User:LainUmbra/sandbox

Wikipedia Resources
Synesthesia

Vladimir Nabokov

Timothy Leary

Encylopedia Britannica
Synesthesia

Vladimir Nabokov(American Author)

Timothy Leary

Wikipedia
"Synesthesia" Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundations, Inc, 29 Sep. 2014. Web. 29 Sep. 2014

"Vladimir Nabokov" Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Wikimedia Foundations, Inc, 29 Sep. 2014. Web. 29 Sep. 2014

"Timothy Leary" Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Wikimedia Foundations, Inc, 29 Sep. 2014. Web. 29 Sep. 2014

Encyclopedia Brittanica
"Synesthesia` Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014

"Vladimir Nabokov." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014

"Timothy Leary." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014

Article choices
My choice of articles covers three distinctive, but interconnected subjects. I began with two of my favorite authors/thinkers, Vladimir Nabokov- a Russian-American novelist, poet, and butterfly collector, and Timothy Leary- a controversial American writer/philosopher/scientist, who did a great deal of work on psychedelics in the context of therapy, and exploration of the mind. Nabokov has an uncommon psychological condition called Synesthesia, which is the experience of perceiving different kinds of sensory input- like numbers, and having the mind translate/simultaneously interpret the signal with other attributes, such as color, or taste. This phenomena relates to Leary and his work with psychedelics, as temporary synesthesia can occur during the use of LSD, which Leary wrote about in his writings and experiment reports. Very recently, the first human testing in forty years of LSD in a therapeutic context has begun, opening up the work that Leary began in Harvard to the scientific community once more, so I have a great deal of interest in reading about the history of it.

For my secondary encyclopedia choice, I have decided to use Encyclopedia Britannica. Looking over the articles side by side, it appears that there is significantly more detail on the topics of synesthesia on Wikipedia- with sub-articles specific to each reported variant of the condition. The offerings on Nabokov and Leary in Britannica are more complete, covering, albeit abridged compared to Wikipedia, their lives. One thing I noticed is that Britannica does not mention Nabokovs synesthesia, which may be because it is not something recognized by the DSM-V manual, and thus less verifiable beyond his own descriptions of his experiences with it.

Article Summaries
The Wikipedia article begins with a brief overview of synesthesia, mentioning the Greek origins of the word (syn- together, and aisthēsis- sensation). It makes note that while synesthesia was the topic of scientific interest and research in the late 19th century, it has fallen out of focus for a variant of reasons. The article is broken down into Characteristics- which breaks down some of the common characteristics of the condition, forms- which breaks down each of the reported variants of synesthesia, Diagnostic criteria- which provides some of the criteria for diagnosis (it is worth noting, however, that it is not listed in DSM-IV or ICD), Mechanism- which explains the neurological processes behind it, Epidemiology- which lists statistics, Society And culture- which mentions literature, film, and art relating to the condition, history, and research. It also covers eight different forms of synesthesia, most of which have their own individual pages as well. Grapheme-color synesthesia – where letters and numbers appear colored, is regarded as the most common manifestation of the condition.

The Britannica article is quite a bit shorter than the Wikipedia article. It begins with a brief statistic about the occurrence of the condition, and then goes into information about grapheme-color synesthesia, which as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is the most known about version. Though it does not provide the proper names for the other variants of synesthesia. Two paragraphs are written about the neurological and genetic aspects that have been studied/understood thus far about the condition. The final paragraph in the article talks about some of the first times the word was used and the condition was reported on in a medical context (1812), and discusses in brief that one of the reasons it has not been studied as heavily as it once was it because the experience is considered too subjective for consistent results.

Comparison
When comparing the two articles, it becomes very clear just from an initial glance that the Wikipedia article contains significantly more information in regards to content, references, bibliography, and links to other articles that relate under the synesthesia category tab on wiki. While there are some shared historical facts relating to the condition, the Wikipedia article covers a great deal of unmentioned information by Britannica- especially in regards to more elaborate details of the experience. While Britannica doesn’t offer anything whatsoever relating to diagnostic criteria for synesthesia, Wikipedia details the different manners of testing that are available currently. The suggested manner of testing is a test-retest method using stimuli of colors, names, numbers, etc. over a large number of years. 90% of synesthetes score consistently in associations from previous results, even after large gaps of time between testing. The section also provides five criteria written by neurologist Richard Cytowic, who has written extensively on the topic.

The Britannica doesn’t offer any of the names given to the different variants of synesthesia beyond grapheme-color synesthesia, whereas the Wikipedia article gives a breakdown of eight kinds reported, along with quotes from different individuals about what the sensation was like to them. It also mentions the original writing/works that some of the variants were reported (though some are rare and require further sources).

The history sections also differ greatly. The Britannica article states that the first mentions of synesthesia or synesthesia-like conditions happened around 1689 (by John Locke), but the Wikipedia article disagrees and brings up that discussions of colored hearing and color of music being a quantifiable quality dates back to the Greek antiquity. One thing that they do share in common is the date of the first medical report regarding the condition, which took place in 1812 by the father of psycho-physics, Gustav Fechner. Wiki also mentions that Isaac newton and Goethe both wrote on the subject as well. Another thing that the Britannica article lacks entirely is mentioning of is the 1980s revival of interest in the condition, led by Richard Cytowic and Larry Marks in the US, and by Simon-Baron Cohen and Jeffrey Gray in the UK. They focused on the reality, consistency, and frequency of synesthesia. Finally, the section brings up mention of the currently existing associations for synesthetes; American Synesthesia Association, the UK Synesthesia Association, the Belgian Synesthesia Association, the Canadian Synesthesia Association, the German Synesthesia Association, and the Netherlands Synesthesia Web Community.

The next section that Britannica lacks but is present on Wikipedia is a section on society and culture relating to the condition. While Britannica offers nothing on any artwork, authors, or other forms of media relating to synesthesia, Wikipedia offers up examples of literary depictions in the past of synesthesia, art that has been either inspired by or written by synesthestes (as well as a short list of fiction and the manner in which the condition is portrayed). Wikipedia also has a list of notable synesthetes throughout history, and it is worth noting that no names mentioned in the Britannica article are shared in the notable persons section on the wiki (which contains over 15 names as well as a side article with an even larger one).

In regards to the scientific mentions on the pages, Wikipedia has a section on the neurological basis/mechanism of the condition, a brief overview of the statistics of its occurrence, and a fairly extensive section dedicated to research happening currently in technology that has a basis on synesthesia research. Britannica has a paragraph dedicated to some of the neurology about the condition, which runs a little more detail about it versus the Wikipedia article, but neglects to mention things like the effect of psychoactive substances or altered states on the occurrence of synesthesia, or the occurrence of temporary synesthesia. Britannica also has a second paragraph on some of the genetic factors studied regarding the condition, which the wiki article does lack. The Wikipedia article does, however, offer a separate article dedicated to the neural basis of synesthesia which contains significantly more than what is offered on the main article.

Reference Analysis
The Wikipedia page has a very significant amount of resources and further reading suggestions. Reference wise, there is 74 separate entries covering multiple forms of media. One thing worth noting that will be discussed in the next section is the fact that despite there being so many entries, a great deal of “page needed” and “unreliable source?” notes have been made on different articles/sources in the section. The further reading section contains 13 excellent articles and writings on the topic that have been released in the past two years- all of them being scientific and psychological research in subject. It also contains six external links to interviews and synesthesia research groups.

In contrast, the Britannica page has very little in regards to references, resources, or further reading. Four other articles are linked to in the references, but they are all contained within Britannica, and two of the articles have only very passing relevance to the topic as a whole. I was a bit surprised and disappointed about a lack of a further reading and suggestions to external resources, but I feel that it may be because they regard themselves as a primary source.

Assessment
I found Wikipedia to be a highly effective and very informative article and resource. According to Wikipedia standards, it is rated a quality of B in the psychology and medicine WikiProjects, which is defined as “mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.” There is, however, a note at the top of the page indicating that although article cites its sources, many of the citations are lacking specific page numbers. On the talk page there is quite a bit of interesting discussion. User EdHubbard, a post-doctorate research studying neuroscience and founding member of the American Synesthesia (as well as a  contributor with over 3,500 contributions under his name) wrote a large discussion on the talk page about some of the key issues surrounding the article at this present time. He feels that because the topic of synesthesia straddles the line between psychology and medicine, it is leading to problems in the style and standards of the article as a result of both WikiProjects having separate sets of criteria for quality, references, citations, and overall format. WP:medicine has a very clear manual of style and a rigorous set of standards for sourcing, including the exclusive use of secondary sources, which is something that is lacking in the article at times. EdHubbard expressed was that the medicine project standards for citation and references limited new research and first hand accounts from showing up on the page (Although this was met with some disagreement by other users). A lot of discussion continues further about whether it should be in both, or just psychology, but nothing has been settled upon and the article remains a part of both projects.

Other issues presented on the talk page have been largely written by user SandyGeorgia, who is currently serving as a sounding board for EdHubbard as he works to improve the article. She mentions that there was conflict of interest editing occurring by researchers who were posting their own primary sources as citations and references to content they were adding (Richard Cytowick, who is referenced quite a bit was responsible for using his own primary sources and books, as well as Cretien Campen, and EdHubbard, the previously mentioned contributor). Since that point, further secondary sources and additions have been made to the article and while it was regarded as bordering the line of conflict of interest at that point in time, it has been agreed that the added contributions were notable and important. Additionally Hubbard has reached out and encouraged many international research groups to add to the page and help with its creation. The final issue of note that mentioned by SandyGeorgia is the issue with the citation section as a whole. There is a great deal of book sources without page numbers, uncited text, a reliance on a lot of old material despite there being more current sources in some cases, and a large amount of case reports being referenced rather than scientific studies. Additionally, there are some issues with articles being sourced that are locked behind a paywall on article sites that only offer up an abstract (Which is an issue I have experienced a lot first hand in other articles on Wikipedia). Even with these issues, the quality rating is high enough to warrant being a reputable source of information, but it appears as though a focused community effort would be required to improve the citation quality and work on page verification numberings when none are provided. I really enjoy the article as someone who has experienced synesthetic experiences, and reading the feedback and discussion occurring on the talk page, it has gotten me thinking a great deal about how I could access the materials that are lacking page citations, so I can aid the project further.

The Britannica article, though very concise about very basic elements of synesthesia, it lacks entirely the substantial amount of content that the Wikipedia article and sub-articles contain. There is very limited range and scale in the expansive aspects of the subject matter. It does play close to the chest with only very specific,seemingly dated information, and offers little insight into personal experiences, or even the presence of synesthesia in the literary and artistic communities. Is the information safe and reliable? Yes, but completely unsuitable for any scholar, professional, or researcher to use if they are intending for more than a very brief, dry history of the condition and want to expand their knowledge into first hand and second hand accounts of it since the inception of the internet. While Wikipedia has an article that is not without its flaws (many of which are common in the medicine WikiProject), Britannica provides little ambition in covering the vast spectrum of the condition, and even lacks reference to Vladimir Nabokov, who both wrote about it, and wrote characters experiencing it in his works. I wouldn't have even learned of the condition had it not been for research on him and his writings, growing up.

As to which is better? Well, it is a mixed bag. Objectively the Britannica article does provide the least amount of disputable or subjective content, whereas Wikipedia has quite a bit of conflict about some of the quality of citations, and the overall presentation of data. There is no objections though, to the content itself of the Wiki article, by any users in the talk page- More discussion is focused on the need for more specific citations, and some conflict of interest concerns because some of the contributors to the article have been affiliated with research and content shared in the article.

If you are an insightful and ambitious researcher or scholar, Wikipedia is by far the best choice. Although at the current state of the article, it does require some academic source awareness and discerning about some of the sources cited- especially if one is referencing a citation direction from the page, it does provide a large amount of references and further reading that can be utilized and serve as a jump-off point before a student delves deeper into research. A part of understanding the research towards synesthesia is also understanding that there still is a great deal not understood, and as a result the Wikipedia article has some conflicts and issues. Britannica only offers up some bare bone information that would not aid someone who wanted to do a paper on it, because is just doesn't have the same scope as what is offered on the Wiki.

Further Readings
Can Synesthesia in Autism Lead to Savantism? | MIND Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/12/04/can-synesthesia-in-autism-lead-to-savantism/

What color is Tuesday? Exploring synesthesia - Richard E. Cytowic. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRbebvoYqI

American Synesthesia Association. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.synesthesia.info/

Sound and Touch Collide - Issue 10: Mergers & Acquisitions - Nautilus. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acquisitions/sound-and-touch-collide

Ward, J. (2004). Emotionally Mediated Synesthesia. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.synesthesia.info/Ward-04.pdf

UK Synaethesia Association. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.uksynaesthesia.com/

Eagleman, D. (2007, January 1). A standardized test battery for the study of synesthesia. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://eaglemanlab.net/papers/EaglemanetalSynesthesiaBattery2006.pdf

Brang, D. (2011). Survival of the Synesthesia Gene: Why Do People Hear Colors and Taste Words? Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001205

Marks, L., & Mulvenna, C. (2013, September 26). Synesthesia, at and near its borders. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783847/

When Senses Intersect. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-senses-intersect/