I trust your posts -- you acquired a lot of knowledge during your sister's illness -- and I appreciate very much your willingness to share (on this board) with those of us who are finding our way now, so I'm apologizing for disagreeing with you here.

I trust and accept your assertion that that particular entry seems OK (I'm not going to read or look at it). At the same time, I'm noting that people would do well to go to a website known to be *reputable* instead of going to a website known to be *iffy*. For ex., one can get a good overview from pancan.org or the NCI (National Cancer Institute) website.

Wikipedia is fine for reading about, say, a contemporary band -- but not for health matters. And I'm reiterating the other problem: that some articles are clearly written by people who don't know how to translate scientific or technical material into layperson language, rendering the articles almost useless under Wikipedia's professed mission.

There's always a better option.

PS: Below are screenshots of only three of the many errors / problematic bits I've seen on Wikipedia over the years: Rani Tara Devi is identified as both Eugenie Grosup and as Eugenia Marie Grosupovai ( = no one at Wikipedia understands or values the editorial process, which includes fact-checking for accuracy); someone inserted the inflammatory phrase "his giant Jewish nose" in a bio; and someone inserted the inflammatory name "big t-t" where an actual director's name had been, in a synopsis of a TV episode.
. . . . . . . And, no, I didn't insert these errors to make Wikip. look bad -- not my style. Plus, the site notes the IP address of everyone who alters an "article," so I'd have been barred form making correx, which I stubbornly persisted in doing over the years.