Talk:Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Forbes source

Resolved

I had added this page to the "External links" section, but User:Alexbrn removed with the edit summary "another unacceptable source (not Forbes as stated, but forbes.com)". Forbes.com is the website for Forbes, so what's the issue? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSP. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Ah, so Forbes.com contributor pieces don't work. That makes sense. If the future, noting this in the edit summary would be very helpful. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi

Currently, this article suggests 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi was deleted. Seems the page was restored. Not sure if secondary coverage will confirm this, so how should the text be changed/updated? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Recent change to text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What about other Wikimedia projects? Wikidata...

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Show full navigation template rather than snippet?

The full template
The current picture of the partial template

Currently, a partial screenshot of {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}} is included as an illustration. What about going for the full version? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen, I'm not opposed, I was just using something I found at Wikimedia Commons from an issue of Signpost.  Done I went ahead and updated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

Perhaps "Wikipedia and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" would be a little better. "Response to" doesn't quite fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Pigsonthewing: I created the page at the current title per User:Pigsonthewing's suggestion at the WikiProject COVID-19 talk page, but I'm open to alternatives. Thoughts, Andy? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to broaden it to Wikimedia. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia movement's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good enough, but let's hold off on renaming until the deletion discussion is resolved. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic → Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic – Wikipedia is not a person, and therefore is better not being described as having, in the possessive sense, a "response to" things. BD2412 T 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. 777burger user talk contribs 04:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support nomination makes sense. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, Wikipedia is not a cohesive entity with its own decisions and opinions, it's a website with a vast number of users who only interact with each other through Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 11:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support apart from Katherine's statement most of this deals with our coverage of it, unlike the WHO or governments that have taken action against it we haven't at least not much. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Snow support and a speedy close - okay this is obvious. Non-admins generally should not speedy close, so I won't, but someone should Red Slash 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination; 777burger; TheAafi; JIP; Crouch, Swale and Red Slash. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. That wording makes sense for this article. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3102:CC1E:95AC:5DC2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 18:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translation for Indian languages

Further consideration

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for updating the page with the below sources, but I've moved these here for future incorporation/discussion:

  • From the March 2020 issue of Wikipedia's newsletter, The Signpost
    • bluerasberry; Bri (29 March 2020). "Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters". The Signpost.
    • Puddleglum2.0 (29 March 2020). "WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report". The Signpost.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

... as for these, one is written by User:Bluerasberry and another is an interview with editors. Obviously there's some COI at play here and I'm unsure if The Signpost can be used as a reputable source or as appropriate External links. Can other editors weigh in here? I'm inclined to say the interview is not helpful, but the Signpost rundown may be useful for expanding this article (assuming Signpost can be used as a citation). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: Making you aware of this discussion, as a co-author. Also, here's another WikiProject-published interview related to WikiProject COVID-19 featuring an interview with.. me!, so not sure this is helpful but sharing here with similar Wikipedia-related publications on the topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Verging on circular, I'd say – Wikipedia's newsletter saying why Wikipedia's coverage is important, and inserted in a Wikipedia article? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Bri, Sounds good, I guess I just meant for any noncontroversial claims or as 'Further reading'. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
For further reading? Sure. For noncontroversial claims I bet another source could be found. I'd have to see an example case to make a more firm opinion. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Bri, I've added the writeup to a new Further reading section. I've left off the two interviews for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia articles?

Would this page benefit from a list of pandemic-related Wikipedia articles which is specifically discussed in reputable sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Here and here you can find few list of pages, and an explanation and the code about how those lists were created. Also he have done an analysis on the data on this post (that would be also published on Signpost). Hope this helps Diego (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

March 27 overview of Wikimedia response

Urdu Wikipedia

Added a separate section for Urdu Wikipedia, besides being accessed by Indians, Urdu Wikipedia is not limited to India only. I had earlier used Fb link to source an image, sad thing on my part; Urdu Wikipedia administrator Yethrosh has fixed the issue. Please let me know for possible betterment. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I removed your unsourced addition, as well as your Facebook-sourced addition, but please share if you find journalistic coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I removed your addition yet again because this source does not verify those specific claims. However, I've incorporated the source you've added in other ways. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Flattening the curve
  • Wired peice[1]
    •  Done I've incorporated this one into the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • We worked to get release of graphics to illustrate the importance of efforts to prevent the outbreak.[2]
    • Holler if journalistic coverage confirms this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A Slate article on the work on COVID19.[3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Medium.com page appropriate as external link?

I had added this page to the "External links" section but User:Alexbrn removed as "junk". I understand the source is not independent of the subject, but I thought this was relevant and possibly helpful to readers. @Alexbrn: Care to share why you think this link is inappropriate? I am hoping other editors will weigh in here as well. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSP. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn, The link says, "Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons." But as an external link the source is not being used to verify any specific claims... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: User:MarkZusab added the link back. Pinging just so you're aware of this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO blogs are prohibited from external links. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Right, blogs "except those written by a recognized authority"... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
For which we'd need something like a "recognized authority" on internet information (e.g.) -- this is a self-published piece so goes against the grain of what we look for. We shouldn't be putting promotional self-published material from the WMF here any more than we would for any other body. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Well, 2 other editors disagree with you for now, so let's just let others weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The post is made by "The official Medium account for the Wikimedia Foundation..." It therefore has the same standing as something published on the WMF's own website (including, if required, as a source for what the WMF say); and should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Andy Mabbett. It is ok for external links. WP:RSP listing does not apply, as it just notes that it is a blogging platform. --MarioGom (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus here. I'm going to consider this settled for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia used by Bing’s Covid-19 Tracker

Worth mentioning? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

... and another mention of a tracker?

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that it is also used by Google (WMF, primary source: [4]). I'm not sure if it has been covered in independent reliable sources though. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible sources?

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Heise Online

Resolved

The Heise Online link above says, "Allein der Übersichts-Artikel "COVID-19-Pandemie" in der deutschen Wikipedia wird derzeit täglich mehr als 150.000 Mal abgerufen, der Artikel zum konkreten Verlauf der Pandemie knapp 100.000 Mal." Google Translate generates, "The overview article "COVID-19 pandemic" in the German Wikipedia is currently accessed more than 150,000 times a day, the article on the specific course of the pandemic almost 100,000 times." Can someone clarify which two specific Wikipedia articles are being referred to here? I'm trying to improve the section about German Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Overview: de:COVID-19-Pandemie
Course: probably de:COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland
Pageviews for the above
For the German Wikipedia, there is also a Signpost-like write-up. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen, Thanks, I'm not sure if the last link you should should be added to the page or not, but I've updated the German Wikipedia section with the stats above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoy

Resolved

Can anyone confirm the reliability of this source and update the Wikipedia article with any helpful information? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: See es:Hoy (Extremadura) (translation here); sems to be widely cited on es.Wikipedia Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hoy is a regional newspaper. I don't think there is any red flag. Other newspapers from the same media group are quite reputable. Some newspapers from this media group may have a right-wing bias, but are still generally reliable. In this case, the article is an interview with a member of Wikimedia Spain. --MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, Thanks to you as well as Andy. I will try to update the article with this source soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done I've incorporated this source into the article (hopefully correctly). See the Spanish Wikipedia section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wired

Forbes

Extended content

@Daniel Mietchen: I'm currently using this talk page as a checklist of tasks to complete. Since these sources are not acceptable, do you mind if I collapse just this subsection so I know which sources have yet to be incorporated into the article's prose? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, which is why I did not put them in myself. Feel free to re-arrange as needed. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen, Thanks. Your suggestions are helpful but I am just collapsing this discussion so I know what's left to the done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Italy / Italian Wikipedia

This source says, "In Italy, where the virus hit especially hard, for example, many were using their down time to volunteer on Wikipedia and help enrich its local Italian-language content." I'd like to add mention of Italian Wikipedia here if possible, but simply saying something along the lines of 'In Italy, people worked to improve Italian Wikipedia" seems so obvious. Does anyone know of any additional coverage related to Italian Wikipedia or other Wikimedia activities related to COVID in Italy? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons: Category:Statistics about page views of COVID-19 Wikipedia articles

Related: commons:Category:Statistics about page views of COVID-19 Wikipedia articles ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost, April 26

Could any of the charts or info at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2020-04-26#By_the_numbers be added to this article?

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say go for it — added the piece to "Further reading". -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen, Thanks! There are already a few illustrations in the article, so might need to make a bit more room to accommodate of these additional images. ---Another Believer (Talk) --Another Believer (Talk) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction of false claim as to name of original 5 Jan 2020 article on English Wiki of pandemic

I corrected a manifest falsehood appearing in this article that the original 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic article "created on 5 January 2020" was entitled "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" when, in fact, it was entitled "2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak". In my edit comment I included the following source to this verifiable, incontrovertible fact:

Fixing a dishonest and false claim. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&oldid=934259284

Nevertheless, the user "Natureium" reverted this perfect edit and violated Wikipedia rules by putting verifiably false and materially inconsistent information back on the page, falsely claiming the article title was different from what it actually was.

I then left the following on his user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natureium#False_information_on_Wikipedia_response_to_coronavirus_page Why do you insist on falsity? Is your political correctness agenda worth having false, dishonest, and historically revisionist information on a Wikipedia article, falsely claiming that the original 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic "created on 5 January 2020" was entitled "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" when, in fact, it was entitled "2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak" as my sourced, truthful edit pointed out?

Is this how to welcome a new person to Wikipedia - by reverting their first edit correcting an implicit, verifiable falsehood? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&oldid=934259284

Do you think insisting upon this kind of combative campaign of misinformation is healthy to the reputation of Wikipedia?

I believe this article talk page is the proper place for me to tell "Natureium" that he needs to form a consensus if he wants to inject Wikipedia with patently false misinformation.

73.61.21.181 (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

2019 Military World Games

@Abishe: You added: "Some speculations and conspiracy theories led to an increase in page views around March 2020 for Wikipedia article 2019 Military World Games which was held in Wuhan in October 2019." Are you basing this on the comments here, or am I overlooking confirmation elsewhere? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer: I didn't look at the comments section but I myself witnessed a shocking surge in page views for the article between 12 March to 12 April (290, 000+ views) and with daily average of 9000 page views. The event was also concluded in October 2019 and I was wondering why the 2019 Military World Games article reported sudden spike in page views. If you think the information regarding this is irrelevant to this article can remove it because I also couldn't find much sources to verify it. Happy editing and stay safe. Abishe (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Abishe, We definitely need secondary sourcing to confirm. I will remove for now. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia

This section currently says, "The community decided that it should not deleted" and uses Wikipedia as an inline citation. I assume this should be removed? @片割れ靴下: Are you able to use secondary coverage instead? ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked for secondary reliable source that the article “Abenomask (アベノマスク)” was kept. But I couldn't found it, so added the AfD as the source unwillingly. If it was very unwelcome behavior, I agree removal of the sentence and the source. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
片割れ靴下, Thanks. I'm inclined to remove the sentence and source, but I will let other editors weigh in here as well. Either way, thanks for updating this Wikipedia article and please continue to update if media describe other COVID-related work on Japanese Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Media is generally crappy at noticing WP-deletions they were upset about were overturned or didn't happen, is my experience. Myself I favor not using WP as a source for this, and the article as written includes a link to the Japanese one anyway, so it's fairly obvious it's there (for now). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus: Plagued by conspiracy theories and misinformation"

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer

"It may, at first, sound like the Wikipedia of the data world, but some Wikipedia editors have decided to avoid Worldometer as a source for Covid-19 data."

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Future Historians Will Rely on Wikipedia’s COVID-19 Coverage"

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany summer 2020 report including COVID

Policy Letter Summer 2020 Wikimedia Deutschland

Wikimedia Germany is quite organized and developed. Their staff produces documentation and policy briefs. This document describes how Wikimedia projects addressed COVID-19. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inverse

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"How volunteers created Wikipedia’s world-beating Covid-19 coverage"

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Academic pre-print with quantitative analysis of Wikipedia's response

I co-authored a a new pre-print (not yet published but currently under peer review) analyzing Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not a request for it to be included in the article, more a notice to the community. Comments, questions, ideas, and other feedback are welcome as comments below or emailed to me. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also be happy to make any of the figures in the manuscript available under an open license on Commons if requested. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Madcoverboy: Some initial comments after a first read of the paper: I think that it would be very useful to have these figures available, ideally as SVGs on Commons. For a second pass, I would like to play with the library redacted as per footnote 2. As you point out, this work only looks at the English Wikipedia. I would be interested in contributing to a similar analysis that looks at the Wikimedia response more broadly, i.e. across languages and Wikimedia projects. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia C19CCTF data are better than WHO's in at least one way

@Madcoverboy and Daniel Mietchen: The following is for the moment a preprint submitted for peer review - arXiv:2007.11779 Zenodo: 3951152. On at least one criterion, this Wikipedia WikiProject C19CCTF (COVID-19 Case Count Task Force) dataset snapshot is of objectively higher quality than the WHO data. C19CCTF covers fewer "countries", but has fewer unrealistic jumps/drops for the countries in common. See Figure 1 or plot the data yourself. This table could be used by C19CCTF participants to decide which countries need more attention in terms of trying to get higher quality official data - if that exists or if national health agencies are willing to publish it. In principle, this should be handled by Wikidata, but I couldn't find much happening over there in terms of core information. (Disclaimers: COI; I forgot to refer to 2006.08899, although it's a useful reference, sorry!; I've queued adding it for after receiving the reviewer(s)' comments.) Boud (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Covid-19 is one of Wikipedia's biggest challenges ever. Here's how the site is handling it."

The Washington Post:

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Andrews, Travis M. (August 7, 2020). "Covid-19 is one of Wikipedia's biggest challenges ever. Here's how the site is handling it". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 8, 2020.

Coronavirus article created in 2003 or 2013?

Unresolved

I reverted an edit. I see the article history for Coronavirus indeed suggests a 2003 creation. However, the Wired source specifically says 2013. What do we do? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Felicia777: Making you aware of this discussion, given your recent edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the article says, "The "Coronavirus" page was created in 2003". If this claim is disputed, should we just remove altogether? Does this detail matter? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

BridgeDb

Re: addition of this tag, I'm also curious, does anyone know anything about BridgeDb? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's an anonymous network [5] ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: That is a different topic. The one mentioned in the article refers to this: "BridgeDb is a framework to map identifiers between various biological databases. These mappings are provided for genes, proteins, genetic variants, metabolites, and metabolic reactions. BridgeDb includes a Java library that provides an API for programmatic access." MarkZusab (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Should the article's text be updated/changed in some way? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

See this update. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Esquire

"As of the end July, Wikimedia claimed that more than 5,000 Covid-19-related articles in 175 languages had been created by a collaboration of more than 67,000 editors." ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia and W.H.O. Join to Combat Covid-19 Misinformation", The New York Times

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lockdown 1.0: Following the Science? review – Wikipedia, Wuhan and worrying mistakes"

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Sage advisers used Wikipedia entries to model first Covid lockdown"

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"SAGE experts relied on Wikipedia to model impact of Covid crises"

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandister Tei

Sandister Tei was just named Wikimedian of the Year. She is recognized in part for her COVID-related work. We might want to update this Wikipedia article if sourcing allows. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources: [6], [7]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons

Can we source some information and statistics on related uploads to Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of the incorrect data statement?

"In May 2020, Google search displayed incorrect data about death tolls from COVID-19, which came from English Wikipedia.", is this really relevant? I mean, mistakes happen all the time, so I don't see how this is newsworthy and the millions of other vandalisms aren't. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously newsworthy, since it was reported by news. The real question is, was it widely reported. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Focused sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sachdev, Shaan; Pareene, Alex; Pareene, Alex; Earle, Samuel; Earle, Samuel; Siegel, Zachary; Siegel, Zachary; Ford, Matt; Ford, Matt; Spaeth, Ryu; Spaeth, Ryu; Klion, David; Klion, David; Blight, David W.; Blight, David W.; Livingstone, Jo; Livingstone, Jo (26 February 2021). "Wikipedia's Sprawling, Awe-Inspiring Coverage of the Pandemic". The New Republic.
---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Benjakob, Omer; Aviram, Rona; Sobel, Jonathan (1 March 2021). "Meta-Research: Citation needed? Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic". doi:10.1101/2021.03.01.433379. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Leading image?

There is no leading image for this article. Is it necessary? May I add an image of the Wikipedia article on the COVID-19 pandemic article as the leading image? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that such an image in the lead would be an improvement. Maybe we could make it a composite image based on several Wikipedia versions, e.g. English desktop and Vietnamese mobile or so, perhaps with a bit of Commons and/ or Wikidata thrown in. Alternatively, an animated version of the changes would also be nice. A simple screenshot, however, might be a good start. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

New source

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Should this new source be included here? Discussion

Really good article! Reading it, I feel she may be a little too confident in our ability to get things right :P. But that may just be my pessimism and jadedness, lol. In terms of inclusion here, though I agree with much of what it says, I'm not sure I can get on board with including anything from it at this time. It's an opinion piece, that much is clear from the style of writing and placement in the "Ideas" section. The author is described by Stanford as an expert on "the spread of misinformation" [8]. Most of her career has been spent in business/investment. Her role at Stanford is technical research manager at their in-house Internet Observatory [9]. Her undergraduate work is in political science and computer science. She doesn't seem to have an academic appointment, a doctorate, or similar advanced degree. Of course you don't actually need those things to be an expert on something. However, I think we need to apply our criteria for expertise and inclusion equally in these situations. In her case, we would need more coverage of her or her opinions as notable in order for what she's written here to be WP:DUE. And we would need independent reliable secondary sources to present her as an expert in this. So far here's what I could find...

That's just what I could find. Anyone else is welcome to look or disagree with my approach.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the article has some usable parts and is probably WP:DUE. For example, the paragraph that begins with "Wikipedia, with its army" has a useful factual description of several things that happened on Wikipedia. A formal survey may not be needed for this low traffic talk page, perhaps we can just resolve this through discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Yes, you are, of course, right. I'm just being reactionary in this contentious area, defaulting to surveys/discussions etc. But you're right, we don't need that. I would agree that paragraph is probably DUE and useful. We need to take mentions of this wherever we can get them! It's hard to find neutral and factual depictions of wikipedia events, so this is perfect.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia C19CCTF daily data are still better than that of WHO

@Madcoverboy and Daniel Mietchen: I've nearly finished my update of arXiv:2007.11779 = Zenodo: 4432080 after reviewers' comments. This analysis continues to show that Wikipedia COVID-19 Case Counts Task Force data, nearly a year later, are still better as a source of official daily SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infection data than WHO. The publication licence with this journal (if accepted) will be CC-BY, so the WP C19CCTF vs WHO diagram will be uploadable directly to WM Commons. This will be peer-reviewed information about the quality of Wikipedia's COVID-19 Case Count Task Force data (which won't prove that it's notable, of course ;)).

The main result of the paper is stable to the updates recommended by the reviewers: a small bunch of countries appear to have removed much of their daily statistical noise - either their residents managed to coordinate getting infected and getting positive PCR tests into official statistics in a way that cancelled the natural statistical fluctuations expected for discrete events (like an army marching in rows in a parade has e.g. exactly 10x50 = 500 soldiers in a marching group on their way to get a PCR test, instead of 500 civilians give or take 22.36 or so), or the official statistics were fudged. The JHU data give more or less similar results, which could be used to compare WP C19CCTF to JHU quality of data if someone were interested. Live git updates are at Codeberg. Comments before I resubmit are welcome (e.g. as an Issue at Codeberg). Boud (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Boud, for both the analysis and the ping. Yes, that comparison between WP C19CCTF and JHU would be interesting as well. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: The paper is accepted now in PeerJ - formal publication should be mid-late September. I didn't do a quantitative comparison between WP C19CCTF and JHU data, though the tables are all available in plain text files at Zenodo, so anyone who wishes to compare the results could do that straightforwardly (e.g. WPC19CCTF vs JHU), without having to recalculate. In terms of what is directly usable in Wikipedia, the peer-reviewed statement is that The JHU CSSE data give mostly similar results to the C19CCTF data. The same links as above remain valid; zenodo points to the updated Zenodo: 4765705; I'll most likely upload a final ArXiv+Zenodo version after proof corrections, which should be minor. Boud (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

Where is Chinese Wikipedia? kencf0618 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's the "中文" link in the sidebar. If you meant to ask where it's physically located, Wikipedia#Hardware_operations_and_support says that Wikipedia "had migrated its primary data center to [...] Virginia" almost a decade ago and it "installed a caching cluster [...] in Singapore" in 2017. But I fail to see how this relates to improving the article which this is a talk page for. 66.210.249.135 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was moved to Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine because the entry is not solely focused on coverage. Not sure if we want to move this article to Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic?

Sure, most of the content is about Wikipedia's coverage, but not all (for example, " The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that supports Wikimedia movement projects, including Wikipedia, had employees work remotely.")

I should also note, this article has a section about Wikidata, so not only Wikipedia.

Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is nearly entirely scoped to the coverage and is less about the political entity of Wikipedia, so the current title seems appropriate to me. czar 02:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal from Ongoing

I'm wondering when the Covid-19 article was removed from the Ongoing section at the main page. Can I see the discussion page for it? 2604:3D08:597D:39B0:64B4:CAD6:19A1:F2E0 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Removed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19 pandemic. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost entry

This link might have more helpful sources for this Wikipedia entry:

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Alaa Najjar and Netha Hussain

Alaa Najjar and Netha Hussain have both been recognized for their work related to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines (see Wikimedian of the Year). Shall we add mention of them to this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ditto Sandister Tei. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure, why not? They're apparently notable for their work on Wikipedia in general, and the article isn't overly long, so if RSes have noted their work in this area, I think we might as well mention it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk: I see you've nominated this entry for GA status, good luck! Curious if you'd be interested in adding mention of these three individuals. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Another Believer Added it under "Wikimedia Foundation". Thanks for letting me know about this! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's an article about Netha, if helpful! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

GAN

Hey everyone, I've nominated this for GA because I feel it's a really great article that deserves to be in the top .5% of articles. I went through and added more current information, as well as ensured all citations are as they should be. I've listed it under the subtopic "Computing and engineering" but if anyone thinks it'd go better under another, please say so and I'm happy to change it. Thanks everybody! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! You might want to scroll down Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1 to see if there are any sources or potential content improvements which have been overlooked. Good luck at GAN ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Another Believer My goodness, you've put a lot of good sources there- thanks for that! I've put in a section about the Atlantic article and a section about the 2021 Arbitration Committee decision about COVID-19 sanctions. I didn't include the other sources because I felt they reflected what the Wired, Haaretz, Dawn, and CNET articles were trying to say. I found the article about the Pender County error interesting, but didn't feel it was very relevant; I also couldn't find any other sources about it besides that one article. Thanks for your help! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


Building Special Projects on Wikipedia: The Covid Case Study

"Building Special Projects on Wikipedia: The Covid Case Study" presented by International Science Council

30 March 2023 | 13:00 – 14:15 UTC | 14:00 – 15:15 CET

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_and_the_COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_1&oldid=1193062584"