Understanding Wikipedia

So, is it just me, or has wikipedia become so hard to understand that it's easier for me to read scholarly articles and university lecture materials to get the information I need (as opposed to a public online encyclopedia that supposedly is meant for everyone)? The idea of an encyclopedia anyone can contribute to seemd appealing, but eventually due to over-editing by numerous individuals with no unifying or organizing structure, what was once an easy to understand resource for information becomes convoluted and more inpenetrable than the walls of Mordor. Convenient and useful in theory, in practice not so much.

So for no other reason than this thread had to be made eventually, I'd like to ask my fellow tropers how they feel about wikipedia's accessability, and maybe even establish a place where people more well-versed in certain subjects can translate wikipedia's now incomprehensible pile of bullshit jargon.

edited 29th Sep '13 9:16:34 PM by KSPAM

I haven't been seeing this, to put it bluntly.

I've only seen problems with the math and physics articles, which have always been like that

I understand that, but when I have to go to Cracked to get my science lessons, something is wrong with the system. I can understand all the jargon for the people who are already experts in this sort of thing, but an encyclopedia is not for those people. It should be for those unfamiliar with the subject material, meaning it should be easy to understand, or at least it shouldn't require fifteen minutes sifting through a dictionary before sitting down to another half hour of clicking on all the available hyperlinks to find some kind of context.

So, like this then.

What kind of articles are you looking at that have these problems? I only ask because I don't use Wikipedia anymore and can't find the heaps of jargon myself.

Pages about really obscure mathematical theorems and the like can be excused for assuming some foreknowledge on the part of the reader if they're even looking for the stuff, but broader and more likely to be sought after by the general public pages like say, Chemistry, should be written to explain ideas clearly.

I'm not a mathematician.

Only with their technical articles. Their math, science etc articles are so convoluted, I doubt people with Ph Ds can figure out what they're trying to say. It's like some kind of word count competition.

If the writing style is a problem, ask the Guild of Copy Editors to fix it.

If the technicality is a problem, check if they have an "introduction to [subject]" article, read the Simple English Wikipedia, or find a different resource for whilst you're learning.

edited 30th Sep '13 1:13:02 AM by Telcontar

What I want to understand about Wikipedia is what the hell differentiates "Society" from "Culture" when they're talking about countries. Apparently, it merits having separate articles, yet there is significant overlap between them.

edited 3rd Dec '13 1:02:25 AM by MarqFJA

From Simple English Wikipedia:

That doesn't really answer my question, especially given that the first linked article appears to use "society" in a manner that encompasses at least part of the definition of culture that you gave.

To me, Wikipedia's language is plain, but I deal daily with the language of the law, so my perception may be distorted.

edited 13th Dec '13 5:06:51 AM by CaptainKatsura

One thing I've learned with Wikipedia is that linguistic meanings of words and the actual usage of said words in in-house terminology and organizational schemes are not always identical.

I feel like we've had this conversation about the definition of society before