POV. In a current dispute, the motivations of majority of the world to turn vegetarian is religious, but the editors would like to keep that at the bottom as it may put off readers. So, by assuming a western audience, the editors are changing the layout of the page. Most English articles speak to a western audience (eurocentrism), ignoring the fact that the majority of English speakers resides in non-western countries (India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Africa etc).

I think the policyy should state 'Don't speak to a paticular audience - only exception being to determine how technical the page needs to be.' --Pranathi 19:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epidermis and Dermis

The Epidermis is the top layer of skin. The dermis is the bottom layer of skin. This is a boring topic.

[edit] Kaiser Wilhelm the Second

Kaiser Wilhelm the Second was born on do you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.126.3 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)