Forty anatomy articles were sampled from English Wikipedia and assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, each article’s edit history was analyzed by Wikipedia X‐tools, references and media were counted manually, and two readability indices were used to evaluate article readability. This analysis revealed that each article was updated 8.3 ± 6.8 times per month, and referenced with 33.5 ± 24.3 sources, such as journal articles and textbooks. Each article contained on average 14.0 ± 7.6 media items. The readability indices including: (1) Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Readability Test and (2) Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula demonstrated that the articles had low readability and were more appropriate for college students and above. Qualitatively, the sampled articles were evaluated by experts using a modified DISCERN survey. According to the modified DISCERN, 13 articles (32.5%), 24 articles (60%), 3 articles (7.5%), were rated as “good,” “moderate,” and “poor,” respectively. There were positive correlations between the DISCERN score and the number of edits (r = 0.537), number of editors (r = 0.560), and article length (r = 0.536). Strengths reported by the panel included completeness and coverage in 11 articles (27.5%), anatomical details in 10 articles (25%), and clinical details in 5 articles (12.5%). The panel also noted areas which could be improved, such as providing missing information in 28 articles (70%), inaccuracies in 10 articles (25%), and lack or poor use of images in 17 articles (42.5%). In conclusion, this study revealed that many Wikipedia anatomy articles were difficult to read. Each article’s quality was dependent on edit frequency and article length. Learners and students should be cautious when using Wikipedia articles for anatomy education due to these limitations.

中文翻译：

---

英语维基百科解剖文章的质量和可读性。

从英文维基百科中抽取了40篇解剖文章，并对其进行了定量和定性评估。通过Wikipedia X工具定量分析每篇文章的编辑历史记录，对引用和媒体进行人工计数，并使用两个可读性指数评估文章的可读性。分析表明，每篇文章每月更新8.3±6.8次，并引用了33.5±24.3种来源，例如期刊文章和教科书。每篇文章平均包含14.0±7.6个媒体项目。可读性指数包括：（1）Flesch-Kincaid等级水平可读性测试和（2）Flesch Reading Ease可读性公式表明该文章可读性低，更适合大学生及以上学生。定性地，由专家使用改进的DISCERN调查对抽样的样品进行评估。根据修改后的DISCERN，分别将13篇文章（32.5％），24篇文章（60％），3篇文章（7.5％）评为“好”，“中等”和“差”。DISCERN得分与编辑次数之间存在正相关关系（r = 0.537），编辑人数（r = 0.560）和文章长度（r = 0.536）。专家组报告的优势包括11篇文章（27.5％）的完整性和覆盖率，10篇文章（25％）的解剖学细节和5篇文章（12.5％）的临床细节。专家小组还指出了可以改进的领域，例如28篇文章（70％）缺少信息，10篇文章（25％）不准确以及17篇文章（42.5％）缺少或使用不良的图像。总而言之，这项研究表明许多Wikipedia解剖学文章难以阅读。每篇文章的质量取决于编辑频率和文章长度。由于这些限制，在使用Wikipedia文章进行解剖学教育时，学习者和学生应谨慎。