Wikipedia talk:Make articles useful for readers

• Taw,
• tbc,
• Koyaanis Qatsi,
• 24 (strongly beyond words, see m:three billionth user)
• Eclecticology

Opponents include:

• The Cunctator

Supporters of "consider the audience" include:

• LDC,
• Damian Yerrick,
• AxelBoldt (jargon terms should still be linked to explanations though),
• JHK

Opponents include:

• 24 (as a protest--law and physics and economics like to steal short words and make them meaningless to everyone else, e.g. "cause", "Standard Model", "fiat"--we are not writing textbooks here with one point of view of one professor--if a field steals a short word, we should challenge that theft if their usage is anything but completely general.)

I protest the usurpation of the word "charm" by physicists!

Counter-argument: This is only relevant to Wikipedians who spend a lot of time here. New and infrequent contributors should only worry about doing stuff that's interesting to them; they can worry about "what's best for the community" later.

I see the two versions above as not too dissimilar. There is opportunity in a project such as this to layer the knowledge through a succession of links that go ever deeper. A top level article on physics may do little more than explain what physics is, and list its various branches; it should be written accordingly for the benefit of those who may need only that. Deeper level articles can then be more technical. Eclecticology