[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