Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Morphology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Valparaíso, San Felipe, Chile.
Anat Sci Educ. 2020 Jul;13(4):475-487. doi: 10.1002/ase.1910. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
Forty anatomy articles were sampled from English Wikipedia and assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, each article's edit history was analyzed by Wikipedia X-tools, references and media were counted manually, and two readability indices were used to evaluate article readability. This analysis revealed that each article was updated 8.3 ± 6.8 times per month, and referenced with 33.5 ± 24.3 sources, such as journal articles and textbooks. Each article contained on average 14.0 ± 7.6 media items. The readability indices including: (1) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Test and (2) Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula demonstrated that the articles had low readability and were more appropriate for college students and above. Qualitatively, the sampled articles were evaluated by experts using a modified DISCERN survey. According to the modified DISCERN, 13 articles (32.5%), 24 articles (60%), 3 articles (7.5%), were rated as "good," "moderate," and "poor," respectively. There were positive correlations between the DISCERN score and the number of edits (r = 0.537), number of editors (r = 0.560), and article length (r = 0.536). Strengths reported by the panel included completeness and coverage in 11 articles (27.5%), anatomical details in 10 articles (25%), and clinical details in 5 articles (12.5%). The panel also noted areas which could be improved, such as providing missing information in 28 articles (70%), inaccuracies in 10 articles (25%), and lack or poor use of images in 17 articles (42.5%). In conclusion, this study revealed that many Wikipedia anatomy articles were difficult to read. Each article's quality was dependent on edit frequency and article length. Learners and students should be cautious when using Wikipedia articles for anatomy education due to these limitations.
从英文维基百科中抽取了 40 篇解剖学文章，对其进行了定量和定性评估。定量方面，使用维基百科 X-tools 分析每个文章的编辑历史，手动统计参考文献和媒体数量，并使用两个可读性指数评估文章的可读性。分析显示，每个文章每月更新 8.3±6.8 次，参考文献为 33.5±24.3 个来源，如期刊文章和教科书。每个文章平均包含 14.0±7.6 个媒体项。可读性指数包括：（1）Flesch-Kincaid 年级阅读水平测试和（2）Flesch 阅读舒适度阅读公式，表明这些文章可读性较低，更适合大学生及以上水平的读者。定性方面，使用修改后的 DISCERN 量表对抽取的文章进行了专家评估。根据修改后的 DISCERN，13 篇文章（32.5%）、24 篇文章（60%）和 3 篇文章（7.5%）分别被评为“好”、“中”和“差”。DISCERN 评分与编辑次数（r=0.537）、编辑人数（r=0.560）和文章长度（r=0.536）呈正相关。专家组报告的优点包括 11 篇文章（27.5%）内容完整且涵盖全面、10 篇文章（25%）解剖细节详细、5 篇文章（12.5%）临床细节丰富。专家组还指出了一些可以改进的地方，例如 28 篇文章（70%）缺少信息、10 篇文章（25%）存在不准确内容、17 篇文章（42.5%）缺少或图像质量差。总之，本研究表明，许多维基百科解剖学文章阅读难度较大。每个文章的质量取决于编辑频率和文章长度。由于这些限制，学习者和学生在使用维基百科文章进行解剖学教育时应谨慎。
