[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.

[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.

[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.