[WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read

[Charles Matthews]

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