[noobermin]

>Really? I find many math topics to be covered extremely poorly, and presume a lot of prior knowledge without linking to that knowledge.

At what level, an ELI5 level or the level of people who are actually going to look that stuff up?

[ghaff]

Many of them seem to be written/edited by people who are more interested in using an equation editor than in trying to explain the topic. I don't necessarily expect ELI5 level but I wonder how many people who don't already understand the topic in depth can decode most of those math pages.

They dive into a lot of jargon and rarely attempt to provide any real context that a non-specialist can understand.

I understand that it's hard to do and it also reflects the fact that Wikipedia pages are wildly variable in the audience they're written for.

[milesrout]

It's an encyclopaedia. A reference. It's not intended that anyone can open any random page and understand all of it.

[Larrikin]

I think all articles should be at formers level since people with a deeper knowledge will be using sites, books, etc where that deeper knowledge is assumed. If they aren't already they can get started by reading reading the sources in the article

[noobermin]

It is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tutorials. That seems more appropriate for something like wikibooks. Otherwise, every single article would be in inordinately long with a lot of redundancy. I like it better in which pre-requisites are often linked to other pages, so you can brush up on the pre-req's if you don't understand them.

[throwaway2048]

wikipedia is a reference, reference material isnt teaching material.