POINT 0 would be: Do we want a Wikipedia that is easier to understand? My answer: yes, as far as possible.

"Simple" is complicated to define and most difficult to achieve: Many top scientists fail miserably, even if they try. Often it turns out just wrong, and (thus) not to be understood at all.

I do not know of the "Simple Wikipedia" (does it exist?). The quotation in Article 2 is from Wikipedia in "Simple English" - a different goal, in my opinion. Those who know fewer English words and idioms are not the same as those who know less about science etc.

Authors of any article should start with a survey that is easier to understand, and allows readers to decide if they want to read the complete article. Wikipedia often fails that goal, and so do other sources of knowledge. Many blue clickies are a great service to those who lack some of the presumed knowledge, but a "royal road" rarely exists.

Readers who do not understand an article should not be too quick to blame either themselves or the author. More reading often helps.