Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?

An anonymous reader writes "An editor from Wired writes on his blog that Wikipedia sucks for science stories — not because they are inaccurate, but because of what he calls the 'tragedy of the uncommon': Too many experts writing about subjects in ways that no non-expert can understand. Would this be the dumbing-down of Wikipedia — or would it be a better resource for everyone?"

Comments

Re:The more accurate the better

[ShieldW0lf]

Readability is of absolute importance. If it's not readable, it's not writing, it's just scratches.

But these examples weren't hard to read. They just demanded that the user have the interest to read them. You'd have to be an ignoramus not to be able to read those examples.

It sounds to me like a professional writer complaining about the threat to his livelihood, or that someone didn't do his article on epigenetics for him.