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

[Fred Bauder]

> 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

Our article is more complicated than the dumbed-down pablum offered up by
official sources to patients tailored for those who can read at a 9th
grade level.

Not that they are wrong to write plainly and simply.

Fred