Which readers should we serve?

[Nick Gardner]

It has been suggested to me that my contributions are acceptable only if they conform to the ruling academic conventions. My purpose, on the contrary, has been to make the subject intelligible to the intelligent layman, and for that reason I have tried to  eschew all esoteric verbiage. Should I try to mend my ways, or if I not,   should I  keep out?
Nick Gardner

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I hope that doesn't refer to any of my suggestions to you, Nick!

[Chris Day]

We should serve all readers.  I think it is possible to have different layers of difficulty within one article. Alternatively, primer articles with more complex ones that bring the themes together. You could use boxes within the text to try and simplfy, or cartoons to clarify. Finally, you can use the subpages Student Level or Tutorials for the simplified presentation of a topic that is otherwise at an undergraduate or even graduate level. This last subpage idea has not been developed at all yet, as you'll see by the links.

[RJensen]

The target audience is the university educated student or graduate.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

The target audience is the university educated student or graduate.

And is this different from the intelligent layman or not? I have to say, Richard, that a university degree does not qualify one for the accolade of "intelligence" any more than its non-possession implies lack of intelligence.

Shakespeare is commonly thought to have had only a school education, although this is now doubted simply because people cannot believe that his achievements were possible without a university background. Interesting, no?

[Aleta Curry]

It has been suggested to me that my contributions are acceptable only if they conform to the ruling academic conventions. My purpose, on the contrary, has been to make the subject intelligible to the intelligent layman, and for that reason I have tried to  eschew all esoteric verbiage. Should I try to mend my ways, or if I not,   should I  keep out?
Nick Gardner

Nick, I've no idea what experience has led you to this (and I'm not asking!)

I write to the intelligent layman, myself.  (Sometimes I have to use a little "esoteric verbiage" I suppose, in the form of the specific vocabulary of the subject, but even then I try to explain it intelligently but simply.)

I don't happen to think an encyclopaedia should be unintelligible, in fact, I think it should be easy to read.  Excess verbiage should be eschewed, esoteric or not.  As should excess erudition.  No one here has to prove they're clever--it's pretty evident.
 
Yes, Chris, you're right, we *should* serve all readers.  And thanks for the info about the subpages--didn't occur to me and I will certainly be using them when and if appropriate from now on!

[RJensen]

People who attend university these days are the prime CZ audience. people who want to self-educate themselves will love CZ, and expect it to be at a university level. 

There are encyclopedia out there for children and they are quite difficult to write for.  I was a consultant this summer on some history books for 8 year olds.  The editor gave lots of attention to simplified vocabulary, very short, easy sentences, and her stress was on illustrations rather than text. That's a legitimate enterprise but not for CZ, in my opinion.

[Derek Harkness]

I think Richards first post got caught out by being to brief. His second reply is closer to the mark.

In previous discussions the target person has been described as - Finished High school. Has the ability to, or is already studying at University level or has completed their University study, however may not be studying the field that the article is on.

So you can assume the reader has a general level of knowledge but you should not assume any specialist knowledge. In short we could use the term "intelligent lay person."

[Joe Quick]

There are encyclopedia out there for children and they are quite difficult to write for.  I was a consultant this summer on some history books for 8 year olds.  The editor gave lots of attention to simplified vocabulary, very short, easy sentences, and her stress was on illustrations rather than text. That's a legitimate enterprise but not for CZ, in my opinion.

I think such an enterprise should be a part of the CZ mission eventually.  But it's not yet.  We need to make more progress on the main encyclopedia first.

I try, as much as possible, to use language that will be accessible to the intelligent layman/freshman college student.  If it comes down to a choice between specialized terms and not including something, then I opt for the harder language, but I find that it is rare that I can't find a clearer way to say something that I first thought was difficult.

[Aleta Curry]

Yeah.  I just commented on this at the 'textbook or not' thread.

[Nick Gardner]

I accept that instead of the "intelligent layman", I should have written "university student or graduate". But there are many in that category to whom the conventions adopted by political science academics are opaque, if not incomprehensible - including  some graduate economists!  In posing the question I was, perhaps, looking for support for the implied suggestion that we should  ignore  those conventions. Others must be providing useful cribs for students of politics who want to impress their tutors. I suggest that CZ should not attempt to compete with them. Should it?
Nick Gardner
PS:  It wasn't you, Martin.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Nick: if you have specific questions about political science conventions, you may address them to me as an Editor with a background in political economy. Conventions have positive and negative aspects, and we will need to balance these on CZ. See also the similar debate for natural sciences on : http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1391.msg12259.html#msg12259

[RJensen]

A agree with Martin. If there are conventions that are opaque or difficult we should explain them better--and certainly not ignore them. It would be a feather for CZ to have serious undergraduates turn to us in quest for learning to impress their tutors.

[Nick Gardner]

Point taken. Thank you all for putting me right.
Nick Gardner

[Denis Cavanagh]

I think knowledge is a universal pursuit, and therefore Citizendium articles should be aimed at most people. History articles, for example, should be able to describe events and situations to the ordinary Joe on the street.