User talk:Ground Zero/Teratornis

(I posted this on User talk:842U, but that user deleted it soon after.)

My response to Teratornis
1. "Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations does not mention links. In the absence of a defining link on an acronym, then clearly the reader needs to see the acronym spelled out. But once we introduce links, the picture changes considerably, and the MOS should take that into account (currently that section does not)."

You can propose that on the appropriate talk page. I will oppose your proposal because this link is of no use in a printed version, and I still see no reason to make the reader hover or click on a link when we can spell it out for them. More on that below.

2. ""Should a reader have to click on a link to find out what an acronym stands for?" is a somewhat ill-posed question, because it misses the point that the "what" in the question may go far beyond what a mere spelling-out can clarify. For example, someone who has never heard of the EPA may not obtain much more meaning from seeing Environmental Protection Agency spelled out."

Yes, they will “EPA” provides no indication whatsoever of anything for the reader who does not know what it is The acronym has many possible meanings. See EPA (disambiguation) to see what EPA can mean. “Environmental Protection Agency” tells the reader that it is an agency whose mandate it is to protect the environment. It provides some explanation as to why this organization is estimating automobile fuel consumption, for example. If the reader wants more information on this organization, then they can click on the link.

3. "(Indeed, Environmental Protection Agency is a disambiguation page, because there is more than one agency with that name. Therefore, merely expanding the acronym is not as usefully informative as a link to the article about a specific agency.)"

Agreed. Linking “Environmental Protection Agency” would be incorrect, although pipelinking Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be ways of shortening the link if desired.

4. "a user who knows the background already can read more efficiently by ignoring the links and by not having to read inline explanations of jargon terms and acronyms he or she already knows. In this way, both the expert and nonexpert in a given subject can enjoy reading the same article, customizing their own experience on the fly through their decisions to follow links or ignore them."

WP:MOS only asks that the acronym be spelled out the first time it is used, not every time. It is assumed that the reader will get the message the first time, or read back if he/she has forgotten the acronym. So the burden of the expert reader of having to “read inline explanations of jargon terms and acronyms he or she already knows” is hardly onerous. In choosing between providing basic information to the non-expert reader, and avoiding having the expert reader read a few extra words, I think we have to err on the side of making Wikipedia inclusive rather than exclusive. There is lots in any article that an expert reader will already know, but we don’t start leaving out key information that the expert reader already knows just so they won’t have to read it again. That’s why WP:OBVIOUS says “State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.”

The idea of accessibility pops up repeatedly in Wikipedia style manuals and guides: Make technical articles accessible says:
 * Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience.
 * Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.
 * Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).

Explain jargon says:
 * Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained.

Writing_better_articles says
 * Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.
 * Avoid using jargon whenever possible.

Ground Zero | t 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)