The inverse of YouArentGonnaReadIt.

"People can learn only what is at the edge of their knowledge." A thought that you have, no matter how interesting and important it may seem to you, is probably not at the edge of others' knowledge. It is either too dull or too sharp.

"Think of your breath as the most precious resource you have. Try not to waste it." - BrianIngerson

(This page barely got written, by virtue of its own principle. But what the heck.)
----
This reminded me of a bookmark that I still have, and luckily the page is still there:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23370-2001May13.html

Basically, we are becoming a people that find reading to be a distraction and obstacle, rather than a chance to learn something or figure something out. This throws a wrench into our ideas that writing reams of documentation is a GoodThing, when in fact, not too many people will care, nor bother to read the instructions. -- ChadThompson

Thank you for linking to this fascinating article.  I still don't understand why someone who can read would choose not to.  I read not because it's good for me, but because I can't stop myself.  Not because my parents or teachers insisted it was good for me.  I grew up in a family of readers and it's something enjoyable I learned to do at an early age.

I want people to read.  I just don't know if telling them it's good for them is the way to do it.  People like me who read (and lament "aliteracy") need to understand better why people don't.  It's not the primacy of the visual media.  I love movies and watch several (in theaters) each week.  --ApoorvaMuralidhara

I started reading the article, found it mildly interesting but not surprising so I skimmed through the rest of the article, reading a paragraph here or there. I don't think there's anything wrong at all: there's always been an elite that read "valuable" stuff, there's always been the masses looking for entertainment. Who cares that the masses don't read? Maybe Koontz will sell only 1 instead of 2 million copies, serious writers will continue to teach to be able to survive. --AndrewQueisser

Here's another interesting article, which explains that just because someone can "read", doesn't mean they can read at the "highest level".  Perhaps that's why some who "can" read, don't:

http://www.bookmagazine.com/issue24/literacy.shtml

--ApoorvaMuralidhara

----

Shouldn't it be that we should write documents that comply with the following:

1. Can be verified against something.

2. Do not repeat what has already been said somewhere else.

The purpose:

1. Avoid contradiction. To avoid it, we must be able first to detect it. If you have to read thousand of pages, create a summary of the important stuff. Other people should do the same with the same documents. Then agree on what goes in the summary and what doesn't. The summary becomes the new documentation.

2. Then file the old docs as reference material for anyone to compare and verify. Ideally, using HTML and Wiki, so that when new contradictions are detected, they can be grabbed easily from a single page.

In my experience, if you can get only 1 drawing summarizing all the ideas, there is no need to continue summarizing further. -- GuillermoSchwarz

These principles apply to some types of documentation, but not all. Conveying information to other people requires redundancy and a lot of qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) explanation. Contradictions and out-of-date information certainly do need to be eliminated, but informality, repetition, and non-verifiable statements are often essential to getting the point across.  -- KrisJohnson

----

See also: OnlySayThingsThatCanBeHeard, FirstCreateTheMailbox