CZ:Article mechanics: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>Larry Sanger
Line 10: Line 10:


=== The first sentence ===
=== The first sentence ===
Generally, in articles about concepts, or where the word in the title has a definition, the first sentence in the article is a definition.  For example:
:'''Dermatology''' is the specialty of medicine concerned with the [[skin]] and with the skin appendages ([[hair]], [[nail|nails]], [[sweat gland|sweat glands]], etc.).
If, however, there is no agreed-upon definition, and particularly where the disagreement about the definition is an important aspect of the topic--one thinks of [[freedom]] or [[racism]]--it is actually a ''bad'' idea to begin with a single definition.  In such cases, it is actually preferable


=== Etymologies ===
=== Etymologies ===

Revision as of 21:11, 5 March 2007

Introductory material

Bold titles

In most articles, we should bold the title of the article. For example:

Philosophy, both the field and the concept, is notoriously hard to define. The question "What is philosophy?" is itself, famously, a vexing philosophical question. It is often observed that philosophers are unique in the extent to which they disagree about what their field even is.

But on some pages this is unnecessary, particularly where it would produce strange or nonsensical results. Such pages include lists, as in list of snake scales, or where the title of the article is an idiosyncratic phrase that does not name a single, particular item to be defined or described, such as potassium in nutrition and human health.

The first sentence

Generally, in articles about concepts, or where the word in the title has a definition, the first sentence in the article is a definition. For example:

Dermatology is the specialty of medicine concerned with the skin and with the skin appendages (hair, nails, sweat glands, etc.).

If, however, there is no agreed-upon definition, and particularly where the disagreement about the definition is an important aspect of the topic--one thinks of freedom or racism--it is actually a bad idea to begin with a single definition. In such cases, it is actually preferable

Etymologies

Definitions

How to write 'em particularly for controversial topics.

The first paragraph

The introductory section

Summaries for longer articles

Article structure

Suggested components

Narrative coherence and flow

Prioritization of article sections

Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage

Miscellaneous style guidelines

No long quotations

As a general rule, we should not use quotations that are longer than one sentence, and we should not use many quotations in any one article. The purpose of a quotation is typically to illustrate or support some point. Quotations are, therefore, texts that support the main text, which the Citizendium writes.

There are at least two main reasons for this policy against many and long quotations.

First, such quotations prevents collaboration on the substance of the text (quotations are uneditable). It is inherently biased to have an extended quote that speaks for the Citizendium, since in that case the Citizendium is made to endorse a whole series of points that are only that source's idiosyncratic views. Second, the practice of adding a long quotation cannot be generalized. If we have a long quotation that supports one point, why should we not have long quotations that support every point? There is a vast universe of books and other potentially supporting verbiage. We can find long quotations for everything, if we wanted to. Therefore, unless there is some particularly good reason to use a quotation beyond one sentence, don't do it; summarize.

The exceptions will, perhaps, be in cases where texts themselves are the primary subject of an article. Even in this case, extended quotations are to be used sparingly and only with excellent justification.

Craft articles for maximum readability

Craft articles for maximum readability. Many topics are inherently complex and impossible for a nonspecialist fully to understand. Nevertheless, our task is to write at the university level. Therefore, if a difficult or advanced piece of text can be written in a way to make it more accessible to educated nonspecialists, then it should be.

Scientists, business people, lawyers, and academics are famous for writing mumbo-jumbo that is decipherable only by people in their fields. But, as this is a general encyclopedia, not a single topic encyclopedia, is our obligation to "translate" the jargon of a specialized field, so far as is possible, into elegant English prose.