2012/5/29 David Gerard <[email protected]>: > No, I think it's incorrect to assume "readable" is a euphemism for > "dumbed down". Frankly, many academics are terrible writers. Because > most people are terrible writers.
Indeed. As Wikipedia is a general reference work I think that readability is part of the quality. A text that is not understood by the supposed readers is a bad text. In the Wikipedia lessons at Stuttgart School for the Media, which I accompany, I try to stress out how important this quality element is. Frequently I don't understand Wikipedia articles which deal with technical and (natural) science subjects. We historians have the reputation to be some of the best writers among scientists, but sometimes I wonder whether my articles are as comprehensible as I believe they are. I would like to see more feedback from readers, but am afraid that the Article Feedback Tool is still not a good solution. I am afraid that most of those Wikipedians who could need readability lessons are not aware of the problems they cause to readers. Kind regards Ziko -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
