https://wiki.issarice.com/index.php?title=You_don%27t_need_to_eat_your_own_dogfood_in_explanation_science&feed=atom&action=historyYou don't need to eat your own dogfood in explanation science - Revision history2024-03-28T20:41:28ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.31.6https://wiki.issarice.com/index.php?title=You_don%27t_need_to_eat_your_own_dogfood_in_explanation_science&diff=2635&oldid=prevIssa: Created page with "Sometimes people like to criticize a piece ''about pedagogy'' (i.e. not a pedagogical piece itself) by saying it's difficult to understand, or that it doesn't follow its own r..."2021-08-20T00:24:36Z<p>Created page with "Sometimes people like to criticize a piece ''about pedagogy'' (i.e. not a pedagogical piece itself) by saying it's difficult to understand, or that it doesn't follow its own r..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>Sometimes people like to criticize a piece ''about pedagogy'' (i.e. not a pedagogical piece itself) by saying it's difficult to understand, or that it doesn't follow its own rules. But I think people also feel a pressure to "eat their own dogfood" when writing about explanations. However, I think this pressure is at least a little bit harmful, and here is how I like to think about it:<br />
<br />
Nobody mistakes a critique of a film, or exposition about how to make films, (or video games, or a piece of painting, or whatever) for a film itself. It's only an accident of exposition and commentary both being ''non-fiction texts'', that people try to apply the "so you're trying to distill this thing, but your explanation of what distillation is kinda sucks?" line.<br />
<br />
It's fine for an explanation and commentary on that exposition to be separate things, and they should be thought of as being in separate literary genres.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Learning]]</div>Issa