[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia not educational

[John Knouse]

My three cents worth (inflation, you know):

Any article in Wikipedia should present information in such
a way that a person of average intelligence who's motivated
to learn can interpret it and use it.  In the process, some
education is absolutely necessary.  A number of articles
start with arcane, technical language that even a polymath
genius would have trouble deciphering if that isn't one of
his/her knowledge areas.  Presenting knowledge is a process
of education.  I assume that Rotem Dan meant that entries
should not be pedantic in nature, with which I agree, but
they must be educational by way of being accessible.  For
instance, if an article states something like "The
geological history of sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in
nature," (not a real example in W.), then it should be
rephrased to say something like "The geologic history of
sedimentary rock is stratigraphic in nature; that is, the
history is shown by the succession of strata, or layers."
Then stratigraphic may be re-used without explanation,
because it's been adequately explained.  Simply putting in a
link for stratigraphy is not sufficient (though it should be
there) and invites the user to get lost in a maze of
multiple open windows and computer stress.

--
John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net