3 ms·
>It's one of those bloody articles that requires a layman to read all of the attached articles I don't see why this is a bad thing. I often do this for fun, an
by kj01a 10y ago
>It's one of those bloody articles that requires a layman to read all of the attached articles
I don't see why this is a bad thing. I often do this for fun, and when I do it's never information I need to get on in my day to day life. These are extremely complex topics. If you don't want to understand them in their complete complexity, do you really want to understand them at all? What's the point of dumbing down a subject for the layman if the subject can't really be understood at that dumbness level?
- jerf 10y agoThe problem is that there's no way to know whether your search process is going to terminate in a path from what you understand to what you don't understand, or if it's just going to wander around in specialist subjects, each referencing each other, with no obvious way back down to non-specialist topics. Or, potentially, no way at all. For all you know the "explanatory links" on a given specialist topic actually point to topics that are yet more specialist. My dream someday is to see these things organized into a "lattice", where links are clearly labeled as going "down" or "up" the lattice and you can have a clue what's going on.
- stevetrewick 10y agoSomething not entirely quite unlike this http://matpalm.com/blog/2011/08/13/wikipedia-philosophy/ http://matpalm.com/blog/2011/08/13/wikipedia-philosophy/