[tshadwell]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but instead I agree with the author's sentiment as represented here -- not specifically on Ka/s however. I spend a considerable portion of my time reading Wikipedia articles and very much enjoy it, however:

despite a strong background in science and engineering I can't make much of the considerable majority of mathematics-heavy articles. Many articles as the author no doubt notes define concepts in mathematical symbols which are left undefined, whose meaning is utterly lost on someone without the relevant academic background. For the rest, I find myself lost in a nigh recursive maze of definition upon definition.

Imagine, for example trying to understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_matrix with little mathematical background

[vilhelm_s]

But who are the hypothetical readers who need to understand the camera matrix without knowing math? In general, my feeling is that most Wikipedia articles are pretty well pitched to the people that would be interested in the article topic.

[ollifi]

Camera projections are very common technique in computer graphics and software often refer to this kind of terminology. When I try to get better understanding what they actually mean I often find wikipedia articles lacking. It's like looking up a traditional food and finding only receipe.

[tshadwell]

I'm not sure that the idea that an encyclopaedia should be targeted to only the already well educated, especially one with the goal that Wikipedia has is much short of elitism.

[maus42]

...what exactly is missing?

Okay, the paragraph about projective spaces and degrees of freedom is a bit of mystery to me, but the actual concept seems to be simple enough. Should every article utilizing matrix multiplications to describe linear mappings spend time rephrasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_%28mathematics%29 i.e. a basic linear algebra course?