Talk:Essay:Relevance of articles

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I disagree with this in its current form

Does this article have a certain range of topics in mind? It sounds almost impossible to implement for almost all fields I could think of right now. Also, how far back do we have to go before we can write about the more advanced topic? Following this article strictly and without sensible limits, it would take years of dedicated effort before we'd be allowed to create an article about the Large Hadron Collider. Don't even get me started on time travel.

I really think this article is pushing Conservapedia down the wrong path. This sentence sums up all that is wrong with the proposal: "Those seeking advanced information should seek elsewhere; we aim to provide the basics." Why should we send our readers elsewhere for something that deserves to be covered here? This is madness! Why don't we just say "Yeah, go to Wikipedia if you want to know about the interesting stuff"?

My view is this: We can write about advanced topics without covering all the basics. It works. It's not easy, but it works. Somehow, Arthur C. Clarke for example managed to write understandable novels featuring advanced scientific concepts without forcing the reader to read books about the basic concepts behind them. People don't have to know all about particle physics before they can check out what the LHC is and why it probably won't cause the complete destruction of planet Earth. We don't need a full course about nuclear reactions before we can write about nuclear weapons.

In general, an article (EVERY article, in fact) should have an intro section describing the subject in general terms that are understandable to the general public. Beyond that, we can feature advanced information for those who want to know more. It would be nice to keep it as understandable as possible, but we shouldn't prevent people from sharing knowledge. --DirkB 18:46, 28 August 2008 (EDT)