Everybody can always read at their preferred width provided they do what's necessary to get there. Resize window. Modify CSS. You can always do that. My poin

Everybody can always read at their preferred width provided they do what's necessary to get there. Resize window. Modify CSS. You can always do that. My point is that the smart default is to minimize having to make any change. The question is what the smart default is. Defaulting to full width text means that most of the time, on a large desktop monitor, I need to resize my window to adapt to the text (different font, font size, layout, etc.), so it doesn't meet that standard. Using a maximum width solves the issue, unless you want, for some reason, to display text wider than is commonly considered comfortable (you can always resize your window to shrink it further if you need to). Can you show me an example where you'd like to resize text beyond 10-ish words on screen? I'm very curious about concrete use cases and what the result looks like (and why it's superior), other than the case indicated in the original article (i.e. logging, not long-form text). I'm not interested in "taking choices away" from anyone. I'm interested in not wasting my time building custom CSS to avoid having bad reading experiences on websites I spend a lot of time on. Maybe it comes down to what you think Wikipedia is as a product. I don't see it as an API that spits out unformatted content. I see it as an encyclopedia, and as such, expect it to provide the best reading experience for me out of the box, like I would expect from a printed encyclopedia. So far, Wikipedia is at best mediocre when it comes to basic typesetting. I just wish it were better.