Audience targetting

[Robert_W_King]

I was thinking, "We sure do have a lot of documentation, and while it's all in one neat place, it sure doesn't mean anything collectively".

What I mean is, we should be forming "Pamphlet clusters" of information that people from specific audiences should read.  This is under an underlying assumption that some groups of people will rightly understand part of our culture from the get-go without having to delve into our many philosophical topics.  Modeled, it looks like this:

Let's assume we have 26 fundamental documents(concepts) in total. [A-Z]

Group 1 will totally get, by default, concepts A-F, but might stumble on G, H, J, and X.

Group 2 will understand Q-Z, maybe recognize A-H from their own community, and not at all understand or be bothered to read I-P.

In other words, we could come up with a system that says, hey if you're from the world of academia, you should definately read this, this, and this about us.  You can safely assume that, that and that to be the norm (which is just like your community).

Or if you're a field expert, you'll understand this and this, but please pay attention to this detail here.

I think this might help bring in people who feel bombarded by every single nuance that we abide by and probably take for granted.

[Tom Morris]

I think we shouldn't worry too much about it. Most authors on wikis seem to just jump in and edit, and then learn by experience. For instance, on CZ, I started by writing articles, then eventually I figured out categories, and subpages and then read policy, and then nominated an article for speedy deletion (still waiting...). People learn so long as the path towards full understanding is clear and reasonably well sign-posted, and they have the freedom to make a few mistakes (and be gently guided into doing it right).

Avoiding three letter acronyms and other insanely complex Wikipedia-style politics is a good idea.

[Robert_W_King]

I think we shouldn't worry too much about it. Most authors on wikis seem to just jump in and edit, and then learn by experience. For instance, on CZ, I started by writing articles, then eventually I figured out categories, and subpages and then read policy, and then nominated an article for speedy deletion (still waiting...). People learn so long as the path towards full understanding is clear and reasonably well sign-posted, and they have the freedom to make a few mistakes (and be gently guided into doing it right).

Avoiding three letter acronyms and other insanely complex Wikipedia-style politics is a good idea.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. 

Let me create a different, but well known example.

If we're looking to recruit long-time previous contributors to wikipedia, we can assume that they are accustomed to certain aspects of that community.  When approaching them, obviously there will be some measures of our community that are totally opposite from theirs, and we should focus solely on those to highlight our marketable differences (why we feel that they should migrate from WP to CZ).

The same can be applied if we are hoping to attract members from the private sector/corporate world--they are probably accostomed to the idea of results-based milestones; while we certainly have an inkling of that (say producing high-quality approved articles, or having a respectful comraderie among members), our community varies differently in these other aspects that are totally different and attractive because it offers them a greater flexibility than the corporate world allows.

This is what I am thinking about when I say that we should focus on what other communities don't have in order to make us more attractive.

[Nick Gardner]

A strange feature of economics world  is that the academics are regularly producing important but  intellectually challenging material that seldom reaches the attention of either the intelligent layman or the average  economic practitioner. CZ has the potential of helping to close those communications gaps. To do so, however, requires the discipline on the part of the academics and their interpreters of avoiding those modes of communication that impress their fellow-workers but confuse the outsider. In my stumbling attempt to close those gaps I have been driven to the stratagem of addressing two audiences: the layman and the practitioner on the main page, and the academics and the student on the tutorials subpage. But so far nobody seems to have noticed. Is this the right way?

[Chris Day]

I have been driven to the stratagem of addressing two audiences: the layman and the practitioner on the main page, and the academics and the student on the tutorials subpage. But so far nobody seems to have noticed.

Not true, I noticed and you are doing a great job!  That is exactly what the tutorial subpage should be used for.  You could also make use of the student level subpage (we don't have a good example yet but Gareth is working on one for Life) or the advanced level subpage (See Quantum mechanics).

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

IN my opinion, subpages could be a crucial advantage that CZ has over competitors. Some of our authors are really working as pioneers with these (Nick is clearly amongst them) and the results are already looking good. However, this investment will really pay off in the longer run: just wait and see!

[Paul Wormer]

You could also make use of the student level subpage (we don't have a good example yet but Gareth is working on one for Life) or the advanced level subpage (See Quantum mechanics).

I looked at the present two quantum mechanics pages (introductory and advanced). Not a single math equation in sight!   

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a highly mathematized part of physics---in amount of mathematical content comparable to General Relativity and String Theory. The essence of those parts of physics is in their equations.  Text can only give an impression, an unclear view from a distance. I remember the article on QM in the 16th ed. of EB (written by nobelist John Van Vleck) as hardly any text, with the mathematical formulas doing all the explanation. (It is more than 20 years ago that I read it, maybe my memory is exaggerating this, but it must contain some truth).

If we want to avoid mathematics, even on the advanced pages,  we need a third subpage: mathematical theory. Without it, CZ misses out on the essence of important parts of physics and,  by definition, on the essence of all of mathematics. I know that some of you will comment  to this  "so what", but  I disagree with those.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

You could also make use of the student level subpage (we don't have a good example yet but Gareth is working on one for Life) or the advanced level subpage (See Quantum mechanics).

I looked at the present two quantum mechanics pages (introductory and advanced). Not a single math equation in sight!   

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a highly mathematized part of physics---in amount of mathematical content comparable to General Relativity and String Theory. The essence of those parts of physics is in their equations.  Text can only give an impression, an unclear view from a distance. I remember the article on QM in the 16th ed. of EB (written by nobelist John Van Vleck) as hardly any text, with the mathematical formulas doing all the explanation. (It is more than 20 years ago that I read it, maybe my memory is exaggerating this, but it must contain some truth).

If we want to avoid mathematics, even on the advanced pages,  we need a third subpage: mathematical theory. Without it, CZ misses out on the essence of important parts of physics and,  by definition, on the essence of all of mathematics. I know that some of you will comment  to this  "so what", but  I disagree with those.

If anyone wants to make a Resolution out of this, for the Editorial Council, this would be fine. I think you are probably right, Paul, that certain articles do need a separate page for the mathematical theory.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Not a single math equation in sight!   
Quantum mechanics (QM) is a highly mathematized part of physics
....
The essence of those parts of physics is in their equations.

I agreed with you completely until that last bit! (If you had put it something like 'the shortest and most exact expression of those parts of physics is in the equations' I would have agreed with you - but to me, "essence" is a somewhat different concept.)

But I understand your basic point, and agree we ought to have the equations somewhere.

Text can only give an impression, an unclear view from a distance.

Mmmm. Perhaps... (but a discussion which isn't relevant to the point here :-).

If we want to avoid mathematics, even on the advanced pages,  we need a third subpage: mathematical theory.

I would view the math as entirely reasonable on the "Advanced" page. But if people want to split the advanced content into two subpages, with the math on one of them, that would be OK with me. (I myself have no views on that particular organizational point.)

Noel

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I have been driven to the stratagem of addressing two audiences: the layman and the practitioner on the main page, and the academics and the student on the tutorials subpage.

I must confess I'm somwhat confused about the exact purposes of the
"tutorial", "student level" and "advanced" subpages (which seem to overlap somewhat in my mind). [[CZ:Subpages]] gives them as:

• Tutorials: one or more pages that introduce a topic specifically for students; would be focused on more "practical" aspects of the topic, have more examples, and even perhaps some problems at the bottom of the page ...
• Student Level: a simplified and entertaining version of the encyclopedia article for younger students
• Advanced: a subpage with content that will really only be useful for, or possibly even only intelligible to, specialists in the field 

I think the "student level" concept is reasonable, but I don't like the name at all because it's not self-obvious what it means - I thought it referred to 'students in the field' - "elementary" or "junior" or "younger readers", or something like that, might be better.

Anyway, you've identifies 4 classes of readers (laymen, students in the field, practitioners and academics), and I agree that's a useful classification of readers, but I'm not sure we need versions/aspects of the page for each of them; in particular, do academics and practitioners really differ - at least, in terms of what they themselves would find useful? (Sure, the academics, who also teach the subject, might point their students at the tutiorials.)

So laymen would only be interested in the basic page; students in all three - but the advanced not to begin with, perhaps; and practitioners and academics in the advanced?

Is there a kind of page we're missing?

Noel

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I think you're right about overlap, Noel. Really, we need some definitions of the purposes of different types of subpage that people just can refer to: this would make life easier for everyone.

[Tom Morris]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of 'Advanced'. Surely, if you already possess a fair degree of knowledge and expertise about a topic, it seems strange that you would read a page on an encyclopedia about it. At the point of knowing enough to, say, get a doctorate or professional degree and enter a position of expertise, you would end up consulting primary sources. Someone who knows nothing of, say, DNA or Thomas Aquinas or Ludwig Wittgenstein, may refer to an encyclopedia - but once they have reached a point of expertise on the subjects, they could just as easily refer to original sources, scholarly monographs, academic journals, handbooks and learned essays, which can be pointed to in both 'External Links' and 'Bibliography'.

I am not opposed to such ideas out of principle, but I think that clear practical need ought to be shown first.

Similarly, if we wished to do this properly, we could commit to some kind of survey to find out exactly what people use encyclopedias for. A long time ago, I was given a single volume encyclopedia which attempted to summarize the whole of human experience in under 400 pages. Education got two pages, philosophy got four, crime got two, human rights had one while cosmology had two. The sections were split into - broadly - physical science, biological science, human society and economy, technology, religion and philosophy, art, literature and languages, music and drama. It is irrelevant today in a world of Google. I carry a web-equipped mobile phone with me, and a laptop, and can Google anything from just about anywhere. My needs for an encyclopedia are now far more in helping me find detailed scholarly material - this is as much to do with age and chosen profession as it is to do with having always-on access to Google anywhere.

Perhaps we should conduct some kind of research into what readers of encyclopedias want, and how we can best write these 'levelled' articles to meet their needs.

[Chris Day]

I think you're right about overlap, Noel. Really, we need some definitions of the purposes of different types of subpage that people just can refer to: this would make life easier for everyone.

That is the purpose of the page linked to the [?] in each tab.  I agree they are not well developed and i think we all have different ideas for the purpose and relevance of each subpage.

I think we especially need a discussion focused on the relationship between an Articles content and the Student Level, Advanced and Tutorials subpages. It is important that each cluster is as consistent as possible so the readers do not get unexpected surprises.

As Tom mentions we might even question the role of advanced in an encyclopedic environment. Personally, i can see a role for advanced. How often do you read a review outside your field that is just too specific, in my case, focusing on only one protein or mutant rather than the big picture? Finding up-to-date general reviews at an expert level is actually quite hard.