Comment by 205guy
5 years ago
I disagree, I appreciate the just-the-facts approach which leads to brevity and clarity. It may not lead to a complete understanding (such as the info provided by your parent comment), but chances are that following links in Wikipedia will find a lot of the same info.
I feel a lot of science writing appeals to emotion and has to overplay their subject matter to get readers, burying many interesting or relevant details deep in a long article. Wikipedia may be dry, but it avoids that.
Of course, different people like different styles, so some people learn better or enjoy narrative and story, others want dry facts. But it’s not a problem with Wikipedia.
My critique of Wikipedia is as a primary source on Hacker News. This article is an example of 100x idea : 0.01 execution. It’s little more than the official correct answer on the back side of a Trivial Pursuit card despite not being that kind of fact. It’s the kind of fact where expertise provides context to an evocative subject.
To be clear, what is missing is not a treatment amenable to popular taste. What is missing is passionate geeking out by a person who’s devoted months, years, or a lifetime to a slightly larger understanding of the subject.