It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics.

That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.

Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.

Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.

I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1]

If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one.

[0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

What do you think are the problems with the regular page?

I just skimmed it, and it seems to me like high-school level math is more than enough to understand what the page is saying (at least superficially).

I get the idea behind simple.wikipedia.org, but more often than not it's just a dumbed down version of the main article that uses worse English (which is obvious, since it presumably has less contributors than en.wiki, but that doesn't help your average reader)

@qsort: To give you an analogy, think of the "original" wikipedia article as the equivalent of an academic paper. It is absolutely the right level of detail for a particular audience (with references and links and even fancy language) whereas the simple wikipedia article is the equivalent of a NYT article introducing the same idea and probably going a bit deeper.

As a further analogy, if I had to learn about Covid-19, I'd likely start with NYT (no affiliation) and then move onto Nature/Science/BMJ

It's a good reference, though. Even the articles that are obviously copied and pasted from someone's homework tend to at least be useful places to find references.

This is slightly distressing — I’m fascinated by a lot of complicated math concepts that are far above my comprehension level, and Wikipedia is high on the list of places I check.

Do you have any suggestions of better sites to read?

Why do you say that? Are there examples of inaccuracies in it's mathematics articles? What do you wish were better about it? What IS better than it?

In order to understand most Wikipedia mathematics articles you need to already be well versed in the topic you're looking up. Even after finishing a Physics degree I struggle to understand the derivations of common physics equations because they use far more advanced concepts than necessary to demonstrate their point.

So, should it have all the foundational build-ups to get to an understanding of the topic? I think that'd be amazing but quite difficult given it took you however many years to get that degree, and I can barely get a computer to do basic arithmetic for me.

That's not my point. My point is that to understand a fairly rudimentary topic using only Wikipedia you already have to understand post-grad mathemarics concepts because the derivation and terminology is needlessly contrived because the editors are usually post-grads writing as though the article is for other post-grads. There are countless examples but I'm on my phone at the moment.

Hmm. Maybe these post-grads are on their phone too writing about very complicated mathematics that to a post-grad might seem rudimentary.

The beauty is that nothing prevents YOU from adding clarity to these "needlessly contrived" concepts... so what's stopping folks like you from contributing?

I'd be far too worried about being incorrect when describing a derivation. I also studied physics not maths but the same goes for physics articles.

I think post-docs are probably better suited for accurate explanations but at the same time they are (at least, fairly often) not as good at explaining a concept using a simpler framework.

The other problem is that because different editors write maths articles, related concepts can use fairly different terminology or concepts with similar derivations use different derivations leading to possible confusion about how concepts are related.

It's not that the mathematics wiki articles are wrong, it's that they aren't particularly well organized to accommodate all skill levels. If you don't already know what concepts you're looking for it can be a jumble. That said, wiki plus textbook is better than either alone.

What should they do differently?

You're missing some crucial facts:

* Politics (and similar stuff) can creep into any topic

* It takes a lot of effort to verify a Wikipedia article and assess neutral point of view and other stuff. My point is that you won't know that you're reading a biased or hoax article while you're reading it.