Talk:Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleWikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2020Articles for deletionKept
February 19, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 2020, COVID-19–related articles across all Wikipedias received more than 579 million pageviews?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that we try? Source: Benjakob, Omer (8 April 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-why-wikipedia-is-immune-to-coronavirus-1.8751147
    • ALT1: ... that we're better than the CDC? Source: DiResta, Renée (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Wikipedia Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. ISSN 2151-9463. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/cdc-should-be-more-like-wikipedia/619469/ "Fortunately, the internet has produced a model for this approach: Wikipedia. The crowdsourced reference site is the simplest, most succinct summary of the current state of knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. If an agency such as the CDC launched a health-information site, and gave a community of hundreds or thousands of knowledgeable people the ability to edit it, the outcome would be far more complete and up-to-date than individual press releases. The same model—tapping distributed expertise rather than relying on institutional authority—could be useful for other government agencies that find themselves confronting rumors."
    • Reviewed:

Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Palm State Park

    • Comment: For April Fools' Day

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk). Self-nominated at 14:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MyCatIsAChonk: Funny hooks. You can definitely make another hook called "... that we're immune to Coronavirus?" but your two hooks are great too so i'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a really good one, thanks for your suggestion; whoever looks this over can definitely consider that one too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was about to go to the Main Page when the consensus at Errors was that it needs to be pulled as per this diff. Schwede66 06:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT proposals for the next reviewer:
ALT2: ... that Wikipedia's coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was described as better than the CDC's?
Source: DiResta, Renée (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Wikipedia Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. ISSN 2151-9463. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/cdc-should-be-more-like-wikipedia/619469/ "Fortunately, the internet has produced a model for this approach: Wikipedia. The crowdsourced reference site is the simplest, most succinct summary of the current state of knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. If an agency such as the CDC launched a health-information site, and gave a community of hundreds or thousands of knowledgeable people the ability to edit it, the outcome would be far more complete and up-to-date than individual press releases. The same model—tapping distributed expertise rather than relying on institutional authority—could be useful for other government agencies that find themselves confronting rumors."
ALT3: ... that during the COVID-19 pandemic, readers of the Italian Wikipedia had increased readership on articles about dieting?
Source: Nucci, Daniele; Santangelo, Omar Enzo; Nardi, Mariateresa; Provenzano, Sandro; Gianfredi, Vincenza (November 2021). "Wikipedia, Google Trends and Diet: Assessment of Temporal Trends in the Internet Users' Searches in Italy before and during COVID-19 Pandemic". Nutrients. 13 (11): 3683. doi:10.3390/nu13113683. PMC 8620684. PMID 34835939
ALT4: ... that in 2020, COVID-19 related articles across all Wikipedias received over 579 million pageviews?
"Wikipedia and COVID-19 - Explore the data". Wikimedia Foundation. 13 April 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approving ALT4. @MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for proposing more ALT hooks! ALT4 is good to go and is rather nice in highlighting "all Wikipedias". Striking ALT3 because there's literally no additional information contained within the article beyond what is in the hook (plus it seems rather tangential and undersells the article). Also striking ALT2, because the article currently doesn't even mention the CDC...and also, the hook itself feels a bit misleading – i.e., it would be more accurate to have a hook that says something like, "... The Atlantic suggested that the Centers for Disease Control should emulate Wikipedia?" Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic?

Wikipedia had COVID-19 information in nine Indian languages by 27 March 2020: Arabic, Bangla, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.

The Indian languages section lists Arabic as an Indian language. Why is this? 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 39 (Hidustani Times) might be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it, but it provided no explanation. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Festucalex, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can assume this list of languages was pulled from the aforementioned Hindustan Times article, which is why it's included. How do you think this should be addressed? Changing the header? Moving arabic to a seperate clause? (e.g. "Wikipedia had COVID-19 information in one Semitic language and eight Indian languages by 27 March 2020: Arabic, Bangla, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I wouldn't think it appropriate to mention Arabic at all under the heading of Indian languages. A new section should be created if information is available, and the phrase rewritten into Wikipedia had COVID-19 information in several Indian languages by 27 March 2020: Bangla, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Festucalex, fixed with a slight tweak to your statement; thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odia Wikipedia

---Another Believer (Talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Thoughts on moving this article to Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic, to be more consistent with Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I hadn't seen those articles before- moving. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, oddly, I can't get the GA review to connect with the box atop this talk page. I've tried moving the review page but that didn't make it appear either. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been resolved? Thanks for moving this page! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!, I think Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1 may need to be moved too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now a bot just created Talk:Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1. Perhaps a merge is in order here, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to fix this, I don't know how to merge things- sorry about that MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this minor mess with some page moves, though I didn't quite do it correctly. The lesson is: move all talk pages nad subpages when doing a page move. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Do you have a moment to try applying the "article history" template here as well? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_and_the_COVID-19_pandemic"