weak structure and lack of clarity, unredeemed by any strong impression of usability or readability:
- "The text is too short and I don't think it is concise [...] The information is not well structured. In certain sentences we don't understand what the author is focused on [...] the use of the example is not in coherence with what the author intended to explain [...] It would have been useful to include a history section, and mention further topics such as interaction with logic and foundations of Mathematics [...] While most key ideas are included, no pointers are provided for the topics mentioned in the article, nor are there examples for them." (Combination of comments from all three reviewers for Wikipedia article on Mathematical Proof)
- "The article is poorly written. Its language is stiff and it has a number of errors [...] The all-important relation of rational numbers ('números rationales') with real numbers is omitted completely. Indeed, there is no mention of real numbers at all [...] The grammatical and factual errors and the dull tone preclude the article from being useful in this regard [...] The article is repetitive and extremely boring. Moreover, it is pretentious to spend seven pages discussing such basic ideas [...] Would just confuse a non-academic reader. Too elementary [...] The article needs to be re-written, possibly from scratch. It has absolutely no value." (Combination of comments from all three reviewers for Enciclonet article on Numero Racional)
Overall, quite a small number of such articles were identified, whether from Wikipedia or other sources. In addition the article on Mathematical Proof quoted above, largely negative judgments about Wikipedia articles applied just to a small number out of the total of 22 Wikipedia articles: Pharmacokinetics, Percepcón (from the Spanish version), Primary Education and (according to just one of the two reviewers) St Thomas Aquinas. A certain number of negative comments were made about most articles, because the academic reviewers were generally rigorous in their judgments, but these were usually balanced or redeemed by a very fair identification of strengths. In the next section we focus mainly on Wikipedia articles in order to explore the balance of qualities that was identified in these specifically, and in order to see if it is possible to detect a particular mix of strengths and weaknesses that are particularly relevant to Wikipedia.
5.2.1.2 Academics' Judgments about Wikipedia Articles in Particular
When it comes to articles that were judged as being satisfactory or good, which is to say an article that is readable, and provides a useful point of reference or a good introduction to a topic, we argue that it was indeed possible to detect a particular pattern of qualities that were particularly characteristic of the Wikipedia articles within this sample at least. Not all of these qualities are wholly positive if taken on their own, but nonetheless constitute a set of characteristics which in combination outweigh specific weaknesses. The Wikipedia article on Hugo Chavez, for instance, illustrates this particular combination of qualities: "Generally speaking, the second article [Wikipedia] was much stronger than the first. It was far more comprehensive and detailed, it was up to date (going right up to the middle of last year rather than more or less stopping in 2005), and it offered a far more politically neutral interpretation of the subject." Both reviewers agreed that the Wikipedia article was the stronger on this particular topic, despite the fact that it did possess certain weaknesses:
42
