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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
