Which readers should we serve?

[Paul Wormer]

I once had the pleasure to live in a furnished house with the Encyclopedia Brittanica (a 70s edition) in it. I remember reading and enjoying an article on the Battle of Waterloo (1815), trying to read on topology (which was too difficult for me, although a was an full Applied Math professor at the time) and reading Van Vleck's (1977 Nobel prize) article on quantum mechanics, which was just right for me, because I know a bit about quantum mechanics.  The Brittanica is my hero, and therefore my opinion is that, just as the Brittanica, CZ should not aim for having all articles to be readable by all folks.  We should strive for  leads of  articles that are understandable by everyone, and in my view the bodies of the articles may be as specialized as the authors want. Even non-specialists may be able to pick up something from such bodies, although they may not understand it all.

[RJensen]

I think Paul Wormer has it exactly right.
The World Book Encyclopedia solved the problem by easy opening paragraphs, that get harder and harder as it goes on. It is aimed at schoolchildren. and the younger ones will only read the opening.

[a.a.s.]

We should strive for  leads of  articles that are understandable by everyone, and in my view the bodies of the articles may be as specialized as the authors want. Even non-specialists may be able to pick up something from such bodies, although they may not understand it all.

I can only second this idea.

[Hayford Peirce]

Well, I third it, and this is what I have, apparently ineptly, been trying to say all along.  How about us trying to make this "Official Policy" or some such, graven in big stony tablets?

[Patrice Gross]

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.

I strongly disagree. I shall not write articles in the newspaper style. The ordinary man can find ordinary informations everywhere on the web: he'll hardly differentiate between checked and unchecked informations, therefore he don't need Citizendium.

In my opinion, Citizendium must be a worthwhile alternative to classic encyclopedias, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, so we should serve the same readership.

Patrice Gross

[geneshackman]

Just wanted to mention, Larry Sanger says this:

"Second, I want to underscore the fact that CZ has always been clearly described as being aimed at a college-educated audience, approximately the level of the Britannica.  This means it should be written clearly for a lay audience.  I'm greatly chagrined if this comes as news to anyone.  That said, unlike Britannica, the Citizendium is a digital encyclopedia project, and there are few constraints on what topics we may choose.  This means we may choose very specialized and inherently technical topics.  Therefore, while our general articles about rockets or space travel should be written for the college-educated audience (not specialists) and should explain any jargon they include, for such an audience, we are also open to articles about the technical design and operation of spacecraft.  Presumably, there is no way to discuss such topics except with a lot of jargon much of which could not be explained without making the article too long and unreadable.  Of course, we should always strive to make our articles as clear as possible and as free of unnecessary jargon as possible. "
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2575.30.html
~~~~

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Just wanted to mention, Larry Sanger says this:
...Therefore, while our general articles about rockets or space travel should be written for the college-educated audience (not specialists) and should explain any jargon they include, for such an audience, we are also open to articles about the technical design and operation of spacecraft
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2575.30.html

It was meant as no more than a funny response to Aleta saying something "wasn't rocket science", but I went ahead and wrote the article on rocket science (which really is rocket engineering). That article is somewhat technical, and indeed I have suspended work until I decide how to typeset, or import as graphics, some things that tend to be called the Basic Rocket Equations.  Still, I deliberately wrote that article with a bit of humor, because it isn't really an accurate technical term. I've taught at Kennedy Space Center, and I doubt any of my students or colleagues would have called themselves rocket scientists. Perhaps some of the fuel chemists and ion drive propulsion physicists might have done so, but they were at a completely different basic research lab.

Prior to that, however, I wrote introductory technology articles including unguided rocket, rocket motor, and on simple historical rockets such as the V-2 and SS-1 SCUD.

I've written on some perhaps more complex, but still not super-technical issues, such as Missile Technology Control Regime. Then, there are specific aspects that will require background, such as the Network Centric Air Defense Element (missile) or Novator R-172. One quite technical article to which I contributed, but couldn't have written from the start, is atmospheric reentry -- but I could and did add to the specific technologies used for missile reentry.

Enough examples. I see the problem less as trying to find the perfect level for each article, and more to be sure we have top-level articles, lots of links/redirects/related articles, and make sure the reader understands that he or she should look for the right level.  Are we asking the right question when we keep asking "what is the right level?" I suggest there isn't One Level.  The right question  "how do we make it easy for people to navigate to the level they need?"

[David E. Volk]

Reading things we don't understand creates knowledge and with the presence of links, even very technical concepts can be learned by clicking on the jargon links on a need-to-know basis.  So aim high in your writing and provide links as safety lines for the those that need additional background

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Reading things we don't understand creates knowledge and with the presence of links, even very technical concepts can be learned by clicking on the jargon links on a need-to-know basis.  So aim high in your writing and provide links as safety lines for the those that need additional background

But isn't there also a basic knowledge level? Doesn't one at least have to have a basic idea of infectious disease before getting into generic antibiotics, which should introduce risks and benefits? Eventually, someone may link their way to dealing with multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis, particularly with cofactors of immunosuppression and the social implications of Directly Observed Therapy.

Links are good, but they have to be grasped, and some general readers may not know they need to do it. Ever heard the story about the preacher in the flood, who told some guys in a boat that he didn't need help, because $DEITY would provide?  Later, with the water to his waist, an advanced water rescue vessel offered, and he turned them away. A helicopter dropped him a harness, with water to his neck, and he waved it off.

Blub-blub-blub.

Arriving in Heaven, he asked "Why didn't you save me?"

"I sent you two boats and a helicopter. What did you want, a band of angels comin' for to take you home?"

[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.

I strongly disagree. I shall not write articles in the newspaper style. The ordinary man can find ordinary informations everywhere on the web: he'll hardly differentiate between checked and unchecked informations, therefore he don't need Citizendium.

In my opinion, Citizendium must be a worthwhile alternative to classic encyclopedias, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, so we should serve the same readership.

Patrice Gross

Sorry for being over a year late to respond, but I have had some thoughts recently on this:

History, unlike many other arts and humanities disciplines, tends to almost reject petty predentiousness and aims to write clearly and coherently. I have read a lot of the more complex historical works in the field of historiography, and I often thought - this could have been written simpler, and would have gotten its point across better. I think a wise man once said that were he to pick up Plato's Republic and read it back to front he would understand philosophy immediately. Where he to read any modern philosophical works he would probably throw the book away in frustration and disgust.

I don't mean this as an aside against any of the more scientific works on citizendium - frankly because I don't understand, my mind isn't acquainted with that line of thinking and no doubt more complex language is indeed needed. But for history, frankly, the clearer the better.