When writing Is there cognizance or meta-awareness of classical conditioning? I realized I used a lot of well recognized psychological terms that the "man in the street" would likely be unfamiliar with.
However they're fairly common in psych literature and I fully expect anyone who can properly answer the question is already aware of all terms used (conditioned taste aversion, unconditioned stimulus usw.)
The post Learning by using the site made me wonder if it'd be helpful if terms like that did at least get a Wikipedia/etc link to help more casual readers read terms. Heck, it might even cut down on the number of questions where people ask what something is without taking a quick peek on Wikipedia/google.
Either way I'm not saying posters should be responsible for adding definitions/links to them in posts. This is a site for experts and I don't want anyone to dumb down content nor do I want anyone to feel it necessary to spend half of their time finding Wikipedia links to "common" terms.
I'm just wondering if we think it'd be useful for editors to, on their own time, add little links to relevant reading to make the site more engaging for the more casual reader, or readers who are experts in X, but don't happen to know the terms used in Y. I'll admit that despite my knowledge in cognitive related terms I'm largely unfamiliar with mathematical psychology for example, so it's not necessarily a problem limited to people unfit to ask/answer questions on this site.
