Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Globalization of dyslexia article series

This page attempts to document how we are approaching the need to present a worldwide view of dyslexia.

The essential problem is that there is much more information available about dyslexia in English speakers than for any other language. This makes it very difficult to present a "balanced" view of dyslexia in different languages and different writing systems.

The discussion occurred on the Wikiproject Dyslexia Talk page. So that it doesn't get lost in an archive, the discussion is included below so we know why we're doing what we're doing --- hopefully this will help us avoid going around in circles should we decide to change our approach at some point.

Can we talk about how to approach the worldwide view aspect of these articles?
Hi, all.

I'd like for us to talk about how we handle the globalization / worldwide view issue for the dyslexia series. I'm starting to see sections where the information is contorted, because we're attempting to provide this "worldwide view" for all articles.

Bear with me, if you will. Here's what I'm thinking.

Regarding research: The vast majority of dyslexia research has been done on English-speakers. The vast majority of secondary source "analysis" has been written about English-speaking dyslexics. There is some information about dyslexia in European languages, and there is a growing base of information about dyslexia in Chinese speakers.

Where "globalizing" is easy: There are some topics where differences between English speaking countries is required, for example differences between the US and UK, especially in terminology. That's pretty easy to deal with. There are a couple of articles where we have a reasonable amount of information unrelated to the US/UK (see Orthographies and dyslexia -- where there are discussions about how different writing systems affect how dyslexia manifests in individuals). That's pretty straightforward also.

The problem I see: Trying to globalize *every article* is becoming very awkward. There are lots of places where the only verifiable information is about dyslexia in English, but it's easy to see that this is an area where there are probably differences for dyslexia in other languages --- there's just no comparable information for dyslexia in other languages. And trying to organize sections to accommodate placeholders for global information, or calling out information that is only about alphabetic writing systems, is so awkward that we're ending up with sections that are pretty contorted. This means a much less usable article for the vast majority of our audience.

For an example of what I mean, see the "Signs and symptoms" section of dyslexia. Most of the research we have about symptoms is based on alphabetic languages, and most of that is specifically about the English writing system. Someday there will be a significant amount of comparable information about dyslexia in other languages/writing systems, but it's not there today. Take a look and I think the organization problem will be pretty obvious. I think this kind of thing really reduces the quality of the article for most readers.

I placed a question about this on Village Pump, and someone said this:

This is English Wikipedia, if there isnt anything, or very little, published on dyslexia among non-English language speakers, written in the English language then it isnt notable enough in the English speaking world for you to "globalise" the entire article, a small section noting that in English there hasnt been much published on the dyslexia in other languages (if this has indeed been verified through the use of a published source stating that) would suffice and no further globalizing of the article is needed, anything more would be OR in my eyes.

A couple of the best books about dyslexia (well, they're among the best IMHO) write about dyslexia in the English-speaking world -- English-speakers are their primary audience after all -- and then they include a section or chapter called something like "Dyslexia Around the World" that addresses the available information about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use. Would this be a defensible approach for Wikipedia articles?

Proposed solution: Here's a stab at trying to define our globalizing "strategy" as we write/edit these articles.
 * Assume that our primary subject matter is dyslexia among English-speakers, and write from this perspective.
 * Where there is a significant amount of information about dyslexia in another language or another writing system, include that information in context. (As in the Orthographies and dyslexia article.)
 * Add a section in the main dyslexia article -- or if the section gets too big, create another article == title the section or article "Dyslexia around the world" or something similar. Summarize what we know about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use.
 * Over time, as more secondary sources become available about dyslexia in other languages, add more "worldly" information then.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support You have an excellent grasp of the goal. Globalization does not mean that we have to represent every single possible country/language/etc without fail; it means that we give due weight according to reliable sources, without excluding sources as being about the "wrong" country/language/etc. Since dyslexia is a bigger problem in English than any other language, and nearly all of the reliable sources discuss English, then a properly balanced article must focus more on English/English-speaking countries.  (It must also include some information about other languages/countries/etc, just like our reliable sources do.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that you have a good understanding of the problem and I think that you've put forth a well-thought way to resolve it. What are some of the sources you had in mind? I wouldn't mind having a try at them,Synchronism (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)