I try to establish retlationship between things and thus use interwiki links to tie things together.
The most interesting facts are those which can be used several times, those which have a chance of recurring ... What we must aim at is not so much to ascertain resemblances and differences, as to discover similarities hidden under apparent discrepancies ... on looking closer we can generally detect a resemblance; though differing in matter, they approximate in form and in the order of their parts. When we examine them from this point of view, we shall see them widen and tend to embrace everything. This is what gives value to certain facts that come to complete a whole, and show that it is the faithful image of other known wholes. (c) Henri Poincaré
Yet, it seems that people hate to see that things are related. They even call the increased connectedness "reduced cohesion of the text". It is how reverters blatantly violate the Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule, as if it does not exist and demand you "do not revert, talk" when they have decided everything for you, they revert and not talk and, moreover, proceed re-revering (as usually, without talk) after one re-revert and punish you with warnings if you respond them the same way. It seems that some creatures know very well how to own Wikipedia. --Javalenok (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I find the Scholarpedia more comprehensive and easy to understand than the Wikipedia articles. Do students pretend to be more advanced and sophisticated than the world top scientists?