[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/2/2010 3:01:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
slimvirgin at gmail.com writes:


> Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for
> years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the
> subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too
> if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way. >>

But are mission is to explain things to that level.  So those academics who 
don't have the time or patience to do that, should cede the floor to the 
"journalists" who do, shouldn't they?

When I read an encyclopedia article on Number Theory for example, I should 
be able to use just that work, perhaps other articles, to get all the 
information I need to *understand* the article.  Although I might want more depth, 
I shouldn't need to refer to any outside work to get the breadth.

By saying what you did above, you are essentially stating that in order for 
our readers to even understand an article they need a background in it.  I 
can't agree.

W.