I think not. There is nothing, no matter how clear, that won't confuse somebody, so we can leave those people out of the discussion.
But for my part, I regularly find articles in Wikipedia outside my expertise to be bafflingly written, and even those within my expertise are often poorly expressed (so sometimes I fix them). This is not a problem with print encyclopedias, even the 11th Britannica, from which I've learned much on the technical matters it covers.
And others to whom I've observed this have agreed. Of course, we could all be poorly educated moderns, and the original Britannica readers of 1911 would have understood Wikipedia's article on "ping" (a topic on which they certainly would have been among the uninitiated) perfectly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-28 06:31 pm (UTC)But for my part, I regularly find articles in Wikipedia outside my expertise to be bafflingly written, and even those within my expertise are often poorly expressed (so sometimes I fix them). This is not a problem with print encyclopedias, even the 11th Britannica, from which I've learned much on the technical matters it covers.
And others to whom I've observed this have agreed. Of course, we could all be poorly educated moderns, and the original Britannica readers of 1911 would have understood Wikipedia's article on "ping" (a topic on which they certainly would have been among the uninitiated) perfectly.