User talk:Orbidsku/sandbox

Hi, Orbidsku.

Sure, I'll take a look. I read through it quickly and like the overall organization and your plan for doing brief summaries with links to the more detailed articles. I have a few suggestions and will type those up tomorrow.

Great work!

Best, Rosmoran 04:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Orbidsku.

">Yes of course, the "lead section" would go before the overview. I guess I took that for granted."

Me, too. But I took quite a few things for granted in the dyslexia discussion about which I was .... uhm .... incorrect. :-)

">Wikipedia is first and foremost a wikipedia, which is for everyone as the guidelines clearly state. Which I guess people need to understand does not mean exluding dyslexics, which I get the slight impression some people on the talk page may think that entails, but its not valid and wiki is for all."

Sounds like we're coming from the same place. It's good to confirm that, don't you think?

">Second point, yes ofcourse, most obvious and pertainent information up front, as said before, its for everyone with the option to learn more, with linked articles etc."

The question then becomes, what is most pertinent? and to whom? Again, I would start the article assuming our that the most basic information is to inform the truly uninformed --- specifically, the average J.Q. Public who thinks of dyslexia as "seeing things backward."

'''>Characteristics What level of information are you thinking of here? I was thinking along the lines of similar information that is in the that section of article at the moment, but MUCH shorter and as nuetral as possible, seondary manifestations rather than primary, if the sources are good enough. I would hope the primary manifestations would be covered in the preceding sections'''.

Makes a great deal of sense to me.

>I said unBiased summary, which can be somewhat of an amalgamation of the current ones under Definition, should that be sourced with all the current definitions?

I would think so. When I read the definitions, it doesn't sound like they are particularly contradictory. It seems to me that they are simply choosing to emphasize different aspects of the issue based on their mission and perceived constituency.

'''>Possible new section: Yes, that sounds relivant, could that be included as a sub-section to "Political-Social Issues" or do you think it would be better with its own section? I imagine that could be covered with a short but acceptible summary with good cites for further explaination?'''

Definitely a short summary with links to more info. I don't think it necessarily needs its own heading, but I'm not sure about the Political-Social issues heading. What I get from that subtitle is, political means issues related to maneuvering to get support/funding from public agencies; social means impact to overall society. In my mind, society doesn't clearly imply the personal. Basic dictionary definition:

Society—The totality of social relationships among humans.

Personal—Of or relating to a particular person

Perhaps we could come up with a different subtitle that could subsume all of it.

Again, good work here!

Best,

Rosmoran 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)