| ▲ | flexagoon an hour ago |
| Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being as detailed as possible is its goal. Simple English Wikipedia exists for shorter easier to read versions of articles. Generally though, turning a complex topic into a fun easy read is the goal of good scientific journalism, which is also important but a separate effort from an encyclopedia. |
|
| ▲ | keiferski an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. The point is to condense an entry as much as possible while being thorough enough to cover most relevant information. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In some ways that was the limitation of physical paper and weight of the set. A digital encyclopedia has different constraints, and the hard part was always trying to figure out what to leave out. Also in encyclopedias, you get what you get from the one or two people that worked on that particular article. If they had biases it would shape what everyone in the world saw. In an online article it can become a battle on what people want to see. It is a difficult problem. |
|
|
| ▲ | Clamchop an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Encyclopedias are for summaries, not maximal detail. For that, you look at the source material. |
|
| ▲ | rubito an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just you know but „Simple $language” is made for accessibility, that is for people who have a mental disability or folks who suffered a stroke. |
| |
|
| ▲ | cj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I'm normally against conspiracy theories and BS like this, but... There's a pretty stark difference between the first few paragraphs of the HIV/AIDS page and the first few paragraphs of the Type 2 Diabetes page. Both are "factual", but when I read the HIV/AIDS page, I feel like someone is trying to convince me "HIV is not a bad disease". |
| |
| ▲ | harrisi 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I just read both and I'm not sure I understand what your point is here. I don't have much to say about the diabetes page other than there is some interesting (as well as unfortunate) information. The HIV page certainly doesn't seem as if it gives off the "not a bad disease" feeling. It lists an untreated life expectancy as 11 years, whereas the diabetes page lists an expected life expectancy of being reduced by 10 years. That certainly makes HIV more deadly. It's also made obvious that it's transmissible from normal sexual behavior, as well as being so for some time before one would even experience symptoms. It's definitely not a bed time story. If anything, I'd say the diabetes page is less scary in its overall presentation than it should be. Obviously this is subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, just genuinely curious at what made you think this. I'm not making assumptions, but perhaps you have (unfortunately) more personal and upsetting experiences with HIV/AIDS than with diabetes? I know that when I used to bartend at a neighborhood gay bar frequented by gen Xers it was very difficult to see and hear people lose or talk about losing their partners to something that alienated them even more than they already are/were. It is interesting to think about how to convey information about these things though. I think it's probably a good thing to make HIV/AIDS not sound so terrifying. For pretty much every adult alive today, I'd assume, their idea of HIV/AIDS was something like being told it's a "gay disease" or that you can't touch people with it (thank you for your service, princess Diana) or some sort of anti-African racist nonsense. So conveying accurate information without bigotry, homophobia, or xenophobia is probably a good thing overall. Also curious what sort of possible conspiracy would benefit from Wikipedia readers from not being more afraid of HIV/AIDS. |
|
