Slashdot Mirror
'Maybe Wikipedia Readers Shouldn't Need Science Degrees To Digest Articles About Basic Topics' (vice.com)
Wikipedia articles about "hard science" (physics, biology, chemistry) topics are really mostly written for other scientists, writes Michael Byrne, a reporter on Science beat at Vice's Motherboard news outlet. From the article: This particular class of Wikipedia article tends to take the high-level form of a scientific paper. There's a brief intro (an abstract) that is kinda-sorta comprehensible, but then the article immediately degenerates into jargon and equations. Take, for example, the page for the electroweak interaction in particle physics. This is a topic of potentially broad interest; its formulation won a trio of physicists the Nobel Prize in 1979. Generally, it has to do with a fundamental linkage between two of the four fundamental forces of the universe, electromagnetism and the weak force. The Wikipedia article for the electroweak force consists of a two-paragraph introduction that basically just says what I said above plus some fairly intimidating technical context. The rest of the article is almost entirely gnarly math equations. I have no idea who the article exists for because I'm not sure that person actually exists: someone with enough knowledge to comprehend dense physics formulations that doesn't also already understand the electroweak interaction or that doesn't already have, like, access to a textbook about it. For another, somewhat different example, look at the article for graphene. Graphene is, of course, an endlessly hyped superstrong supermaterial. It's in the news constantly. The article isn't just a bunch of math equations, but it's also not much more penetrable for a reader without at least some chemistry/materials science background.
Well, what's supposed to happen is that someone should step in to edit the article and correct it. Many years ago, I was reading Wikipedia and thought an article could use some more information, and clicked edit and happily added helpful facts. I was contributing to the sum total of human knowledge! I was so proud.
Much like the time that you tried to edit Wikipedia, the same thing happened. I checked the next day and my information had been deleted. I was, honestly, kind of hurt. I never found out what happened until years later. See, to edit Wikipedia articles, you need to be a "Wikipedian". A Wikipedian is someone who participates in the Wikipedia community. The general public isn't really welcome, despite all the high-sounding rhetoric from Jimmy Wales. Perhaps once long ago, when Wikipedia needed to be filled out, this might have been partially true, but now that it's basically finished, contributions from the public are less welcome than ever. The article owners can be very jealous about "their" articles.
I thought about becoming a Wikipedian, but it just seemed like too much effort. Plus from what I've seen other Wikipedians seem like hypersensitive nerd jerks, the kind I escaped from. I just checked the page I tried to help, and sure enough it looks like it hasn't been updated since 2008. Tons of broken links and outdated information. I'd include the link here but it's a highly specific topic and you might be able to puzzle out who I am.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I think you have the ratios reversed. More people are curious than already experts in most fields.
And if you don't care that the general population understands what electroweak interaction is then you are part of the problem, soon to be overwhelmed by the ignorant masses.
Extra points for being dismissive however.
The Wikipedia article linked is exactly what you would expect from an encyclopedia entry. A few paragraphs of introduction about what the electroweak force is, the people who wrote the theory and the experimental evidence which backed it up. Then it launches into a more detailed description of what EW interactions are, EW symmetry breaking etc. which has to be at a more technical level because otherwise you are leaving out information which is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do.
If you want explanations of topics which are accessible to the general public then you do not go out and read an encyclopedia you go and read a book designed to simplify complex topics enough that non-scientists can digest them. So if you want a general public level explanation of EW interactions on the web go to something like the particle adventure and they'll have what you want there.
That's not the problem. I learned a long time ago if you need to look up a math concept you go to Wolfram's site. The explanations there are clear and concise, but simpler than Wikipedia. It's not "dumbed down" on Wolfram's site, its that they're not using the article on general idea as an introduction to their pet theory, which is what seems to happen on Wikipedia. If you look up 1+1 it shouldn't be explained in terms of homomorphisms of k--star-modules or whatever the particular author is into, it should be explained as simply as possible.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Wikipedia takes the place of an Encyclopedia - which by definition is intended for the widest possible audience. The main purpose of an Encyclopedia is to provide introductory material to the widest range of topics. While you may have deeper information available, the primary role of providing understandable introductions to the topics must not be optional. If you are really interested in depth of research, then why not link the main articles in Wikipedia, with other wiki based subject focused sites, or research paper repositories?
The fact that there is a simple.wikipedia.org, speaks volumes to the breakdown of Wikipedia's primary mission. simple.wikipedia.org should not need to exist.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Wolfram doesn't have the OR problem (original research).
I've added intermediate-level "translation" text to a few Wikipedia articles, and every time I do this I know I'm at risk of being reverted for OR.
QED for the Layman is a masterpiece of original explanation—and forbidden territory for Wikipedia contributors.
Second, it's very hard to avoid saying something false when interpolating between the basic and the advanced material.
When I've tried this myself, I've estimated that I was hitting around a 90% truthfulness, with the other 10% ranging from vaguely correct to outright howlers (and me not being able to discern the difference).
I consider myself a fairly severe fussbudget in matters of accuracy, which means I trust my estimate that I'm falling short. Except for the experts who wrote the expert material—some of whom are no good at any other level—I'd rate myself fairly high. And I still don't think my intermediate contributions are quite up to encyclopedic standards (and so I mostly only dive in when the article starts out in a pretty bad place).
Unlike the simple level, the intermediate level is precise enough to get yourself into real trouble, here and there, if you're not a subject expert.
The editors who contributed the advanced material, so far as I've noticed, tended to be the 2005-2007 heyday crowd making highly substantive main edits, and not necessarily sticking around for editorial maintenance, or even to assist a less expert author trying to step in and fill the expository gaps.
First and foremost, Wikipedia is process driven, not outcome driven. People need to bear that in mind, and be happy it's as good as it is.
My least favourite articles are the mathematics-heavy articles where 90% of the text is derivational, to the degree where the main points are encoded in lemmas. What I've noticed on these pages is that it's very hard to dive in in any kind of small way. You almost have to first break the existing page's back to steer the page in a different direction.
The final class of pages I've noticed are pages that were basically abandoned 75% finished in the first place. These can often be improved with a quick effort. But if you try to add too much text, you'll fail to provide enough cites (that requires real research). In my experience, one cite attached to a few added sentences usually survives.
And then if you get reverted, the page goes back to the same state, with no warning for the next fool who comes along and tries to make the same edit.
That's what I hate most. Many editors revert a contribution aimed at fixing a problem where they view the fix as problematic, with little concern that the original state was also problematic, while taking no ownership whatsoever of the pre-existing problem.
Now I don't care if 10% of my edits get reverted (be bold), but above that level it begins to feel like a giant waste of time, so I'm careful not to be so bold as to ruin my will to participate in the first place. (One sees many bitter former editors show up in these threads who didn't figure this out soon enough.)