More languages
More actions
This guide aims to give effective and practical tips on how to write in a more encyclopedic tone. You're not strictly required to follow this guide, but may find it helpful when writing on ProleWiki.
It's by no means finished yet, and will likely be updated here and there.
What is encyclopedic tone?
Encyclopedic tone is different from how you likely normally write. Encyclopedic tone is very different from an essay or fiction tone, and often requires some getting used to -- the only remedy is to write with it, and keep doing it until it becomes second nature.
Encyclopedic tone is born from a few factors. First, what makes an encyclopedic entry different from a news article, fiction, an essay, or a poem?
The answer is that materially, we are usually writing after the fact. Our job as encyclopedia writers is not to give breaking news to the readers or even judge the information, but rather to give them the facts as they chronologically happened. This is more evident when writing about historical topics: when writing on Robespierre's biography or legacy, for example, we're not publishing pamphlets to support Robespierre. We're not necessarily trying to exonerate him either. What we do when writing a page on Robespierre is saying this is what he did, this is why he did it, and this is what happened from it.
Writing with this style in mind helps our tone be consistent across our thousands of pages and never jarring to the reader. It also helps them understand what we want to convey more easily, and with less possibilities of confusion. Be mindful that this guide was not written with encyclopedic tone! Refer to the provided examples instead for examples of how to apply encyclopedic tone.
If you have to remember one thing: we write for the reader first and foremost!
Tips to achieve encyclopedic tone
In a nutshell
- Write for a global audience: Use clear, simple language for readers unfamiliar with the topic or language.
- Be objective: Present facts without judgmental words. Avoid unverified statements.
- Use concise sentences: Break down complex information into short, direct sentences.
- Limit descriptive words: Use adjectives and adverbs sparingly. Mix active and passive voices appropriately.
- Include comprehensive details: Ensure all relevant information is included for clarity.
- Use internal links: Link to related pages to avoid over-explaining and keep the focus on the main subject.
Understanding our audience
It's important to remember who you are writing for when making an edit to a page. The people we are writing for is, well, anyone in the world: probably has been browsed from over 200 countries and territories. They may not read English as well as you do, or they may not be familiar at all with the topic you are writing about, essentially starting from zero. This is where it all starts before we even give any tips to achieve an encyclopedic tone.
Clear and Purposeful Language
We don't gain points for style and form. What encyclopedias have to do is to basically spoon-feed information to the reader on the basis that:
- They may not know anything about the topic, or
- We may still be able to teach them something they didn't know about the topic.
For this reason, we need to use clear, purposeful language. You should aim to write as concisely as possible while conveying as much meaning as possible. This means writing short sentences that detail everything. When writing, think of the questions a reader that knows absolutely nothing about the topic will ask, and answer those questions for them.
Avoiding Unverified Statements
Purposeful language means that you have to choose your words carefully and not say things which are not corroborated either by the facts or the sources. A somewhat common scenario is speaking too matter-of-factly, as if our version was the final one while facts are still being established. For example, when someone is being accused of something (let's say of embezzling funds), it is too soon for us to say they are a criminal or embezzler. Instead of saying:
Mark embezzled funds to the amount of 15,000$.
We should write:
The union accused Mark of embezzling 15,000$ from their fund.
This sentence is more accurate and thus reduces confusion. In the first sentence, we don't know where the funds came from or whom Mark stole them from. It also implies that Mark was sued and a court found that he was guilty of embezzlement. The second sentence specifies who made the accusation and that this remained an accusation, not a lawsuit. If we wanted to explain that Mark was then sued in court and found guilty, we would have to add new sentences:
The union accused Mark of embezzling 15,000$ from their fund. In 2015, the case was settled in court. Mark was ordered to give back the entirety of the funds.
This may seem very basic, but several things are happening here. We are building on the original sentence that was there and adding later facts onto it in the chronological order they happened: first the embezzling happened, then the union accused Mark, then a lawsuit was filed before he could be ordered to give back the money by a court. We are giving all that information out in just three sentences.
Avoiding Overloading Sentences
The most common non-encyclopedic norm we see on ProleWiki is trying to fit too much information in too little space, which ends up in a jumble of adjectives and statements:
The CPUSA opposed the Korean War and Syngman Rhee's puppet government in South Korea as well as the U.S. puppet states in Taiwan Province and South Vietnam.
The "problem" in this sentence is that it's a run-on sentence, which may require a reader to read it several times to properly understand it. It also tries to fit too much information: readers who are not familiar with Rhee can click his name (provided there is a bluelink on it) to read his page, and find out he was the dictator of South Korea. The original sentence also tries to fit two different ideas in just one sentence: that CPUSA opposed a government, and two states. Rewritten with a more encyclopedic tone:
CPUSA opposed the Korean War as well as Syngman Rhee's government. It also opposed the puppet states the U.S. had set up in Taiwan and South Vietnam.
Let the words breathe, and make more sentences if you need to!
Limiting adjectives and adverbs
Generally, you should limit adjectives and adverbs to a minimum. You should also mix the use of the passive and active voices when suitable. Here's an example:
In 1944, Browder briefly [adverb] dissolved the CPUSA [active voice]. Due to [adjective] the intervention of the PCF [active voice], the party was reestablished and Browder was purged.
We could instead say:
In 1944, Browder dissolved the CPUSA [active voice]. The party was reestablished through the intervention of the PCF [passive voice], and Browder was purged.
These simple changes limit confusion and reading fatigue and also save on reading time when multiplied over an entire page. However, the proposed edit above is still not entirely complete. It doesn't detail when the party was re-established, when Browder was purged and why, or what exactly the PCF did. It's fine if there is a source attached, but this is something we should tell the reader directly.
Of course, more information is always better. In this case, we don't know when the PCF re-established the CPUSA, and when or why Browder was purged. If we don't have access to that information, then it's better to leave it out -- obviously we're not going to make up facts. But once we find the information, we can also add it: The party was reestablished [in 19XX / that same year] through the intervention of the PCF, and Browder was purged [for X reason].
Maintaining a factual tone
Encyclopedic tone is very factual and tries not to be (overly) judgmental. Think of yourself as writing in the name of ProleWiki, meaning you are writing as 20 different authors. While we don't have strict rules against criticism and bias, it's better to just lay down the facts as we have them and let readers make up their own mind. Of course, as the writer, you help steer the reader towards a certain conclusion -- this is bias, and we acknowledge that it exists and that it's not really possible to stop it entirely. This is why unlike other wikis, we don't have zero tolerance for it.
Rely on internal links
Speaking of which, our job as encyclopedic writers is to convince the reader with our arguments and facts, and not simply because we write better or manage to say a lot or use the jargon. Rely on bluelinks to help you with this: you don't always have to write the entire history of Taiwan whenever you mention it. You can just link to the Taiwan page which explains it, and go on with what you were going to write about.
Rewrite when necessary
Sometimes, you might need to rewrite a paragraph from scratch. We tend to try and preserve as much original wording as possible when making an edit, but we shouldn't. You should absolutely feel free to rewrite entire portions of a page when needed.
An example that we've had just recently was the following:
Patriotic socialists initially had yet to form a political party, [because they formed one in July 2024] instead promoting the ''CPUSA 2036'' slogan...
The reason this is phrased this way was because the earlier phrasing was:
Patriotic socialists have yet to form a political party, instead promoting the ''CPUSA 2036'' slogan...
In this case, the editor didn't want to remove wording that was already there. But they very well could have, simplifying the paragraph to:
Patriotic socialists formed their first party in July 2024. Prior to that, they promoted the "CPUSA 2036" slogan...
Working the lede
In journalism and wikis, the lede (pronounced lead as in leading) is the very first paragraph of an article or a page. We use it to introduce the topic, and it's often the most difficult paragraph to write. You basically only have 3 to 5 sentences available for it, but remember one thing: you don't have to explain the entire topic in these 5 sentences, you just have to introduce it. The rest of the page is used to go deeper into the topic and go through all of it.