Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Scientific Quoting

[Tom Chance]

Klaus,

We haven't worked out any areas for notation etc. as
yet. Working out things like that is a tough issue,
and one I'm sure we'll cross many times. For now,
we're hoping people won't writte scientifically
"incorrect" stuff in their articles too much. If you
want a bit of opinion, just make it clear in your
submission (like putting it in brackets or something).

And there's no minimum or maximum on article length,
and no particular worry about writing style etc.
There's no prototype, its up to the author to decide
how he/she wants to write it.

Keep in mind much of this may change over the
months/years as we work things out with past
experience!

Tom Chance




--- Klaus-Juergen Wolf <address@hidden>
wrote: > Hallo,
> 
> excuse me, short question: Is there a standard for
> quoting in GNUpedia
> articles? I think of scientific quoting, footnotes,
> etc.
> 
> I, personally, rather dislike people who write a
> bunch of personal
> opinions or literal (but unmarked) quotes and
> declare them as common
> knowledge and final truth. A horror!
> 
> I think, articles like that cannot be good for an
> encyclopedia.
> 
> Other question: what style of articles is being
> preferred? How verbose,
> how detailed, what kind of reader do we have to
> write for? Is there any
> prototype?
> 
> Regards,
> k.j.
> 
> -- 
>   This message (C) by Author.  Unauthorized
> distribution prohibited!
>   gpg: 3174 6645 CB62 EB5E 2DB6  0DF5 A42C 16D4 C420
> 31E5
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/