Talk:Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Mietchen (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 28 June 2020 (→‎Academic pre-print with quantitative analysis of Wikipedia's response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible sources?

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

Heise Online


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)



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)



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)

Wikimedia Foundation

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

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)


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)

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: [1]). I'm not sure if it has been covered in independent reliable sources though. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

---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)


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 [2]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)


Flattening the curve
  • Wired peice[3]
    •  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.[4]
    • Holler if journalistic coverage confirms this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A Slate article on the work on COVID19.[5]

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

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)

March 27 overview of Wikimedia response

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)

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)

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)

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:

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: 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:

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. (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)


"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)

Coronavirus article created in 2003 or 2013?

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)

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)