Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?
While it is debatable that this is how they think unconsciously, I seriously doubt that they are "readily admitting" what you say... even privately. Perhaps you are paraphrasing wrong? Maybe they suggested that you include "big words" that you didn't really understand yourself so you took that to mean that they think you should make your papers "confusing."
Seeing as how you use "it is debatable" "I seriously doubt" "perhaps" "maybe" "took that to mean" and I used "they will readily admit" I don't think I am the one making assumptions.
Teach someone a simplified version of something and they'll learn a simplified version or they'll think it is a simple topic. Take quantum theory for example. There's plenty of simplified quantum theories flying around popular culture right now and all of them are so far from the actual theories that they're more or less just myths that fill trashy pop-sci magazines like Wired. The fact it is a Wired editor that is complaining about Wikipedia is particularly amusing, BTW. If I were a wikipedia author, I might take it as a compliment that Wired was criticizing my writing for being too hard to understand.
There is a difference between a simplified version that hides facts and a simplified explanation that just makes all the facts easier to understand.
Or maybe the subjects really are that difficult (without the stupid quotes). Imagine that. Subjects that require years of dedicated study to understand. Subjects that trashy pop-sci magazines and dumbed down Wikipedia articles will get wrong every time.
You must have never had a bad teacher/professor if you don't believe that subjects can be made more difficult than they really are.