I can understand the hypothesis whether longer school articles would attract more enrolments, but I am a bit bemused about the medical hypothesis whether longer articles about a disease would cause more people to have it or at least be diagnosed with it. What exactly is the medical hypothesis here? Is it relating to treatment articles or drug articles? As for the ethics, if the information added to an article (school or medical) seeks to be accurate and satisfies the normal requirements (citations, NPOV, NOR, COI, etc), so what? Does it matter if it's done by a research project or done by anybody else? Do we know who did every edit on those articles currently or why? It's pretty clearly an ethical problem to add incorrect information. I can see a possible ethical issue if one article was updated with good quality contributions and another was done in a deliberately sloppy way, to test a difference. Kerry Sent from my iPad

Is there any other research studying whether editing wikipedia(s) produces real-world changes? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:10 PM Subject: Re: research trying to influence real-world outcomes by editing Wikipedia To: "wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> A followup by the same authors reviewed in today's Signpost reverses their opinion on causality, asserting that I improvements to articles about places increases tourism: http://marit.hinnosaar.net/wikipediamatters.pdf On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: