What the Wiki?
Apparently it seems that Wikipedia is too smart for us. An article found on digg says that the content of Wikipedia is becoming too unreadable, not by idiots adding whatever comments Stephen Colbert tells them to put on the elephant page, but by the language and vocabulary used on the site. The writer of the article says that the George Washington page's introduction qualifies as post-graduate level writing. See, I don't get this. I can understand it, not trying to sound like I'm a post-graduate or anything, but I would guess it's because Wikipedia is trying to be more of a source in its academic affairs. Although, if you were to start a question in Dr. Hickey's class with, "According to Wikipedia..." you wouldn't get very far in the credibility scales. That fact that anyone can edit it is unique, but it is truth by consensus. The people on digg also pointed out a Simple English Wikipedia that dumbs it down even further into short sentences and words. Seriously, on the front page it says "Agriculture (growing crops)" in reference to the entire "field" of agriculture. Obviously! Nice for the 4th grader, but what is happening to our society? Reading used to be a privilege reserved for the elite and now it seems that books are greatly ignored or dumbed down. I mean, honestly, one of the the top selling books for children and adults is Harry Potter, a book written for children! I'm not saying it's bad but our adults are reading youth novels. Of course, I read comic books so I'm really no better, but the fact remains, if people don't have to read, they won't. And when they do read something, like Wikipedia, it's too complex for some to understand. I'm glad I'm not going into English Education because they have a lot of work ahead of them to turn future adults into active readers.
2 comments:
Hey there Jimmy. I am the one who wrote the article you linked to, and I was dismayed to see that most people on Digg missed the point of the piece.
I certainly am not calling for the dumbing down of wikipedia. I made that very clear in the article. What I was calling for was to create additional material that would be of wider use to more individuals.
Think of it this way, a large majority of the articles are in English, but you can see that on the front page, there are additional wikipedia versions in other languages. By translating the text, we make the material available to more people. I don't think anybody has a problem with this notion.
My suggestion is very similar to this concept. Users would take a wikipedia article, make a copy, and then make at least two other versions of the article. One that could be read by an average elementary student, and another that would be easily understood by a High school student.
The original article would remain untouched, and would be the first thing you saw on the page. But for those who wanted (or needed), an easier to understand version would be there.
As I mentioned on Digg, the whole thing came about when I wanted to teach my son about a battle that took place during the Hundred Year's War. He is 8, and there was just no way that the wikipedia article would have made sense to him.
Ah I see. And I agree that the pages of Wikipedia can be too complex for much younger viewers and there should be an option to make it readbale to them. I was just commenting on how advanced the readability is yet at college-level, the credibility of Wikipedia is in the gutter. I'm not sure why, the articles do get checked, but there's a fear that you're quoting inaccurate information in academic papers.
I'm beggining to understand you're idea more and more. Because Wikipedia isn't, a probably won't, be accepted by the higher institutions, the reading level should be decreased to a appeal to those who can use it a legitimate research source. As a college student, I can't use it, but if it were to be simplified, younger readers could use it because they don't need to go as in depth as college students do.
I think it would be neat if they could make a form of "Wikipedia Britannica" where only those with a degree could edit it, rather than anyone with a keyboard, so the college student would be able to cite it as a source because it would be maintained by the academic world. It would be beyond the younger reader, but it's readability would be matched with its acceptance.
I was also upset that day because, to me, it felt as though adult reading levels were decreasing. I think that the Simple English Wikipedia is good, for young readers. I'm just wary about how many adults use it.
Thank you for finging this site and commenting, Matthew. I don't like it when I go on a tirade and I'm not getting the full picture.
Post a Comment