Wikipedia:Wikipedia is human readable: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{shortcut|WP:READABLE|WP:SEMANTICS|WP:NOTSEMANTICS|WP:ACCURACY}} |
{{shortcut|WP:READABLE|WP:SEMANTICS|WP:NOTSEMANTICS|WP:ACCURACY}} |
||
'''Wikipedia is a human readable encyclopaedia project''', not a precise [[technical communication]]. What that means is that we strive to make our texts legible, and adapt the style of writing to that of a presumed reader (different for every article). This in turn means that semantic accuracy is quite low among our priorities. Certainly, Wikipedia should never use terminology that is outright wrong, but it simultaneously allows for a range of acceptable ways to express the same concept — including non-technical ones. |
'''Wikipedia is a human readable encyclopaedia project''', not a precise [[technical communication]] with exact technical specifications. What that means is that we strive to make our texts legible, and adapt the style of writing to that of a presumed reader (different for every article). This in turn means that semantic accuracy is quite low among our priorities. Certainly, Wikipedia should never use terminology that is outright wrong, but it simultaneously allows for a range of acceptable ways to express the same concept — including non-technical ones. |
||
So, how to judge whether a certain term is acceptable? The simplest answer is that we turn to the relevant sources. If a source is deemed a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] or |
So, how to judge whether a certain term is acceptable? The simplest answer is that we turn to the relevant sources. If a source is deemed a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] or |
||
Revision as of 11:10, 24 March 2020
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia is a human readable encyclopaedia project, not a precise technical communication with exact technical specifications. What that means is that we strive to make our texts legible, and adapt the style of writing to that of a presumed reader (different for every article). This in turn means that semantic accuracy is quite low among our priorities. Certainly, Wikipedia should never use terminology that is outright wrong, but it simultaneously allows for a range of acceptable ways to express the same concept — including non-technical ones.
So, how to judge whether a certain term is acceptable? The simplest answer is that we turn to the relevant sources. If a source is deemed a reliable source or
Arguments that certain terms, if they are widely used by high-quality reliable sources, convey: "fake-erudition", or "display ignorance"; are invalid as reasons to avoid usage. It is simultaneously just as wrong to replace all non-technical terminology with technical terminology; as it is to replace all technical terminology with non-technical terminology. Both are acts of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and systematically going through Wikipedia using the search tool to remove instances of your pet-peeve is vandalism (if you know it to be used by reliable sources).