[WikiEN-l] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)

[David Gerard]

On 2 June 2010 12:42, David Lindsey <dvdlndsy at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, then, why are we trying?  Why do the "best" Wikipedia articles look more
> and more like (poorly done) journal literature reviews full of technical
> terms and requiring substantial background knowledge to understand?  I, for
> one, despite several years of college mathematics find nearly all math
> articles largely incomprehensible because they are clearly not aimed at the
> general reader.  But, the general reader IS Wikipedia's audience, and we
> should write the articles that best serve him.


It's because ability to look up and cite facts is a lot more common
than actually being a good writer. There's little cure for this apart
from actual good writing being applied.

The "best" articles are the creation of algorithmic and
judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
How to measure good writing?

Personally I would prefer an article to have all the details on a
subject and imperfect lumpy writing than be polished with details
smoothed away. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I see nothing
wrong with that being visible. But that's just me, I wouldn't
generalise it to everyone.

The easy thing concerned Wikipedians could do is at least make sure
article summary intros are well-written and concise without losing
important detail - remember that the lead should ideally be a
standalone short article in itself. (The mobile gateway presents
articles this way by default, for instance.)

That said, sometimes I'm freshly amazed by this thing we've built. I
looked up [[Betelgeuse]] yesterday (because of the rumours that it was
about to finally go supernova [*]) and, of course, found myself with
about thirty tabs on supernovae, giant stars, neutrinos, why neutrinos
have mass ... it was all *really good*, *impeccably referenced* and
*up to date*. Some of the writing was clunky, but I'm enough of an
editor and popular science fan to have been able to untangle bits.
This Wikipedia thing - it's often really very good indeed, you know.


- d.



[*] Bad Astronomy: Is Betelgeuse about to blow?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/01/is-betelgeuse-about-to-blow/