7 ms·

This is such a great description. Compare how Wikipedia describes the same process [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by koboll 7y ago

This is such a great description. Compare how Wikipedia describes the same process [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine#Research]: > The adenosine analog NITD008 has been reported to directly inhibit the recombinant RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of the dengue virus by terminating its RNA chain synthesis. This interaction suppresses peak viremia and rise in cytokines and prevents lethality in infected animals, raising the possibility of a new treatment for this flavivirus. Absolute gibberish to someone with limited knowledge of biology.

whatshisface 7y ago
Gibberish to someone with limited knowledge of biology, but significantly more informative for someone who is using Wikipedia as a reference source and not a textbook.
- javajosh 7y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. I've read wikipedia articles about subjects I know well and found the language to be needlessly packed with jargon such that it could at least momentarily dazzle and confuse the inventor of the subject himself! Rigorously precise language (e.g. "jargon") is almost never needed for a top-line description of a thing, and I think should be discouraged, in general. Yes, highly technical descriptions targeted toward professionals and academics in the field have their place in wikipedia, but ought to be relegated to periodic additions to the body of the article. That's just my opinion, of course, but as such I think its quite correct and admirably justified!
  - prewett 7y ago
    Feynman shared your opinion, so I’d say you’re in good company!
- vikramkr 7y ago
  I agree in general, but in this case the extra information is sort of irrelevant - do we really need to say "in this flavivirus?" Something much better as an overall description might be "Remdesivir is an adenosine analogue that chain terminates RNA dependent rna synthesis, inhibiting viral replication" or something like that. Use the molecule name instead of a label, general instead of specific, and if you are talking about dengue in particular - why refer to it as a flavivirus? Who cares in this context? Just say "dengue" again instead of "this flavivirus." And, I don't think the drug has been empirically demonstrated to inhibit cytokine storms etc, that should qualify the description of the imputed mechanism of action by clarifying that it's the hypothesized effect the drug will have.
oefrha 7y ago
Scientific articles on Wikipedia aren’t written for laymen, although some could be understood by laymen as a side effect. For example as a physicist/mathematician I expect precise and physically/mathematically accurate statements rather than hand-wavy analogues that the average Joe might be able to make sense of, and that’s how I edit. Now, it’s okay to also include more approachable explanations, but they’re not a must.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  I know Wikipedia has evolved considerably from its original intent, but isn't one of the quintessential goals of an encyclopedia to have an approachable summary of every topic?
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    Wikipedia isn't quite like a traditional encyclopedia in this regard. it covers many technical topics that would be too niche to include in the latter. random example: take a look at the Wikipedia article for "currying". [0] while quite accessible to someone with a math/cs background, this would be pretty much unintelligible to someone who wasn't familiar with the notion of a mathematical function. perhaps it could be rewritten to be even more accessible, but what would be the point of explaining currying to someone who doesn't know about functions and arguments in the first place? brittannica doesn't even cover this topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      The concept of partial specialization can be useful in many ways. I could see the concept of applying a process to one process and getting a new process for creating processes as somewhat applicable to business analysis, process engineering, analysis and design of government, etc. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a textbook, but I'd argue that having a more accessible first paragraph or summary section on every topic could help all uses: - Specialists would more easily be able to refresh their memories of topics they use infrequently before diving into the details. - People in neighboring specialties can more easily branch out. - Informed laypeople (e.g. experts in other industries) could more easily find new ideas for cross-pollination into their own field. As one random example I have recently found application for an algorithm mainly reserved for use in geophysics and cartography to audio signal processing, but learning and applying it took way more research than it really should have.
m-p-3 7y ago
One article among many others that would benefit from being simplified on simple.wikipedia.org
pnathan 7y ago
I have almost no knowledge of biology past a weak high school education and that sentence gives me an approximate understanding. It's not gibberish if you look at what it says and carefully read it.
C4stor 7y ago
And yet, 21 hours after making this remark, noone cared enough to edit the article to include the "great description". Wikipedia isn't magical. If you don't care enough to edit it, it won't include the information you'd like to see.
- a123b456c 7y ago
  Author called it a dumbed-down description. Are you sure that belongs on wikipedia?
  - C4stor 7y ago
    Sure, why not ? Let's consider for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid , it's quite clear what it's used for but if you dive in the "Interactions" paragraph for example, it's definetely not a dumbed down article overall.
aaai 7y ago
May be hard to understand for ppl. with no background, but that description includes the crucial bit of information that OPs "easy to grok" simplified description lacks: > inhibit the [...] RNA polymerase of the [..] virus If it would just simply stop RNA synthesis (eg. inhibit any RNA-polymerase) or if it would actually break RNA in general, it would kill HUMANS just as well! The point of antiviral compounds is to selectively inhibit/kill mechanisms/components of the virus and not the human host... there's hundreds of thousands of antiviral and antibiotic compounds that are not very useful because they'd kill humans just as well or give them horrible cancers or god knows what else... As the saying goes... "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  I noticed that hand waving in the OP too. Any insight on how it manages not to harm non-virus stuff? (Not a biologist. Also you're using a lot of italics and it harms the readability at least for me.)

by koboll 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago

Gibberish to someone with limited knowledge of biology, but significantly more informative for someone who is using Wikipedia as a reference source and not a textbook.

javajosh 7y ago
I'm not so sure about that. I've read wikipedia articles about subjects I know well and found the language to be needlessly packed with jargon such that it could at least momentarily dazzle and confuse the inventor of the subject himself! Rigorously precise language (e.g. "jargon") is almost never needed for a top-line description of a thing, and I think should be discouraged, in general. Yes, highly technical descriptions targeted toward professionals and academics in the field have their place in wikipedia, but ought to be relegated to periodic additions to the body of the article. That's just my opinion, of course, but as such I think its quite correct and admirably justified!
- prewett 7y ago
  Feynman shared your opinion, so I’d say you’re in good company!
vikramkr 7y ago
I agree in general, but in this case the extra information is sort of irrelevant - do we really need to say "in this flavivirus?" Something much better as an overall description might be "Remdesivir is an adenosine analogue that chain terminates RNA dependent rna synthesis, inhibiting viral replication" or something like that. Use the molecule name instead of a label, general instead of specific, and if you are talking about dengue in particular - why refer to it as a flavivirus? Who cares in this context? Just say "dengue" again instead of "this flavivirus." And, I don't think the drug has been empirically demonstrated to inhibit cytokine storms etc, that should qualify the description of the imputed mechanism of action by clarifying that it's the hypothesized effect the drug will have.

oefrha 7y ago

Scientific articles on Wikipedia aren’t written for laymen, although some could be understood by laymen as a side effect. For example as a physicist/mathematician I expect precise and physically/mathematically accurate statements rather than hand-wavy analogues that the average Joe might be able to make sense of, and that’s how I edit. Now, it’s okay to also include more approachable explanations, but they’re not a must.

nitrogen 7y ago
I know Wikipedia has evolved considerably from its original intent, but isn't one of the quintessential goals of an encyclopedia to have an approachable summary of every topic?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  Wikipedia isn't quite like a traditional encyclopedia in this regard. it covers many technical topics that would be too niche to include in the latter. random example: take a look at the Wikipedia article for "currying". [0] while quite accessible to someone with a math/cs background, this would be pretty much unintelligible to someone who wasn't familiar with the notion of a mathematical function. perhaps it could be rewritten to be even more accessible, but what would be the point of explaining currying to someone who doesn't know about functions and arguments in the first place? brittannica doesn't even cover this topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    The concept of partial specialization can be useful in many ways. I could see the concept of applying a process to one process and getting a new process for creating processes as somewhat applicable to business analysis, process engineering, analysis and design of government, etc. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a textbook, but I'd argue that having a more accessible first paragraph or summary section on every topic could help all uses: - Specialists would more easily be able to refresh their memories of topics they use infrequently before diving into the details. - People in neighboring specialties can more easily branch out. - Informed laypeople (e.g. experts in other industries) could more easily find new ideas for cross-pollination into their own field. As one random example I have recently found application for an algorithm mainly reserved for use in geophysics and cartography to audio signal processing, but learning and applying it took way more research than it really should have.

m-p-3 7y ago

One article among many others that would benefit from being simplified on simple.wikipedia.org

pnathan 7y ago

I have almost no knowledge of biology past a weak high school education and that sentence gives me an approximate understanding. It's not gibberish if you look at what it says and carefully read it.

C4stor 7y ago

And yet, 21 hours after making this remark, noone cared enough to edit the article to include the "great description". Wikipedia isn't magical. If you don't care enough to edit it, it won't include the information you'd like to see.

a123b456c 7y ago
Author called it a dumbed-down description. Are you sure that belongs on wikipedia?
- C4stor 7y ago
  Sure, why not ? Let's consider for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid , it's quite clear what it's used for but if you dive in the "Interactions" paragraph for example, it's definetely not a dumbed down article overall.

aaai 7y ago

May be hard to understand for ppl. with no background, but that description includes the crucial bit of information that OPs "easy to grok" simplified description lacks: > inhibit the [...] RNA polymerase of the [..] virus If it would just simply stop RNA synthesis (eg. inhibit any RNA-polymerase) or if it would actually break RNA in general, it would kill HUMANS just as well! The point of antiviral compounds is to selectively inhibit/kill mechanisms/components of the virus and not the human host... there's hundreds of thousands of antiviral and antibiotic compounds that are not very useful because they'd kill humans just as well or give them horrible cancers or god knows what else... As the saying goes... "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

kohtatsu 7y ago
I noticed that hand waving in the OP too. Any insight on how it manages not to harm non-virus stuff? (Not a biologist. Also you're using a lot of italics and it harms the readability at least for me.)