Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On 09/16/11 10:35 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: Nice to know we are as accurate and more up-to-date than the competition. I'd love to see further work done on the 2% of information where we currently differ from the textbooks, hopefully most of that will just be that the textbooks are out of date. But it would be good to have that confirmed and any errors fixed. As for The study authors recommend that patients use the PDQ site first so they are not inundated by complex information and hyperlinks. I'm not sure how dumbed down things have to be for ninth graders - but if I'm right in assuming that ninth graders is American English for early teens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_grade then I'm surprised they think hyperlinks might be beyond them. Is it just possible that someone in the medical profession is being patronising to the public here? It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. That could be a project for simple-wp to undertake. Ray ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On Sep 16, 2011 6:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. If most people that have completed the ninth grade can't read at the ninth grade level, you need to recalibrate your scale... Either that, or give up on this nonsense that readability can be determined by word and sentence length. It has far more to do with how engaging it is and how much prior knowledge it assumes than how long the sentences are. If people want something that doesn't require much language skill, we do have Simple English Wikipedia. I haven't visited it in a while, so I'm not sure how good it is these days. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On Sep 16, 2011 6:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. If most people that have completed the ninth grade can't read at the ninth grade level, you need to recalibrate your scale... Either that, or give up on this nonsense that readability can be determined by word and sentence length. It has far more to do with how engaging it is and how much prior knowledge it assumes than how long the sentences are. If people want something that doesn't require much language skill, we do have Simple English Wikipedia. I haven't visited it in a while, so I'm not sure how good it is these days. It doesn't have much detailed information on cancer. Simple English serves those learning English who have a limited vocabulary, not the general English speaking public, who are literate but not skilled readers. Reaching that population, the masses, if you will, requires specialized writing and editorial skills. Governmental and medical organizations use those skills while crafting public information documents. We could also learn and apply those skills in an appropriate format. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
There is also the idea that the lead should be written for a more general audience than the rest of the article. I don't know if our cancer articles follow that style, but I find that in many articles in subjects where I'm an ignoramus I can grasp the lead but get lost if I try to finish the page. If the study was analyzing whole Wikipedia articles they won't have picked up on that. WSC On 17 September 2011 13:48, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Sep 16, 2011 6:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. If most people that have completed the ninth grade can't read at the ninth grade level, you need to recalibrate your scale... Either that, or give up on this nonsense that readability can be determined by word and sentence length. It has far more to do with how engaging it is and how much prior knowledge it assumes than how long the sentences are. If people want something that doesn't require much language skill, we do have Simple English Wikipedia. I haven't visited it in a while, so I'm not sure how good it is these days. It doesn't have much detailed information on cancer. Simple English serves those learning English who have a limited vocabulary, not the general English speaking public, who are literate but not skilled readers. Reaching that population, the masses, if you will, requires specialized writing and editorial skills. Governmental and medical organizations use those skills while crafting public information documents. We could also learn and apply those skills in an appropriate format. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On 09/17/11 5:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: On Sep 16, 2011 6:35 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. If most people that have completed the ninth grade can't read at the ninth grade level, you need to recalibrate your scale... Either that, or give up on this nonsense that readability can be determined by word and sentence length. It has far more to do with how engaging it is and how much prior knowledge it assumes than how long the sentences are. If people want something that doesn't require much language skill, we do have Simple English Wikipedia. I haven't visited it in a while, so I'm not sure how good it is these days. It doesn't have much detailed information on cancer. Simple English serves those learning English who have a limited vocabulary, not the general English speaking public, who are literate but not skilled readers. Reaching that population, the masses, if you will, requires specialized writing and editorial skills. Governmental and medical organizations use those skills while crafting public information documents. We could also learn and apply those skills in an appropriate format. I look at Simple more broadly to include adult native English speakers with generally poor reading skills for whatever reason. Depending on how you define literate your comment could be self-contradictory. I just looked at the first sentence of [[en:Cancer]] which reads: *Cancer* /ˈkænsər/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-us-cancer.ogg listen http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/En-us-cancer.ogg) (medical term: malignant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignancy neoplasm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm) is a large, heterogeneous class of diseases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease in which a group of cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 display uncontrolled growth, invasion that intrudes upon and destroys adjacent tissues, and often metastasizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis, wherein the tumor cells spread to other locations in the body via the lymphatic system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymph or through the bloodstream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood. and the first few sentences of [[simple:Cancer]] which read: *Cancer* is a class of diseases http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease or disorders. It is when the body has no control over cells that begin to split. In cancer http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_%28disambiguation%29, body cells copy their contents. They then make new cells with these copies. These cells are able to go into other tissues http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_tissue. They go into other tissues by growing into them. They can also go into other tissues by putting themselves into far away places by metastasis http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis. I don't find either satisfactory. Both have grammatical problems. I had to pause to determine how invasion related to the beginning, and after figuring that out came to the conclusion that metastasizes should really have been a noun. In the Simple version is when... is an incorrect introduction of an adverb clause. Addressing an audience with limited language skills is no excuse for our own bad grammar. I don't know what is intended by body cells copy their contents. A few individual words need further explanation, or, at least, links. Both of these need serious help. Ray ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On 16/09/2011 03:26, Tony Sidaway wrote: It appears that a study by a team at the Medical School at Thomas Jefferson University has found Wikipedia's cancer information to be very accurate and updated more frequently than other sources. Compared to professional sources such as PDQ, however, it's a bit of a trudge to read. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/23109 They used standard algorithms based on word and sentence length to calculate the information's readability. Fair enough, except that it doesn't actually tell you about readability. The previous cancer-related study we heard about indicated to me that WP articles used less inline paraphrase (renal failure - i.e. your kidney start shutting down), because putting [[renal failure]] allows concision. If we did more of that paraphrasing, which comes naturally to doctors addressing patients, the sentences would get longer ... Anyway it is reassuring that the difference between us and other sources is more about house style than content. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
On 16/09/2011 03:26, Tony Sidaway wrote: It appears that a study by a team at the Medical School at Thomas Jefferson University has found Wikipedia's cancer information to be very accurate and updated more frequently than other sources. Compared to professional sources such as PDQ, however, it's a bit of a trudge to read. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/23109 They used standard algorithms based on word and sentence length to calculate the information's readability. Fair enough, except that it doesn't actually tell you about readability. The previous cancer-related study we heard about indicated to me that WP articles used less inline paraphrase (renal failure - i.e. your kidney start shutting down), because putting [[renal failure]] allows concision. If we did more of that paraphrasing, which comes naturally to doctors addressing patients, the sentences would get longer ... Anyway it is reassuring that the difference between us and other sources is more about house style than content. Charles Our article is more complicated than the dumbed-down pablum offered up by official sources to patients tailored for those who can read at a 9th grade level. Not that they are wrong to write plainly and simply. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
Nice to know we are as accurate and more up-to-date than the competition. I'd love to see further work done on the 2% of information where we currently differ from the textbooks, hopefully most of that will just be that the textbooks are out of date. But it would be good to have that confirmed and any errors fixed. As for The study authors recommend that patients use the PDQ site first so they are not inundated by complex information and hyperlinks. I'm not sure how dumbed down things have to be for ninth graders - but if I'm right in assuming that ninth graders is American English for early teens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_grade then I'm surprised they think hyperlinks might be beyond them. Is it just possible that someone in the medical profession is being patronising to the public here? WSC On 16 September 2011 03:26, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: It appears that a study by a team at the Medical School at Thomas Jefferson University has found Wikipedia's cancer information to be very accurate and updated more frequently than other sources. Compared to professional sources such as PDQ, however, it's a bit of a trudge to read. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/23109 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read
Nice to know we are as accurate and more up-to-date than the competition. I'd love to see further work done on the 2% of information where we currently differ from the textbooks, hopefully most of that will just be that the textbooks are out of date. But it would be good to have that confirmed and any errors fixed. As for The study authors recommend that patients use the PDQ site first so they are not inundated by complex information and hyperlinks. I'm not sure how dumbed down things have to be for ninth graders - but if I'm right in assuming that ninth graders is American English for early teens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_grade then I'm surprised they think hyperlinks might be beyond them. Is it just possible that someone in the medical profession is being patronising to the public here? WSC It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist. If we addressed this problem in a systemic way we would present alternate articles at differing levels of comprehensiveness and readability. Perhaps in the future. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
