On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract,
to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncology<http://chicago2010.asco.org/>g/>:
"Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth to the
professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further
research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding
and retention."
Does this signal some advance in public perception of Wikipedia? At
last we leave behind the question "is it accurate", and move on to "is
it well written"?
Steve