Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Sloppy writing"
(Undo cheap shot, but it gave me a chuckle) |
(Even if you disagree with the last part, it's valid; also, the recat and copy editing were needed. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and discuss first) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
'''Sloppy writing''' has no place in an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written, and even discussions about improving articles require a certain level of academic rigor. (Debates are okay, but should be conducted on the pages of our [[Debate Topics]].) | '''Sloppy writing''' has no place in an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written, and even discussions about improving articles require a certain level of academic rigor. (Debates are okay, but should be conducted on the pages of our [[Debate Topics]].) | ||
| + | ==Unclear references== | ||
Sloppy writing includes referring to something, but not describing it. This is especially bad in an introductory sentence or paragraph. A typical instance (from an Amazon book review): | Sloppy writing includes referring to something, but not describing it. This is especially bad in an introductory sentence or paragraph. A typical instance (from an Amazon book review): | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The phrase "mentions how" promises to give specific examples of this destruction. But the writer has used the phrase merely as a synonym for "makes the claim". This is a misuse of language, and it's a common rhetorical device used in debates and polemics. It has no place in an encyclopedia. | The phrase "mentions how" promises to give specific examples of this destruction. But the writer has used the phrase merely as a synonym for "makes the claim". This is a misuse of language, and it's a common rhetorical device used in debates and polemics. It has no place in an encyclopedia. | ||
| + | ==Arguing without explaining== | ||
When we allude to things that illustrate a point, we must mention at least one of those things. Otherwise, it's better to retreat a bit and merely state that X claimed Y. | When we allude to things that illustrate a point, we must mention at least one of those things. Otherwise, it's better to retreat a bit and merely state that X claimed Y. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
If an advocate makes a point without giving arguments or examples, it may be wise to point out this fact. For instance, when criticizing the [[Patriot Act]], opponents generally say that it will "violate [[civil rights]]" but they do not mention which civil rights they mean. This is about as useful as calling a bill "stupid". | If an advocate makes a point without giving arguments or examples, it may be wise to point out this fact. For instance, when criticizing the [[Patriot Act]], opponents generally say that it will "violate [[civil rights]]" but they do not mention which civil rights they mean. This is about as useful as calling a bill "stupid". | ||
| − | + | ==Opinion dumping== | |
| + | In addition, the creation of uncategorized mainspace stub articles which express an opinion on a subject covered by other articles is extremely poor wiki-planning. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Conservapedia Administration]] | ||
Revision as of 14:01, April 10, 2008
Sloppy writing has no place in an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written, and even discussions about improving articles require a certain level of academic rigor. (Debates are okay, but should be conducted on the pages of our Debate Topics.)
Unclear references
Sloppy writing includes referring to something, but not describing it. This is especially bad in an introductory sentence or paragraph. A typical instance (from an Amazon book review):
| “ | It mentions how civilizations, species, indigenous people and cultures are being destroyed by greed and materialism, by most of us ... | ” |
The phrase "mentions how" promises to give specific examples of this destruction. But the writer has used the phrase merely as a synonym for "makes the claim". This is a misuse of language, and it's a common rhetorical device used in debates and polemics. It has no place in an encyclopedia.
Arguing without explaining
When we allude to things that illustrate a point, we must mention at least one of those things. Otherwise, it's better to retreat a bit and merely state that X claimed Y.
If we say that X showed that Y is true, we are duty bound to explain, summarize or even quote verbatim the argument X gave.
If an advocate makes a point without giving arguments or examples, it may be wise to point out this fact. For instance, when criticizing the Patriot Act, opponents generally say that it will "violate civil rights" but they do not mention which civil rights they mean. This is about as useful as calling a bill "stupid".
Opinion dumping
In addition, the creation of uncategorized mainspace stub articles which express an opinion on a subject covered by other articles is extremely poor wiki-planning.