Readability of wikipedia is too low

Gahars · Sep 4, 2012

Ultymoo said:
ulternitivly u kud rite en rtickle liek dis

lik dis rtickle if u lrn evertim!

Law · Sep 4, 2012

It sounds like we're gearing up to write an iPedia. Let's get to it.

edit: sry I mean lets get 2 it xoxo

ByteMunch · Sep 4, 2012

Bladexdsl said:
learn english than problem solved

Oh the irony burns...

Gahars · Sep 4, 2012

Also, since someone has to post it...

shadowmanwkp · Sep 4, 2012

Sorry mistranslation from the Dutch source, I fixed my error. The 70%+ is moderately hard or worse to read and 45% is hard to very hard to read, I hope that clears it up for most people. Also, the English articles contain A LOT more info on most subjects, simply because more people use it. It's the reason why non-natives prefer the English one and why it IS relevant.

It also applies to more in-depth material like pointed out earlier, you can't really make heads or tails out of the articles most times if you don't know it too well. Encyclopedia or not, the fact stands that most articles do not provide enough information for beginners of the subject and it goes very in-depth quickly for most articles.

Lastly, people saying learn English or GTFO, I'd say read the source or GTFO. That's all.

Law · Sep 4, 2012

shadowmanwkp said:
Sorry mistranslation from the Dutch source, I fixed my error. The 70%+ is moderately hard or worse to read and 45% is hard to very hard to read, I hope that clears it up for most people. Also, the English articles contain A LOT more info on most subjects, simply because more people use it. It's the reason why non-natives prefer the English one and why it IS relevant.

It also applies to more in-depth material like pointed out earlier, you can't really make heads or tails out of the articles most times if you don't know it too well. Encyclopedia or not, the fact stands that most articles do not provide enough information for beginners of the subject and it goes very in-depth quickly for most articles.

Lastly, people saying learn English or GTFO, I'd say read the source or GTFO. That's all.

This is why when trying to learn about a subject you research it through multiple sources. There is a reason why almost every university makes fun of Wikipedia and the people who use it.

"Oh I don't know what this word means! This article is useless!"

Stop relying on Wikipedia. Want to learn about a subject but there isn't an article for it written in your language? Go the the library and pick up a fucking book.

Hyro-Sama · Sep 4, 2012

For fucksakes, you know world is going to hell in a handbasket when they complain about readability of Wikipedia.

shadowmanwkp · Sep 4, 2012

Law said:
shadowmanwkp said:

Sorry mistranslation from the Dutch source, I fixed my error. The 70%+ is moderately hard or worse to read and 45% is hard to very hard to read, I hope that clears it up for most people. Also, the English articles contain A LOT more info on most subjects, simply because more people use it. It's the reason why non-natives prefer the English one and why it IS relevant.

It also applies to more in-depth material like pointed out earlier, [you can't really make heads or tails out of the articles most times if you don't know it too well. Encyclopedia or not, the fact stands that most articles do not provide enough information for beginners of the subject and it goes very in-depth quickly for most articles.

Lastly, people saying learn English or GTFO, I'd say read the source or GTFO. That's all.

Click to expand...

This is why when trying to learn about a subject you research it through multiple sources. There is a reason why almost every university makes fun of Wikipedia and the people who use it.

"Oh I don't know what this word means! This article is useless!"

Stop relying on Wikipedia. Want to learn about a subject but there isn't an article for it written in your language? Go the the library and pick up a fucking book.

That's not what I meant and said. If you read the second part you'd get to my argument and that is that wikipedia doesn't really teach/introduce you a subject proper most of the times. If it fails at doing just that and it actually goes deeper than explaining the very bottom line of what something is, then you're really failing as an encyclopedia. And here we come full circle, because if you can grasp the subject somewhat, you get context and having a good context makes an article a LOT more easier to read.

ferofax · Sep 5, 2012

shadowmanwkp said:
Encyclopedia or not, the fact stands that most articles do not provide enough information for beginners of the subject and it goes very in-depth quickly for most articles.

Lastly, people saying learn English or GTFO, I'd say read the source or GTFO. That's all.

Since when did an encyclopedia require being easy to digest? Really, if you're relying on Britannica or some such, it's pretty much lip service. Wikipedia is a repository of facts, or at least, it aims to be. And as it stands, a vast majority of those topics *WILL* be kind of hard to wrap around a normal person's head.

If Wikipedia had, say, 90% readability, then that's like saying normal people can understand extremely difficult concepts not meant for normal people.

Taleweaver · Sep 5, 2012

To be honest, I think this article says more about that Flesch Reading Ease test than about wikipedia.

I like Dutchies (my girlfriend, for example). But I don't get why they are investigating the readability of the English wikipedia. At best, they should be making comments on the Dutch part.

Sicklyboy · Sep 5, 2012

On most subjects I have no problem with Wikipedia. The simple English one is easy, but I never use it.

If there's something I don't know, right click -> search, or I am already on Wikipedia anyway.

ferofax · Sep 5, 2012

They should have just done a study on how tvtropes links you with everything that links you to everything else which links you further into oblivion until you see tropes in everything and realize life is just one big trope of its own and--

Yeah, something like that.

Deleted User · Sep 5, 2012

Great, good. Now how about there are more articles on the simple english version of wikipedia! Perfect!

Fishaman P · Sep 6, 2012

While I agree that certain articles (such as articles about submolecular structures) are difficult for anyone without a college degree in the corresponding field to understand, I'm able to understand any article that I would need.

tl;dr don't click Random Article and complain about low readability when the article is intended for college majors.

Readability of wikipedia is too low

Bakayaro Banzai

rip ninjacat that zarcon made me

Well-Known Member

Bakayaro Banzai

Your roms are on another rom site

rip ninjacat that zarcon made me

I'm from the fucking future.

Your roms are on another rom site

End of the World

Storywriter

#JOYCONBOYZFOREVER

End of the World

Deleted User

Guest

Speedrunner

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum