Perhaps, but summarizing the advantages of 3D over 2D by saying that "you can't copy a table, you have to make EACH ONE BY HAND!" is a gross misrepresentation of the differences and limitations of 2D.
It only takes one or two sentences to explain this more accurately, and I think we should all prefer that over saying something that is about 90% wrong but slightly shorter.
I also cringed when the article said that we couldn't really know why the Columbine kids went on a murder spree when other people who played Doom didn't. That is a totally ridiculous thing to say; We know exactly why, and it's because one of them was a bonafide psychopath and the other was clinically depressed. Again, something explainable in a sentence that was misrepresented in the article.
Historians should be more concerned with accuracy than word count.
It only takes one or two sentences to explain this more accurately, and I think we should all prefer that over saying something that is about 90% wrong but slightly shorter.
I also cringed when the article said that we couldn't really know why the Columbine kids went on a murder spree when other people who played Doom didn't. That is a totally ridiculous thing to say; We know exactly why, and it's because one of them was a bonafide psychopath and the other was clinically depressed. Again, something explainable in a sentence that was misrepresented in the article.
Historians should be more concerned with accuracy than word count.