I agree. I do that sometimes (that is, writing definitions within articles) in math articles, but sometimes I feel I write too much and get slightly off-topic. Also with math, there should be links on the tops of math pages to some glossary of math notation, because you can't just put a link in every (actually, any) mathematical symbol. Although it's probably impossible to have a *complete* set of math notation, I think having the basics down would help. I'm not sure if this would work, though, so please tell me if it is feasible for me to work on.
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@frognet.net
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com