[mclin]

Thanks!

Way too often I find a math article jumps straight into the equations without a good overview that can be understood by someone without a math background. Example applications, for example, would greatly reduce the abstract nature of these pages.

Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllability

[ordinary]

I often try to get math topics by reading about them on Wikipedia. I've found that almost universally, they're completely incomprehensible, unless you already know everything about the topic that's being discussed, and are thoroughly versed in adjacent topics. [1][2]

We can compare that with articles on physics, which is pretty close to math, after all: they are almost always excellent and mostly understandable even to complete laymen (ie, me). [3][4]

If Wikipedia's goal is indeed making all human knowledge freely accessible, then that does not just consist of putting up the words. It means making the content accessible, not just available. While Wikipedia succeeds magnificently in many areas, math is not one of them.

___

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

[eru]

Just check the article on Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy), which sounds good, and its discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy), which makes you think twice about the quality of the article.

[ColinWright]

It's an encyclopedia, not a tutorial or textbook. It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference.

What you want is something that would be more useful, but harder to produce.

[mclin]

It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference.

Really? That's the exact opposite of how I think of it. An encyclopedia is something you learn an initial shallow understanding from. A field specific reference text is something you reference. eg. My linear algebra text book.

For sure re usefulness, which is why moultano's work is greatly appreciated.

[thyrsus]

Deletions inspired by that attitude is exactly what keeps me from contributing.

[ColinWright]

Exactly - and me. I'm not saying that's how it's supposed to be, I'm saying how the mods seem to be trying to interpret it. Tutorial material seems to get short shrift.

[bane]

"It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference."

Is this a garden path sentence? I hope so because the beginning almost completely contradicts the ending.

[ColinWright]

<blink>

Something to learn from, to me, means tutorial-like material. Something that gives an overview, examples, general theory, more examples, exercises, cross-correlations, and other things intended to help you to learn.

Something you reference means, to me, something in which you go and check facts. Hence the contrast with the idea of learning from it.

Some people can learn from reference works. In my experience they are in a minority. Most people need extensive examples, context, relationships, and exercises.

I believe WikiPedia is intended to be a reference work, something to be referred to in order to check facts. I believe WikiPedia is intended not to have tutorial material or other aspects designed to aid learning.

I hope that makes my beliefs clear, as well as my understanding of the specific terms used.

And I'm confused by your use of the term "Garden Path Sentence." The sentence you quote doesn't seem to offer any opportunity to re-interpret it partway through, nor to have an alternative interpretation (which suddenly becomes impossible to continue) up to some point. So I guess all you mean is that you don't understand, because you think the sentence is oxymoronic or, more simply, self-contradictory. If that's the case, I hope I've clarified it sufficiently.

[bane]

I believe WikiPedia is intended to be a reference work, something to be referred to in order to check facts. I believe WikiPedia is intended not to have tutorial material or other aspects designed to aid learning.

Sorry if I came off a bit flippant earlier, WP is definitely a pet peeve of mine (or rather, what WP could be vs. the disaster minority of wrong headed admins have turned it into)

I actually agree with you -- that WP is different than say a tutorial or other path to learning. But reference works are one of the primary tools of pretty much any sort of pedagogy.

I agree that it's a different kind of learning...or rather perhaps reference books are something used as part of a tutorial of other teaching system.

[eru]

On the other hand, people in academia treat wikipedia as a good introduction, but shudder at the thought of using it to check facts.

[ColinWright]

I'm not saying it's what it is, I'm saying it's the attitude that seems to drive the mods.

But I give up. When so many people take what I say in a sense other than I intend, I know it's time to give up for the night. Clearly I'm not expressing myself very well, so I'm outta here.

[eru]

Do you see that page as a good or bad example?

[mclin]

Well, I'd seen the term 'Continuous Linear System' somewhere and came to this page, where it starts out as:

Consider the continuous linear time-variant system

<equations!>

so, bad.

[eru]

It's a math topic. Expect equations.

[bane]

The problem is not that it has equations, it's that, unless you already understand the topic to some level of mastery, you can't even understand the page...ergo it's not a useful resource.