Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

Pattern hair loss

Some additional eyes on recent additions to Pattern hair loss would be appreciated. The sources don't strike me as WP:MEDRS compliant, and I think there may be some WP:OR going on as well. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Automatic behaviour

I'm not sure whether the content of the articles automatic behavior and Automatism (medicine) are referring to the same concept - they appear to. I would appreciate if someone with expertise could take a look. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that there is enough of a similarity to propose merging Automatic behavior (the more poorly-referenced and supported article) to Automatism (medicine). Klbrain (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that although the 2 are similar in that they're automatic and subconscious, automatism is something you hear about in the context of epilepsy, whereas automatic behaviour is something to do with psychiatry as well as neurology. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on use of the terms safe and safety in connection with Abortion

Your participation is very welcome. Please see Talk:Abortion#RfC on use of the words safe and safety. NightHeron (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the use of WP:MEDRS sources on cannabis-related fatalities

An RFC related to a conflict on the use of WP:MEDRS sources on this topic has been posted at Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#RFC:_Cannabis_overdose. Please feel free to chip in, whatever your opinion. Finney1234 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've posted a recent (2021) review article that says there has been a reported death due to cannabis overdose. I imagine that this won't be popular with some editors, as we have editors who have dedicated years to making sure that cannabis is positioned as something that's safe because all the deaths can be claimed to have some mechanism other than drug overdose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Red meat and cancer

There has been a decent discussion on the talk-page of the article red meat about the use of an umbrella review that looked at 72 meta-analyses related to red and processed meat intake and cancer but further input is needed so a consensus can be drawn. The abstract concluded that "Dose-response analyses revealed that 100 g/d increment of red meat and 50 g/d increment of processed meat consumption were associated with 11%-51% and 8%-72% higher risk of multiple cancer outcomes, respectively, and seemed to be not correlated with any benefit." [1]. This sounds significant but according to a user who actually has full access to the paper "most studies included in this umbrella review were meta-analyses of observational studies, which are recognised as low quality in the grade of evidence. As a result, most evidence of outcomes was considered as very low or low quality with GRADE classification. Secondly, associations between red and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes might be affected by several confounding factors". The same user also has noted that "The 51% increased relative risk figure in the abstract turns out to be one paper for endometrial cancer." The discussion on the talk-page has been about the GRADE system because on this grading system observational studies are considered of low-quality compared to randomized controlled trials.

Users have stated that the GRADE system is usually used for clinical trials and is not often used for observational studies which involve large populations. We have a Wikipedia article on GRADE explaining what it is The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The discussion between users on the talk-page has been about if the text on the article summarizing this umbrella review should mention the GRADE system or not which would obviously classify it as low quality but as another user pointed out this has not been done for other meta-analyses of observational studies that are cited on the red meat article or others. In conclusion there seems to be some mixed viewpoints about the review. As there has only been four users involved in this discussion (including myself) an expert opinion or different viewpoint from experienced WikiProject medicine editors would be of use so a consensus can be drawn up about this source and we should include it or not. Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks to the people who have started commenting there.
• Reminder about MEDRS (at the end of the WP:MEDASSESS section: "assess evidence quality" essentially means editors should determine the appropriate type of source and quality of publication. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New draft at Draft:David_Bennett_Sr.

Hi there, in the wake of the exciting news that the first xenotransplantation with a genetically engineered pig heart has occurred, I created a draft for the recipient of this medical first, David Bennett Sr. If anyone wants to add information or polish up the article in any way, all help is appreciated. Thanks! RFZYNSPY ^talk 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

it does seem important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And yet it has been deleted at the author's request... did you change your mind? --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The case is too WP:RECENT. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

yes your right, however if this is the way to go (alternate to a human heart) it raises among other things... bioethics/animal rights questions that are important as well...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose that case in any way. I'm just saying that I would give a bit more time for dust to settle. Feel free to add material on that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom

COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022)

Hello WikiProject Medicine members and page readers! You are invited to a free online event, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC)

--Wil540 art (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please check Draft:Longevity Medicine

Hello, Please check out Draft:Longevity Medicine. How can i improve that? Please help Affi Ali (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Affi Ali, the comment from @Drmies suggests that you need to decide whether the subject of the article is "healthcare that makes people live longer" or "a class you can take". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific American: ArXiv.org Reaches a Milestone and a Reckoning

Runaway success and underfunding have led to growing pains for the preprint server

What started in 1989 as an e-mail list for a few dozen string theorists has now grown to a collection of more than two million papers—and the central hub for physicists, astronomers, computer scientists, mathematicians and other researchers. On January 3 the preprint server arXiv.org crossed the milestone with a numerical analysis paper entitled “Affine Iterations and Wrapping Effect: Various Approaches.” (The Library of Alexandria, for comparison, is believed to have contained no more than hundreds of thousands of manuscripts.)

— https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arxiv-org-reaches-a-milestone-and-a-reckoning/

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at WT:PHYS or WT:AST instead? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The article calls bioRxiv and medRxiv "arXiv-inspired", so the sociological trend seems relevant here, too. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Dentist

Is a dentist a "medical professional" or a "surgeon"? Opinions at Talk:Dentist regarding this edit would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

commented, thanks for the heads up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

As a result of this, I have learned that the first sentence of Surgeon says "In modern medicine, a surgeon is a physician who performs surgery." I wonder whether that should be changed to something like "In modern medicine, a surgeon is a medical professional who performs surgery." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit suggestions on Low back pain

Hi, an editor is looking for feedback on some proposed edits to the low back pain article. Talk page link. JenOttawa (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be ok to add a second image field to Template:Infobox medical condition?

Hi all

Many templates provide a space for two images, I think this might also be useful for Template:Infobox medical condition. For example on the article for Lipoma there could be an image for a lipoma on the patient and one for a removed lipoma. If anyone knows how to add a second field for image and image caption that would be really appreciated.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

this would need to be changed...but it needs to be an administrator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi John, I think that sounds like a good idea. I'm familiar with template programming and I'd be happy to help you, but as Ozzie pointed out, this template is protected so an admin needs to either do the edit or remove the protection. You could also submit an edit request here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ozzie10aaaa and DrVogel for describing how it can be done, I've made the request. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings, DrVogel, and Ozzie10aaaa: I've coded |image2= &tc. in sandbox Template:Infobox_medical_condition/sandbox. Please take a look/check, see EditRequest Template talk:Infobox medical condition § Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022 for more info, tests, and the code diff. -DePiep (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep this looks great to me, thanks very much. Are you able to impplement it on the main template? John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done by someone else (who has the right rights). Could you take care of adding these to the documentatrion? -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much DePiep and Paine Ellsworth it looks like the documentation has been updated as well (unless I'm missing something, I haven't done much at all with developing templates before). Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

my pleasure! Paine  13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Would someone with knowledge please weigh in on this move discussion?

Talk:Alpha-thalassemia mental retardation syndrome#Move? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Maria Bottazzi

Searching for Maria Elena Bottazzi, one of the two main developers of the non-patented COVID-19 vaccine Corbevax, under her common name Maria Bottazzi currently draws a blank (idem, the easy misspelling "Maria Botazzi") . Could a friendly stalker here perhaps kindly fix this with a couple of redirects? Thanks from this ip contributor, 86.161.190.114 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is  Done. Thanks for letting us know about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your knowledgeable contribution to

Goldberg drum is urgently needed and greatly appreciated. thx! RZuo (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a piece of lab equipment from the 1950s, used for producing aerosols. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. I'm just wondering if this guy is notable per your inclusion criteria, and if he is, if someone from this project would like to make a start on his medical career? He also played four first-class cricket matches for Cambridge, which on their own probably won't qualify him for an article by our project guidelines. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

He does appear to meet WP:NPROF#C1. I don't really do BLPs but perhaps someone else will be interested. Spicy (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Spicy...he is a notable prof. Will have a look.Whispyhistory (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Medical care of trans teens

WPATH has released the latest draft of their guidelines, which adds a new chapter that recommends adolescents not be treated like adults. Reportedly, this is causing some consternation in some circles. I think, based on the little I've seen, that the main source of concern is WPATH is stating in Statement 12B that the "persistent" part of the "insistent, persistent, and consistent" mantra means several years for children and teens, which seems to be significantly longer than some would prefer. This statement is only about medical/surgical – not social – transition.

They are also recommending a "comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment" before starting medical transition. (I have seen this recommendation before, usually with the explanation that medical transition is hard enough on its own, so nobody should have to transition medically while also dealing with untreated anxiety or depression.)

All of which is to say: Expect edit warring and stressed editors in the trans-related articles this year. The updated guidelines are supposed to be released in a few months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Really appreciate the heads up, and I've seen these coming down the pipeline for a year or two. There's just too much controversy about reversion and increased risks of medical transition. We have a lot more data about the cancer risks, the psychosocial risks (namely, assault and murder), and the surgical/endocrine risks of transitioning. Frankly, from my perspective as someone in healthcare who has volunteered at trans health clinics, I feel these were a long time coming. There's just slightly too much risk involved for adolescents and teens to be going through this when they aren't really really damn sure its what they want.

But it will be used as fodder for all sorts of POV warriors. Anti-trans folk will be foaming at the mouth to reference this as a reason for why transgender therapy is dangerous, even though this is showing that transition is safe when done appropriately (and the reversion numbers really are extremely low: [2]). Pro-trans folk will be livid at the implication of reversion and medicalization of psychiatric problems as reason for increased transition numbers (even though that's reversing the causality). But ultimately our encyclopedic job is just to represent these as a thing that happened. That did not actually change much about being a transgender person, but will be fuel to the fire of opinion and (often warranted, but also harmful) distrust of the medical establishment. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink the current evidence (that's a 2018 source) is quite a bit different. [3] was just linked in an NYT article and places detransition at 13.1%. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Those sources are a bit apples-and-oranges in nature. The first asks surgeons how many people they've done top or bottom surgery for and how many people told them that they regretted it. If you regret it and/or detransition without involving one of these surgeons, then your experience is missed by this survey. The second asks current LGBTQ+ people about any type of transition, including social transition (e.g., a female who socially transitions to being a man, and then later "detransitions" to being non-binary). If you detransition and no longer identify as LGBTQ+, or if you otherwise didn't participate in a survey that is marketed as being for trans folks only, then your experience is missed by this survey. Neither of these sources are comprehensive; all of them will miss some people. I wouldn't necessarily say that one is better than the other. They measure different things, to the best of their ability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tangentially related: editors who are knowledgeable about MEDRS, current research on trans teens and medical transition, or both could likely be helpful at Suicide among LGBT youth#Controversies about sex reassignment surgery. A somewhat dated, poorly-attended talk page dispute (I was a participant) was not able to reach any consensus on how to improve the section. Firefangledfeathers 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Michael Woodruff for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Spices and antioxidants

The spice article says:

Most herbs and spices have substantial antioxidant activity, owing primarily to phenolic compounds, especially flavonoids, which influence nutrition through many pathways, including affecting the absorption of other nutrients. One study found cumin and fresh ginger to be highest in antioxidant activity.

and cites one article entitled "Antioxidant capacity of vegetables, spices and dressings relevant to nutrition". That article simply measures "antioxidant capacity measured by the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC)" for various foods. I see some problems here:

• The original article does not support the claim of nutritional value.
• It is only one article, not a review.
• The article is mostly about vegetables and herbs, not spices.

I propose to remove this paragraph. Agreed? --Macrakis (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Macrakis, have you looked into whether (some of) these claims could be supported by another/better source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly lots of primary sources that claim health benefits for spices, but almost all I've found have been in vitro demonstrations of (e.g.) antioxidant effects. It also seems unlikely that all spices will have similar effects, given that they come from a variety of plant families. One recent review ("Herbs and Spices- Biomarkers of Intake Based on Human Intervention Studies – A Systematic Review") says "very few studies were performed with actual foods" and "given the limitations of the experimental designs... further work is needed". doi:10.1186/s12263-019-0636-8 But I am not the best person to adjudicate WP:MEDRS issues. --Macrakis (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a systematic review article that concludes that health benefits are not documented (yet) and replaced the claim made by a single article with it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ageometr(es)ia

There is currently a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ageometresia which might be of interest to this Wikiproject. Felix QW (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Where readers are coming from and going to

Did you know...

• ...that 30% of the people reading Propofol arrived there from a page about Michael Jackson? [4]
• ...that more people read about Oxycodone because of Dopesick (miniseries) than because of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family combined? [5]
• ...that the most-clicked link in Nirmatrelvir is Ritonavir? [6]
• ...that the most popular link in Cannabis is Cannabis (drug), and the most popular link in Cannabis (drug) is Cannabis? [7]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an amazing tool! (Though I'm currently having issues with it loading the overview, reader navigation, and sources of traffic sections -- it only wants to load the time comparisons, which fortunately still give lists of major sources.) What does an "other-empty" incoming source indicate? Vaticidalprophet 04:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is awesome. I've tried to track clicks before by linking to distinctive, otherwise low-traffic redirects, but that doesn't work very well. It's really nice to be able to see useful information about how readers actually use our articles. (Doesn't seem to work on non-article pages - dammit, I wanted to see the traffic for ANI!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is awesome. and This is an amazing tool! Granted, I am not sure whether I like that so many readers of African humid period come from Richat Structure[8] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have wondered whether the results might depend in part on how prominent the links are in some articles. If the "obvious" source article is low in the list, then maybe it needs a more obvious link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The findings at Ojos del Salado do support that, but the issue with Richat Structure is that the link there is buried at the bottom of the page and yet it is a major contributor to African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I played with this tool; it's quite fun. I found myself wishing I could understand where the external traffic came from in terms of google searches etc Talpedia (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, finding which sections people read and how that distributes between mobile and non-mobile users would probably be the next nice-to-have. Does anyone have a plan to make that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MGerlach (WMF) and Isaac (WMF) have considered a few expansions – adding the Portal: namespace would be handy – but I don't know if they've considered mobile vs non-mobile. Previous research suggests that mobile users are less likely to click any links at all (if memory serves, the typical mobile editor clicks on no links, and the typical desktop editor clicks on one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see there is interest in this tool :) We are currently not actively working on any changes, but we are thinking about potential improvements for the future. If you have ideas, you can open an issue on the corresponding github-repo. Some of the data requests have also been captured on phabricator (e.g. T289532 or T296359). MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@MGerlach (WMF), is there a page with definitions? Vaticidalprophet asked what "other-empty" means. I assume that's the category that I fall into when I'm hand-writing the URLs, but I don't know what else might be in there (and perhaps my assumption is wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Yes. You can find more information about the definitions in the meta-page for the Clickstream-project. The tool simply provides an interaction point with the dumps of the clickstream-data. So "other-empty" means that the referrer-field of the http-request to the Wikipedia-article was empty. MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

very impressive tool [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ozzie, that's the kind of result that could drive someone's editing priorities. I'm glad you decided to check that one. COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is the most clicked on link in the pandemic article. Following the chain (you can click the name of any linked article, to switch the view to that article), you can see which countries readers are looking for. Those track partially with population (US is more popular than UK) but not entirely: Italy and South Africa are more popular than Canada. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MGerlach (WMF), Isaac (WMF) WhatamIdoing, this is a fabulous tool for working with partner organisations who may be sharing images or their knowledge, I will use it a lot. A few requests:

1. Most of the graphs give a percentage of views from certain sources, but do not give an actual page views number, it would be really great if this was given in all graphs so they could be used in isolation.
2. Looking at very high traffic articles like COVID Pandemic with 694.9k incoming page views in a month. The incoming and outgoing pageviews list have some very big numbers, the smallest number of incoming is over 5000, it would amazing to have an easy way of seeing the long tail of articles, it would really help with partnership work, especially for me working in the UN working with many organisations working on many different aspects and impacts of COVID.
3. The descriptions of the fields make a lot of sense except other-empty empty referrer, could you possibly expand the explanation of this one? Does it just mean unknown?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that all the underlying data can be accessed separately, outside of this tool, if someone wanted to download the raw data and analyze it independently. I'm not sure how images are handled in that data.

We should probably have an article/section redirect for empty referer; HTTP referer explains some of the background. I understand that when you visit a webpage, we think we're sending just "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine" to the internet, but the web browsers are actually sending more information in the background, such as the page we were reading when we clicked the link to this page. That kind of information isn't present under some circumstances, such as if you visit a bookmarked link, hand-type the URL, or have a browser plug-in that prevents transmission of referers. I think it could fairly be understood as meaning "we don't know where this reader came from". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How to become a cardiology

Firstly what is cardiology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainul abideeen (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Zainul abideeen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Cardiology is a specialty area of medicine. Another word for a cardiologist is "heart doctor". A person who wants to become a heart doctor must first become a doctor. After that, the doctor studies more about the heart. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of Wikipedia COVID-19 articles

Here is the abstract from a recently published article.

Abstract

Background

With the COVID-19 pandemic's outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an "infodemic," ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia's COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic's first wave (January–May 2020).

Results

We found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this "scientific infrastructure" facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development.

Conclusions

Understanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its "citizen encyclopedists," it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts.

— Benjakob O, Aviram R, Sobel JA (January 2022). "Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic". Gigascience. 11 (1). doi:10.1093/gigascience/giab095. PMC 8756189. PMID 35022700. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

very well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This feels good :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

References