Many people who edit Wikipedia do so because they enjoy writing; however, that p

assion for writing can influence what they write to be longer than necessary. So
metimes this is because the writer incorrectly believes that long sentences and
big words will make them appear learned.[4] In other cases, misplaced pride prev
ents the author from seeing which words are superfluous. Perhaps the author may
be too hurried (or lazy) to write clearly and concisely; recall Pascal's famous
quote, "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." Whi
le a genius like Pascal may have been justified in that balancing of priorities
(just as neurosurgeons may not spend time doing the hospital landscaping), the r
est of us must do our share of the work. In a related vein, administrator candid
ates may be judged merely by how much they have written, versus the much more su
bjective value of their contributions. Sometimes, the writer is an academic, who
se occupation requires obscure, genre-specific jargon to impress his peers and j
ustify additional funding. They don't necessarily know how to turn it off on Wik
ipedia, or even that they should.
Due to these factors, many articles, instructions and especially comments on Wik
ipedia are longer than necessary. Some of Wikipedia's core policies are consider
ed by some to be too long (e.g. Creative Commons license). This may be considere
d to put too much burden on the readers to understand. Such problems can be seen
elsewhere.[5]
Writers often begin a project by writing long-winded drafts. As they go through
the iterative process of revising their work, they (should) come to a better und
erstanding of what they're trying to communicate and be able to reduce the lengt
h of the work. If this process is stopped prematurely, the result is needlessly
long (as shown by Pascal's quote). Writers may err towards wordiness out of conc
ern that short prose which is not carefully edited (at high time cost) would ove
rsimplify, to the point of distorting or omitting, or carry a higher risk of bei
ng misunderstood.
Albert Einstein described the work of theorists as making theory as simple as po
ssible, without failing to explain all empirical cases. His remark is often para
phrased as "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." M
uch argument between individuals results from one trying to point out the ways i
n which another's model of reality is incomplete. Thus the concept that Einstein
mentioned may spur lengthy exposition, often to account for the corner cases.
A venerable aphorism is that "brevity is the soul of wit."[6] A similar sentimen
t advises would-be skilled writers to "omit needless words."[7] Editors are enco
uraged to write concisely, and avoid undue technical jargon. If it becomes neces
sary to write lengthy text in an article, editors may wish to include a short su
mmary. Additionally, it may be appropriate to use simple vocabulary to aid reade
rs in comprehension. Many readers may not use English as a primary language or m
ay have other "unarticulated needs".[8]
Needless length may be interpreted as a mark of arrogance. The message to the re
ader seems to be: "My time is more valuable than yours. I can't be bothered to e
xpress myself clearly and concisely, so I'm shifting the burden to you to sift m
y words." Some people are constitutionally more loquacious than others, and thus
may not be arrogant so much as miscalibrated. Still, the loquacious must force
themselves to see things through the eyes of readers, and push beyond their own
comfort level what they themselves think is already clear to arrive at greater c
larity. Taking the time to distill your thoughts not only helps you communicate
more effectively, but also builds rapport with your readers.