 | This idea is in the brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page. |
This is my first essay. Sorry if it doesn't work out.
Kirchoff's first circuit law states that the currents flowing through a point total to zero. In plain terms that means that the total of the currents flowing in equals the total of those flowing out. Very logical if you think of this in terms of electrons passing through, just like people going in and out of a room with many doors, but none staying in the room.
Now take a look at [Kirchhoff's circuit laws] and see if you can reach that understanding from there?
This is an example of an important article that has had the basic explanation of what is going on smothered by technical mathematical exposition. I came to look at the article as I had just seen these laws explained to a complete beginner in electronics who wanted to know the WHY of voltages and currents around a circuit. They were specifically warned against viewing this article on the grounds that it undermines basic understanding - the worst possible comment anyone could make about Wikipedia.
The explanations given (not my example above) were lucid, technically correct and did not require any mathematical analysis. Sadly this is true of many articles on Wikipedia; enough to make me wonder if there is a sort of 'intellectual glass ceiling' that prevents those without undergraduate mathematics understanding many technical subjects. I hesitate to give along list of example, so I shall give just one: I wished to understands the whys, rather than the hows, of Fast Fourier Transform algorithms. On Wikipedia I travelled in a strange loop of related articles, all deeply mathematical and mutually referential. None of which attempted to preface their technical explanations with a coherent and accessible explanation.
Thanks to some very clever friends and some helpful links, I finally found both some excellent web articles and enough understanding to follow what the maths was about, if not to reach a full technical appreciation of the detail.
I don't propose that all these formulae should be expunged from Wikipedia; rather that there should be a presumption that any technical article should do three things:
Firstly, present a narrative explanation of the subject (with caveats as to accuracy or applicability, if required) aimed at allowing the lay reader of average intelligence to grasp the fundamental principles underlying the subject.
Secondly, ensure that where mathematical proofs or derivations are presented there are links to articles explaining the mathematical techniques used at a more basic level. For example when 'big sigma' is used a link to [summation] might be appropriate.
Finally, make better use of formatting so that these two sections are clearly separate but related so the lay or casual reader can easily skip the technical section, but those seeking detailed explanations can easily move to the rigorous section.
I can understand differential calculus and matrix algebra, but many people cannot. In The Art of Electronics Horovitz and Hill openly admit the inadequacy of some of their 'handwaving explanations', but are shameless in presenting them to a specialist audience, while still providing the details. The cleverest of us still benefits from a simple summary when trying to understand the complex.
If you are a mathematician, physicist, statistician or just a plain and simple genius, please consider these thoughts. Do you really understand your subject properly if you can't explain it to someone unfamiliar with the field? Perhaps by refining some of these articles according to my suggestions, you can even benefit personally.
The Yowser (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)