Writers don't just dip in, produce some Wikipedia copy, and bounce. It's like a gig. Wikipedia editing and writing is an active thing, an interminable back and forth among editors. In a way you can imagine impenetrable writing as a defensive strategy wielded to scare off editor-meddlers. That would be elitism, like in its most literal active form.
Of course, I do this as my job and I haven't fixed so much as a comma on Wikipedia, let alone written the sort of article I'd like to see on Wikipedia, which is a well-sourced, contextual explanation of something that offers technical detail for those interested but doesn't demand it at the same time. A Wikipedia article should be an opportunity to increase science literacy rather than a barrier to it. Few currently meet that standard.
Also posted on Slashdot:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/1 ... edium=feed
Anytime I have tried to edit an article, my changes get reverted (without recourse) by a bot or some random wikipedia fanatic that refer to a set of rules I never agreed to or was consulted about. I don't have enough time in the day to deal with an internet edit war. If people want an easier to read article, change the edit policy.
I try to fix typos and get my changes reverted. It's a lost cause already.
First problem, Wikipedia. Not saying it cannot be fixed, but the way that articles are edited and the ability of an editor to win by simply out-camping everyone else is a problem.
Second problem, some topics do not readily lend themselves to easy explanation. Perhaps Wikipedia should include more overview paragraphs, but unfortunately to understand some topics one really does need the underlying education.
Much like the time that you tried to edit Wikipedia, the same thing happened. I checked the next day and my information had been deleted. I was, honestly, kind of hurt. I never found out what happened until years later. See, to edit Wikipedia articles, you need to be a "Wikipedian". A Wikipedian is someone who participates in the Wikipedia community. The general public isn't really welcome, despite all the high-sounding rhetoric from Jimmy Wales. Perhaps once long ago, when Wikipedia needed to be filled out, this might have been partially true, but now that it's basically finished, contributions from the public are less welcome than ever. The article owners can be very jealous about "their" articles.
I thought about becoming a Wikipedian, but it just seemed like too much effort. Plus from what I've seen other Wikipedians seem like hypersensitive nerd jerks, the kind I escaped from. I just checked the page I tried to help, and sure enough it looks like it hasn't been updated since 2008. Tons of broken links and outdated information. I'd include the link here but it's a highly specific topic and you might be able to puzzle out who I am.
I've been pointing out problems like this on forums since 2009. And they rarely get repaired.
Examples from the old WR:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29519
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32083
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30161
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28106
A perfect example of the "obscurity trick" that I posted back in July, now you see why I keep updating that "Crap Articles" thread.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 1046#p1046
