[bawolff]

> The only articles that are high quality tend to be very technical ones

Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.

> Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia

I don't think this is a new thing. Encyclopedia articles are by nature introductory. Didn't the same thing happen with britanica back in the day. This seems less an argument against wikipedia and more an argument against letting lay people have access to educational resources at all.

> I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do.

But is Britannica actually high quality? When people do comparisons, britannica doesnt usually come out as being significantly better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compa...

[dvt]

> Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.

True, that's why I said very technical. The ones on advanced math are pretty good (for example, technical logic/metalogic articles have impressed me). The ones on undergrad math tend to be edited by.. undergrads ;)

[bawolff]

On the contrary, the problem with undergrad math articles is they are usually written at the wrong level. They are often written at a graduate level, where the function of an introductory article is to introduce someone to the topic. You should be able to understand any encyclopedia article just with a high school education imo (its an encyclopedia, not a scientific paper or a textbook), or at the most you should maybe have to read 1 or 2 other articles for background.

[dvt]

I did a double-check on a few "simple" math topics, and -- yeah -- I think you're right. The Pythagorean theorem[1] article (even though rated as "Good") is all over the place, not to mention way too long. If I want a super simple introduction, Math Planet does a much better job[2]. And if I want a more technical deep-dive, Wolfram Alpha does a better job[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

[2] https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/right-trian...

[3] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html