Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?

An anonymous reader writes "An editor from Wired writes on his blog that Wikipedia sucks for science stories — not because they are inaccurate, but because of what he calls the 'tragedy of the uncommon': Too many experts writing about subjects in ways that no non-expert can understand. Would this be the dumbing-down of Wikipedia — or would it be a better resource for everyone?"

That's what wikilinks are for

[Toe, The]

In a well-written Wikipedia article, the big words are wikilinked. When one doesn't understand something, one clicks the links for further understanding.

This has always been the promise of hypertext, but it is only fully realized in Wikipedia. I couldn't agree less with the premise that Wikipedia is unaccessible.

Additionally, as the article notes, there is also Simple English Wikipedia.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]
It doesn't have 1.7 million articles, but... of course not. There aren't that many concepts in "simple English."

Science is hard?

[tomstdenis]

You have to use the "big words" [re: ideas, terms, vocabulary beyond a 6th grade level] to be practical. I mean try explaining something like the makeup of the ATP cycle using words an 11 year old would know. Try explaining calculus with rudimentary algebra [e.g. basic linear systems], etc.

I don't think it would be useful to severely dumb down all of the articles. Maybe they just need more "see also" or reading guides?

Tom

Eh... where?

[tulcod]

Seriously, what's so hard about these articles? The power of wikipedia is in its linking system, when you don't understand a phrase or subject, just click it, or if no link is there, search for it, and you'll learn all about it. I read and understood these articles perfectly, while i only had a little bit of theory about DNA and microbiology. What's so hard about them? What can't be understood? Yes, you have to take your time to read them, to understand what they're saying. That's wyh we call it Rtfm. Read it, not look at it (also, ltfm would sound bad :p). Ok, i can't tell you everything they said in the article right now, but that's because i'm too lazy to remember everything. If you don't understand these articles, you don't need to know what's in them.

All the world's info, or the world's info for all?

[Zadaz]

When I was about 8 my family bought a complete set of World Book encyclopedias. And sure it didn't cover everything, and nothing after 1978, it did offer good basic information that an 8-year old could read and a 50-year old could appreciate.

Fast forward a few decades. The other day I went to wikipedia looking for some basic information on my new dental crown [wikipedia.org]. While I did (eventually) find the information I was looking for, it's full of sentiences like:

"The alloy used for PFMs is of a different variety for those used for FGCs. "

"Because the sprue former stuck out a little bit from the investment material, there is a communication between the outside and the investment pattern."

"When using a shoulder preparation, the dentist is urged to add a bevel; the shoulder-bevel margin serves to effectively decrease the tooth-to-restoration distance upon final cementation of the restoration."

I'm not a moron, I can do the additional research and figure out what all of the words mean in this context, but damn, I wish I had my old World Book encyclopedias.

Re:There are limits to simplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, physics uses a lot of maths. But some maths is gratuitously obfuscated - people invent really lame notations. Coming from an engineering background, almost ALL the difficulty I had with quantum theory was notational. Turns out it's mostly just linear algebra, but with godawful notation (except in rare cases of sanity, usually when a compsci or mechanical engineer has gotten into the field).

For programmers, it's like comparing lisp (easy, uniform, clear) and C++ (BARF!) code that does the same thing. Now, some people honestly do find C++
code easier to read. They claim. But I will never, ever be able to agree with them. And the problem is much worse in physics - often really quite simple maths is dressed up with syntax from hell that some jerk still working with pen+paper thought was a good idea.

Wikipedia articles are living documents...

[Fidelis]

As such, given time each article will get better, more accurate, current, and in depth.
Instead of nitpicking and bitching, contribute!

The danger is when the public or worse the policy makers _take actions_ based on inaccurate information from Wikipedia. But if/when this is about to happen the publicity will prompt the experts to step up and fix the article (hopefully).

I'm willing to bet, proportionally, you'll find more inaccuracies reported in NY Times, CNN, FOX or any other mass media outlets. This represents far more danger, for they actually influence public discussions and policies.

Wikipedia is fine, and it's working as intended.

Re:The more accurate the better

[ceoyoyo]

You're right.

I'm about to finish my PhD in an interesting program. Technically I'm part of the Electrical Engineering department but I'm also in the Biomedical Engineering program. Most of the EE students sit at the university and talk to the four other EE students and professors who understand what they're doing. Naturally sitting through their talks is an exercise in futile frustration.

On the other hand, the biomed students find themselves forced to talk to all kinds of people from radically different backgrounds. Their talks are noticeably better, especially for general audiences, but also for specialized ones.

I think we need to revive the tradition of public lectures and make EVERYONE give them.

Re:Not just wikipedia problem

[misleb]

This is a problem across all academics, not just wikipedia. I write research papers and I get criticized by those above me if they don't "sound" sufficiently intelligent. They won't say it publicly, but privately they will readily admit that the more confusion you add to the paper by using big words and clumping them together in obtuse ways will make the paper seem more professional.

While it is debatable that this is how they think unconsciously, I seriously doubt that they are "readily admitting" what you say... even privately. Perhaps you are paraphrasing wrong? Maybe they suggested that you include "big words" that you didn't really understand yourself so you took that to mean that they think you should make your papers "confusing."

It drives me nuts personally, as I agree with the author of this article that the simpler something is to understand the better it is, especially when you are trying to TEACH someone that thing.

Teach someone a simplified version of something and they'll learn a simplified version or they'll think it is a simple topic. Take quantum theory for example. There's plenty of simplified quantum theories flying around popular culture right now and all of them are so far from the actual theories that they're more or less just myths that fill trashy pop-sci magazines like Wired. The fact it is a Wired editor that is complaining about Wikipedia is particularly amusing, BTW. If I were a wikipedia author, I might take it as a compliment that Wired was criticizing my writing for being too hard to understand.

It is not just a science problem either. Look at literature where some of the literary works are written in such an obtuse way that people just consider them genius works because they can't understand them.

First of all, a lot of famous literature is old. Part of your misunderstanding is due to a difference in the Enlgish language. Words were use differently even 100 years ago. Though people who really know literature can read past that.

But even putting that aside... a multilayered, complex story is just interesting. And ya, you can't always understand it at first pass. And that IS part of its genius because you can talk about it, dig into it to discover the layers... find your own meanings. People forget about simple stories. They don't stand the test of time. But good, multilayered, literature is recognized as genius over time as people discover the layers.

I have often thought of making it a lifelong goal to change this and simplify the way they teach many "difficult" subjects. However, the current way is way too ingrained into every part of academics that it would take a miracle to accomplish it.

Or maybe the subjects really are that difficult (without the stupid quotes). Imagine that. Subjects that require years of dedicated study to understand. Subjects that trashy pop-sci magazines and dumbed down Wikipedia articles will get wrong every time.

-matthew

Re:The more accurate the better

[Mr. Underbridge]

This thread is a false dichotomy. Wiki should not have to lean towards one extreme or the other - the only reason to do so is because of lack of space

Depends on the topic. At some point, for a given entry one needs to make an editorial decision, whether to make the content high level or low level. For instance, some mathematical topics simply require calculus to fully understand. Do you dumb down the article to conceptual level so that a relative layperson might understand it or not?

Most well written articles start out general and conceptual for a summary, and then have technical portions that are, well, technical. I think that's a good format - the layperson reads what is effectively an 'executive summary'; the expert keeps reading.

Another option is to have a sort of 'moron babelfish' with parallel entries for a given story, with a link that replaces the 'hard parts' with less technical sections.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

So very true on all accounts. Encyclopedias are meant to be readable by non-experts. I do wonder though if the hostility by experts in the field has more to due with a sense of elitism about what they do, than anything else, which is downright ludicrious if you think about it since most of the readers on Wiki are non-experts. The only thing the experts are hurting is themselves, by closing off their field to a public that might be interested if only they could understand the material and its importance in their life.

I wish I had the points to mod you up.

Re:Then edit it

[Toe, The]

But if I want to edit Residue class-wise affine groups, I have no fucking clue where to begin in order to explain the concept in layman's terms.

That doesn't make sense. Some math subjects are esoteric. There is no way one can explain it simply without first explaining five years' worth of math theory. No way. If you want a simplistic article on an esoteric subject, you are asking the article to be 500 pages long. That would simply be redundant.

Just think how utterly absurd that is: engaging in a research project simply to understand an encyclopedia article? It defeats the entire purpose of having an encyclopedia in the first place.

Again, I completely disagree. I find this exact process to be the best learning experience I have had. I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles about things I did not know much about. I start reading the article, and as I come across things that don't make sense to my level of understanding, I change them. Sometimes this requires that I do a good deal of research to be able to make that edit. So it may take me a whole hour to edit a 2-page article. This is an awesome way to learn. By the time I am done, I have a tremendous understanding of the subject... and I have helped the next person get a good understanding much more quickly. Everybody wins.

Try it sometime. It may take you an hour or two (hint: most Wikipedia articles have an "External links" section that is tremendously helpful), but you will find that you have expanded your understanding enormously. Isn't that the highest goal of an encyclopedia?

Wikipedia readability: how to [Re:Disagree]

[j.leidner]

One way to address the question of how to make Wikipedia articles more accessible to a wider audience is to create text boxes that summarizes the whole article in ordinary language. E.g. for "Black Hole" it could be a box "Black Holes Unpuzzled" that explains the basic concept and its imnplication for physics in 2 simple sentences, when the whole article takes a more academic stance.

There could be special guidelines, and automatic monitoring tools could verify that only a controlled, simple vocabulary is used, and that sentences are not too long.

HYPOCRITE !!!

[B_SharpC]

The author should take his own advice. He begrudges that experts do not write clear enough for the non-expert layperson. Then he hypocritically uses narrow coding lingo like 'fork' and 'oyster fork', when more broad English would be better.

The problem with much of the internet it is still the domain of software nerds who really need to broaden their knowledge horizons. Until software evolves as simple as editing MS word or scribbling on a pad, it's not yet mainstream. And mainstream news journalists still prefer flashy websites over content.
 
The author though is a hypocrite. He needs writing lessons to organize thoughts away from 'shop talk' and more mainstream. HYPOCRITE!

Re:Dumb it down?!?!?

[GnuDiff]

I have no degree, yet I find Wikipedia's science articles I've needed to consult so far (including the ones quoted in TFA), written well enough, whenever I need some information or reference.

I'd value some extra accuracy in the encyclopedia (as far as Wikipedia claims that title) over chewing it down to people who have trouble with sciences. That's what external references in the articles should be good for though.

There seems to be a conception that everybody should be able to understand everything. It reminds me of an old joke (note, I have no idea of your nationality and it is not meant personally):

An European thinks: I don't understand him, so what's wrong with me?
An American thinks: I don't understand him, so what's wrong with him?

Although in this particular case, I'd refer more to Robert Sheckley's wonderful little story [get2net.dk].

Re:Make it readable

[Coryoth]

I so agree. I'm not a math person and I've tried to look up math topics I was interested in learning more about (like Calculus) on Wikipedia and found that I couldn't even understand the description of the subject!

Math is hard for two reasons: the first is that it is a highly layered subject, with abstraction built on abstraction, so that it can be hard to get a firm grasp of later concepts without solid understanding of the earlier ones; the second is that with mathematics the devil is often in the details -- without the nitpicking details, which are often tedious and complicated, things tend to unravel quickly. The latter point tends to mean that people often get caught up in the details (indeed, in my view math education is utterly detail obsessed [stuff.gen.nz]), and the facts about mathematics, and lose sight of the bigger picture -- providing that bigger picture is hard though. I'm working on a project along those lines, The Narrow Road [stuff.gen.nz], in which I try and build up an explanation of advanced mathematics from simple beginnings, keeping an eye on the motivations and broader outlook wherever possible. I haven't gotten to calculus quite yet, though we are starting to get close, so if you like start at the beginning [stuff.gen.nz] and see if it provides the sort of explanations you're looking for (it may not, different approaches work differently for everyone); if so, then hopefully I cna provide you with some explanations for calculus in the coming months.

Re:Not just wikipedia problem

[lunadog]

There is a big move against this type of thing. Nature, for example, are very particular about the importance of using clear language, avoiding passive voice etc. I think if someone cannot understand the paper then it really is not going to impress them. I would certainly downgrade any paper I was reviewing if the language was excessively obtuse.

On the subject of Wikipedia articles, I have never found them particularly difficult to understand, just that they are often disappointingly short (usually on the subjects I don't really know much about so I can't add anything).

Re:The more accurate the better

[Daniel Phillips]

If you want a 'Beginners Guide to Physics' go to the children's library.

Anybody who wants to can add a layman's introduction onto the beginning of the article. Preferably clearly marked as such, and preferably written by someone who understands the in depth article completely.

Re:The more accurate the better

[jbengt]

I think the submitted article has got it wrong.

I've read (or, tried to read) some Wikipedia articles that were way over my head. But TFA lost me with it's first example of epigenetics. I never had biology past freshman high school level, but I found the quoted paragraph to be easy to understand.

Now some subjects, like fluid dynamics, are inherently hard. The fluid mechanics article includes tough math, especially if you follow the links, and you wouldn't expect most to fully understand. But that shouldn't mean you should leave the math out. Learn to live with it and read around what you don't understand, or use the resources available to learn more. The quoted bits of the Fluid Mechanics article that TFA complains about are not bad at all.

I agree that some articles can be improved by making some of the language more accessible to laymen, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The author of TFA just comes off as spoiled by quoting understandable text and saying it's too confusing.

You can only dumb things down so far before you're no longer telling the truth.

Re:Not just wikipedia problem

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I used to make fun of a friend for the same kind of thing. I joked that there was a requirement that every paper written by anyone in her major include the word "problematize" at least once. I can't remember what the other words on the list were anymore now that it's been a few years, but there were some "good" ones. The scary part is that they really did show up (unnecessarily) that often.

If you think that, you are wrong

[Flying pig]

You are in fact exactly the kind of person I complain of in another post on this thread. In fact, you have fallen into the lawyer fallacy (lawyers always think they can learn enough of a subject quickly, but that's because they usually only have to convince other lawyers.)

I had a case at work of just this a few weeks back. I had written a technical appraisal which would need to go to professional services people. I asked another staffer to look it over for readability and avoidance of engineering jargon. The result was that a number of technical terms went - which was good - but the rewrite introduced actual factual errors as a result, as well as a number of terms that were actually jargon of my colleague's speciality, but which he did not recognise as such. My mistake, but qualified technical writers are very hard to come by in our field.

I do use Wikipedia from time to time, but with great caution. Often I see errors I would like to fix. But I will not do so because I am not actually an expert in the field and I therefore think it would be wrong to risk fixing one error but perhaps introducing new ones.

Re:Dumb it down?!?!?

[ciggieposeur]

The Wikipedia is meant for informational purposes. NOT for presenting introductory material. If an introduction is needed there are tonnes of 1st year texts.

I disagree. Wikipedia is meant to be the jumping-off place for all accumulated human knowledge; relying on the existence of 3rd-party texts -- most of which do NOT have their information on the Internet -- severely limits the usefulness of Wikipedia for everyone. The science articles I have tried to use in Wikipedia have knowledge barriers both at the intro and the advanced levels, requiring one to have both textbooks and access to the journals. In other words, to understand or participate in our shared scientific heritage requires one to be either a university student or a university employee.

I'm a graduate student studying quantum chemistry. In the process of getting to this point I had to take over the last three years thermodynamics (classical + statistical), fluid mechanics, heat transfer, reaction kinetics, and some math (PDE + perturbation theory). I found Wikipedia essentially useless during these three years, because the articles either assume I already know the topic sufficiently well (which makes it pointless to look them up in the first place) or they use terms specific to different branches of science/engineering such that it is not obvious which terms are synonymous with those in my textbooks. (Fortunately I made it a habit to visit every used bookstore I pass and now have probably a hundred books covering these subjects.)

That said, I think the bulk of the problems with Wikipedia science articles are actually problems within the disciplines themselves. Until scientists have a real incentive to make their actual work more public -- by using accessible journals and making their software truly FOSS -- we will see more of the same Balkanization.