Udo's Techblog

Thomas Goetz of Wired.com thinks Wikipedia sucks on science articles because many people can't parse the lingo. You know, I'm all for making science accessible, that's why I think brief thematic introductions are often helpful. On the other hand, dumbing down language and content is the wrong direction to go. Sometimes, if you want detailed understanding, there is no going around learning the facts. Learning by synopsis and trivialization may work in school to some degree, but at some point you have to make an effort and actually try to understand a topic in depth.

So what's going to happen if Wikipedia science articles get simplified? They'll become useless to scientific people, and for all the non-scientist it will just be another place where they're being fed trivial and anecdotal references instead of real knowledge. And you know what? The next generation will find even those simplifications too difficult, and so it goes on downward.

I have a proposition: yes, put in a summary on top if you like. But also improve the quality of scientific articles even more by adding depth where it makes sense, and by making it easier to find information on related subjects. Wikipedia shouldn't be some watered-down Coke Zero of knowledge, it should work even harder to make real scientific knowledge accessible to everyone.

And dude, naming wired.com as one of the primary achievements of the internet age, even in jest, that was really bad style.