Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Wikipedia entry

I changed the Wikipedia entry on stuttering to reflect the latest empirical evidence from brain imaging.
There is little evidence of structural differences in the brains of stutterers. However, differences in auditory, linguistic and motor functions have also been proposed to account for the disorder. Research is complicated by the possibillity that differences noted between stutterers and non-stutterers are the consequences of stuttering rather than a cause.[11]
to
"There is clear empirical evidence for structural and functional differences in the brains of stutterers. Research is complicated somewhat by the possibility that such differences could be the consequences of stuttering rather than a cause, but recent research on older children confirm structural differences thereby giving strength to the argument that at least some of the differences are not a consequence of stuttering.


I am sure someone is going to undo it again because it doesn't fit with their views. But I gave the references to the two new research articles by Watkins et al and Chang et al. I also noticed that they take out a link to my blog when I include it for further reading!!

8 comments:

Einar said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjYdiH_97hQ

Anonymous said...

It is less likely to be removed or changed if you cite your references for your comments and include a link to the paper rather than to a blog

Tom Weidig said...

I gave the references.

The blog comments for just for further links.

Thomas Kappler said...

I'm glad about your efforts, but removing links to blogs is standard Wikipedia practice, and rightly so. It's an encyclopedia.

Tom Weidig said...

OK. I didn't know that blogs are not allowed. I wont do it again. I promise! :-)

Gustav said...

Worse for Wikipedia. Your blog is excellent.

Greg said...

You need to cite your sources, Tom. If we're unable to cite legitimate peer-reviewed sources, then we're no better than the dogma in which we're trying to replace.

Greg said...

You need to cite your sources, Tom. If we're unable to cite legitimate peer-reviewed sources, then we're no better than the dogma in which we're trying to replace.