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.
Then feel free to "translate" it for Simple Wikipedia
Simpler.
Error 001
Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
Maybe not everything needs to be dumbed down to Popular Mechanics levels. I for one enjoy reading difficult articles on Wikipedia: even if I don't understand a quarter of a half of a them, I always learn something new one way or another.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Anytime I have tried to edit an article, my changes get reverted (without recourse) by a bot or some random wikipedia fanatic that refer to a set of rules I never agreed to or was consulted about. I don't have enough time in the day to deal with an internet edit war. If people want an easier to read article, change the edit policy.
First problem, Wikipedia. Not saying it cannot be fixed, but the way that articles are edited and the ability of an editor to win by simply out-camping everyone else is a problem.
Second problem, some topics do not readily lend themselves to easy explanation. Perhaps Wikipedia should include more overview paragraphs, but unfortunately to understand some topics one really does need the underlying education.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you go to simple.wikipedia.org, you get much simpler articles on this sort of thing.
There isn't a specific page for electroweak interaction, but it redirects you to Weak interaction, the text of which describes the electroweak interaction.
The Simple page for graphene is decent enough.
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.
I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I find the average science article on a subject that I don't already know to be way too technical. They usually lack any sort of overview for non-experts.
I do like technical detail in the article-- but not instead of the article.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I don't know how many times i have used wikipedia to find out some arcane information to help my kids with high school chemistry or physics, which is kind of the level that I find for those subjects on wikipedia. I think the 'just for researchers' is hyperbole on the part of the OP.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I've read some pages concerning statistics that have math operations I've never seen before. I've done differential equations in the past. I know what a mean and standard deviation are. I'm familiar with many math concepts. This was completely foreign to me. There was little to no explanation as to what it was.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Yaknow, I get the idea that what's happening is a lot of non-sciencey types, like journalists, are really intimidated by hard science. They see the hardcore intellectual sweat that goes into articles like this, and it makes them feel bad that they're in a soft profession. They'd appreciate it if the sciency types would tone it down a notch, and say shaming things like "I have no idea who the article exists for". The object isn't to make Wikipedia better, it's to make themselves feel better.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Or perhaps they encountered a reference to something they weren't familiar about, and went to an encyclopedia to try and find out what it was. Which is generally the purpose of an encyclopedia, to give brief overviews on a wide variety of topics. If an average person can't get that overview, the encyclopedia has failed.
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.
Jargon has a definite place in the world.
1) It allows to you discuss things with the immense level of accuracy needed for discussing complex topics. Business talk about 'enterprises' so as to include both corporations and non-profit organizations.
2) When talking to other experts, it demonstrates familiarity and knowledge, proving expertise. When talking to other computer experts, if you mention SaaS (Software as a Service) they know you are technical, while if you say Cloud, you are more likely corporate.
3) When talking to non-experts it makes them think you are an expert - irregardless of whether you are one or not. Con men and smarmy types love to abuse it in this way. But if they run into a real expert they get laughed at.
Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general population, not an expert. As such, using jargon (and math) is excessive. It should be limited, or at least placed after a full non-technical explanation.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It isn't that articles need to be dumbed down.
It is that articles need to be structured to be usable by a wide range of users. The hard technical details need to come after a high level summary and a layman's explanation.
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein
I have found this to be true in my life. Sometimes I think I understand something, but when I try to explain it in a way a child (or even teenager) can understand it I find that I really don't understand it as well as I thought I did. If I then go back and study it further and really try to understand it myself I find that eventually I understand it well enough that I am able to explain it in terms that are comprehensible at most age levels. This often means using analogies and simplifying to the level of the listener, but it is doable if I understand the topic well enough. I suspect the problem with wikipedia is that authors of the articles understand the material just enough to write an article, but not well enough to write it so it is accessible by a lay person (say an 8th grade reading level).
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.
The Encyclopedia Britannica in its prime was written for the adult general reader and not the specialist scholar or professional ---and attracted some very good and accessible writers whose academic credentials were perfectly sound.
I took a look at the article on the Electroweak Interaction. As a layman, I could more-or-less follow the overview, but I didn't even try to follow the math, because I know it's too deep for me. There was one thing missing that would have made it a much more satisfactory experience for me: a brief explanation of just what the significance of this is, and why physicists find it important. And, that's not uncommon in technical articles; the people writing them tend to forget that laymen who don't already understand the subject are coming to Wikipedia to get a better idea of what it's all about, in words they can understand.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Why would 90% of people in this world need to know what electroweak interaction is beyond the introductory paragraph? Why would 99.999%? I mean really, what isn't covered by the introductory paragraph for those who are "just curious" and don't want to put a lot of effort into understanding that concept, which at a deep level relies on understanding 12 other concepts, each with 12 of their own on down the line...
Sorry, but those 90% of people can just STOP READING after the summary. If an article is missing a summary, there's a wikipedia "?" tag which will flag the article as needing one.
It's not like I was walking down the street one day and some facet of the electroweak interaction made me suddenly respect some group I was biased against prior. There's no piece of code that I'm going to write more efficiently because someone converted all the calculus into averaged-algebra.
This is just people complaining for complaining's sake, and thinking they should be able to pick up everything like they do the remote control and master it in one second, and if they couldn't do that IT WAS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT! Those folks should read some articles on mental issues and see if they can self-identify better 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.
As a product of scrunchy Blorp spaces, the Minkybink cube is itself a scrunchy Blorp space as a result of the Grumpalump theorem. The scrunchyness of the Minkybink cube can also be proved without the Axiom of Choice by constructing a continuous function from the usual Splorp set onto the Minkybink cube.
Every subset of the Minkybink cube inherits from the Minkybink cube the properties of being both tromplizable (and therefore T4) and second countable. It is more interesting that the converse also holds: Every second countable T4 space is homeomorphic to a subset of the Minkybink cube.
That's the nice thing about wikipedia: it has galumphings to the stuff you might not understand.
/. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
Writing for someone not a specialist in the field is not at all the same thing as dumbing down. It's also not an exclusive relationship. Writing a section for the layman does not preclude writing another for the domain specialist.
I'll just leave this here:
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Albert Einstein
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.)
OK, say that with a straight face about most physics articles. I mean Kaon is a disaster.
compare that with the actually helpful article "Ring (mathematics)". The ring article used to be for crap, but it was edited to be quite readable and now contains a lot more information. And it's not just the header, the article continues on clearly. An example of what the integers are is given. Is that wrong? no. It's also not dumbing it down.
Some of them are very good. It's the ones that aren't, and particularly the ones that fail because of the lack of an introduction, that are the subject of discussion.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com