Wikipedia, Encyclopedia or The New Reuters?

created at

Sorted! Word Cloud from 1hr 15.56

created at


Wikipedia, Encyclopedia or The New Reuters?

Wikipedia, how it works , who and how many people use it and what level to they interact with it. The Hidden Layers of Wikipedian Semantics?
Live stream, free style.
The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think.
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.[8]
Plac’d on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his Mind or Body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus’d;
Still by himself, abus’d, or disabus’d;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of Truth, in endless Error hurl’d:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

To cut a long story very short I’ve extracted the information in the influenced by section for every philosopher on Wikipedia and used it to construct a network which I’ve then visualised using gephi

Most people have seen a picture called “Bubbles,” which is used for the advertisement of a celebrated soap, a small cake of which is introduced into the pictorial design. And anybody with an instinct for design (the caricaturist of the Daily Herald, for instance),

Spanish flu
Influenza A virus subtype H1N1
Alternativet till Wikipedia
Vernon Coleman
[Text source: Wikipedia, somewhat edited since the purpose of the ”fact post” on Wikipedia about Vernon Coleman seem to be to disfame his reputation. This page therefore need additional checking.]


This was recorded on March 18th 2020 on YouTube, which banned it recently. Two versions of this video were published on YouTube and received well over one million views. Viewers might find it interesting to see how the forecasts it contained have turned out so far.

Coronavirus outbreak 2020–2021 in Sweden

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.[7] The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.[8]

COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden
Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article.[1]
“Deletionists” are proponents of selective coverage and removal of articles seen as poorly defended. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikipedia be focused on and cover significant topics – along with the desire to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use (seen as abuse of the website), trivia, and articles which are, in their opinion, of no general interest, lack suitable source material for high-quality coverage, or are too short or otherwise unacceptably poor in quality.[2][3][4]
Relationship with Wikipedia
Since 2002, Sanger has been critical of Wikipedia’s accuracy.[46]

In December 2004, he wrote an article for the website Kuro5hin, in which he stated Wikipedia is not perceived as credible among librarians, teachers, and academics because it does not have a formal review process and is “anti-elitist”.[47][48]

Shortly after the launch of Citizendium in 2007, Sanger again criticized Wikipedia, stating it was “broken beyond repair” and had a range of problems “from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals”.[2]

In September 2009, Sanger said he distanced himself from Wikipedia partly because, “I thought that the project would never have the amount of credibility it could have if it were not somehow more open and welcoming to experts … The other problem was the community had essentially been taken over by trolls to a great extent. That was a real problem, and Jimmy Wales absolutely refused to do anything about it.”[49] Wales responded by stating, “I think very highly of Larry Sanger, and think that it is unfortunate that this silly debate has tended to overshadow his work”.[49]

In April 2010, Sanger sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about his concern that Wikimedia Commons was hosting child pornography and later clarified the object of his concern was “obscene visual representations of the abuse of children”.[50][51] Sanger said he felt it was his “civic duty” to report the images.[52] Critics accused Sanger of having an ulterior motive for reporting the images, noting he was still in charge of the failing Citizendium project and said that publicizing the accusations was unnecessary.[53] In 2012, Sanger told Fox News that he worked with NetSpark to get them to donate or heavily discount its pornographic image filtering technology for use on Wikipedia. NetSpark attempted to contact the Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 but received no response.[54]

In a November 2015 interview with Zach Schwartz from Vice, Sanger said that “I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn’t lead to mob rule” and that since he left the project, “People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum.”[9] He also recounted his experiences with trolls on Wikipedia during the site’s initial growth, saying that “It was kind of stressful. I think it stressed out my wife more than me. The idea that there were people who were abusing me online just bothered her greatly.”[9] Sanger equated the trolls with modern-day social justice warriors.[9] When asked by Schwartz what his thoughts were on Wikipedia in 2015, Sanger said that “I guess I’m moderately proud. I always sort of felt like we just got lucky with the right idea at the right time”.[9]

In a June 2017 interview with Alexis Sobel Fitts from Wired, Sanger credited how Wikipedia works with the cultural norms established by the website’s earliest editors, saying that “Online communities are self-selecting” and that “They will tend to drive out people—not by force—but simply people will self-select out of projects that have policies they dislike. So if there is a really strong initial commitment to neutrality, then people who are strong ideologues will tend to steer clear.”[55]

In a May 2019 interview with Sophie Foggin from 150Sec, Sanger called Wikipedia “a broken system” because the website did not “come up with a good solution” “to rein in the bad actors so that they did not ruin the project for everyone else.”[56] He also claimed that “This problem was supposed to be solved by Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, but Wikipedia has long since decided to turn the other cheek when influential editors make articles speak with one point of view, when they dismiss unpopular views, or when they utterly fail to do justice to alternative approaches to a topic.”[56]

In a blog post in May 2020, Sanger described Wikipedia as “badly biased” and stated that he believed it no longer had an effective neutrality policy. In his opinion, portions of the Donald Trump Wikipedia article are “unrelentingly negative”, while the Barack Obama article “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals”, and listed other topics that he believes are also presented with a liberal and left-wing bias, including the topics on Hillary Clinton, abortion, drug legalization, religion, and LGBT adoption.[57] Sanger also said in the blog post that “It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy).” and that “At the very least they should admit that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one”.[57]

In a February 2021 interview with Maxim Lott from Fox News, Sanger claimed that “The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone” and that “Wikipedia’s ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work”.[58]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1

Bealle’s list and Questionable journals list
Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

YGM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh Dear, one turns ones back for five minutes and you all get into all sorts of ridiculous predicaments. I was going to make a statement in your defence, but the opining Arbs all seem to be beyond my ken. Where on earth have they all come from? I suppose it’s connected with the schools all being currently closed. It’s a pity because I have vast experience of trumped up incivility cases. Anyhow, I can only point you in the direction of this: coping with idiots. It’s very old, but I think you’ll find the types of Wikipedians still prevail. What a nuisance for you, but I’ve no doubt you’ll keep smiling through. Don’t laugh too much though, it can make people look a little simple, or like an American with newly bleached teeth – why do they do that to themselves? I see Trump has popped up again, he’ll probably start editing Wikipedia now he has the time, if he’s not already. What a world! Giano (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Trump’s got no Wikipedian editing career; he wouldn’t know what a reliable source was if one came up from behind and shouted “boo”. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
“COVID” redirects here. For the ongoing pandemic, see COVID-19 pandemic. For other diseases caused by coronaviruses, see Coronavirus diseases.
Coronavirus disease 2019
Other names COVID, (the) coronavirus
Transmission and life-cycle of SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19.
/kəˈroʊnəˌvaɪrəs dɪˈziːz/
/ˌkoʊvɪdnaɪnˈtiːn, ˌkɒvɪd-/[1]
Specialty Infectious disease
Symptoms Fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell; sometimes no symptoms at all[2][3]
Complications Pneumonia, viral sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney failure, cytokine release syndrome, respiratory failure, pulmonary fibrosis, pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, chronic COVID syndrome
Usual onset 2–14 days (typically 5) from infection
Duration 5 days to 10+ months known
Causes Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
Diagnostic method rRT-PCR testing, CT scan
Prevention Face coverings, quarantine, physical/social distancing, hand washing,[4] vaccination[5]
Treatment Symptomatic and supportive
Frequency 125,594,898[6] confirmed cases
Deaths 2,757,093[6]
Part of a series on the
COVID-19 pandemic
SARS-CoV-2 without background.png
SARS-CoV-2 (virus)COVID-19 (disease)
International response
Medical response
SARS-CoV-2 (Wikimedia colors).svg COVID-19 Portal
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.[7] The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.[8]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Coronavirus diseases

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media
Fighting an Infodemic
COVID-19 has increased the World Health Organizations (WHO) usage of social media as well. The platform WHO Information Network for Epidemics was created after COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency. The 20 person staff work to provide evidence-based answers to combat rumors found across platforms and ensure any “coronavirus” search across social media platforms, as well as Google, directs them to the WHO website or Center for Disease Control providing reliable information.[47]

On 18 January 2021, the UK Parliament, in the presence of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, held a session to combat misinformation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic on social networking and Internet media platforms. The session had a panel of behavioural science experts and another of media representatives of major organizations including, Facebook, Sky News, and Reuters.[48]

Main article: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic
MIT Technology Review has called the coronavirus pandemic “the first true social-media ‘infodemic'”.[49][50] National Geographic has reported on an increased level of “fake animal news” on social media during the pandemic.[51] Studies in the past have shown how people have stopped getting their information from browsers, and other search methods in favour of relying on social media. This information can strongly influence behaviors and limit cohesion and therefore the effectiveness of government countermeasures to the virus.[52] There is preliminary evidence that people’s trust in science and scientists is associated with how believable they find COVID-19 misinformation to be, though the researchers encouraged caution in interpreting the finding pending further study.[53]

Much of the youth get their information and news updates from different social media platforms. For example, Twitter has a whole page dedicated to news updates. While there is some factual information being spread from social media, a large portion of information is sent out by bots. There is no way of knowing whether or not the information you are reading on twitter, or any other social media platform for that matter, is coming from a reliable source or a generated bot.

Political bots are a popular way of spreading misinformation and propaganda, as well as manipulating the opinions of people. Cases of propaganda and misinformation can vary by country.[54] Misinformation can be spread strategically, but it can sometimes be spread by accident. Misinformation has the potential to make the pandemic more dangerous than it already is.[55]

Many platforms struggled to moderate what was posted and shared in a timely manner before misinformation was spread. This was due to an increase in AI usage as many human moderators were sent home during shelter in place orders and faced contract restrictions and couldn’t continue their work at home.[56] This system failed to prevent COVID-19 misinformation from spreading as well as took down other valuable information and links to articles.[57]

BBC News reported on Facebook, groups opposing vaccines and those campaigning against 5G mobile phone networks created unwanted rumours. The Stop 5G UK group on Facebook 5G and other groups posted an article from Technocracy News that claims: “It is becoming pretty clear that the Hunan coronavirus is an engineered bio-weapon that was either purposely or accidentally released.”[58] Online rumors have led to mob attacks in India and mass poisonings in Iran, with telecommunications engineers threatened and attacked and phone masts set on fire in the United Kingdom.[59]

Social media has also contributed to the spread of misinformation. In Wuhan, China’s panic has led to the spread of misinformation as well as the disease itself. Misinformation has been spread in the form of reports that fireworks will kill the virus in the air, as well as vinegar and indigowoad root curing an infection. This misinformation was spread via the messaging app WeChat. Citizens have also bought an excess of materials and supplies, which has depleted the number of supplies available to professionals.[60] Old and unsubstantiated information has also been spread as factual, seen with the rise of the reported benefits of Hydroxychloroquine, even though the WHO has ended trials around the product as it may increase the risk of patients dying from COVID-19.[59]

Misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding COVID-19 have been removed by Facebook and Instagram from their social media platforms.[61] Facebook has placed its focus on discouraging claims that include fake cures and methods of prevention.[61] Facebook’s third-party fact-checkers work to limit the spread of false content by sending links to fact-checked information to the accounts who were attempting or who already shared the content in order to notify them and provide correct information.[61] In the cases of posts such as “drinking bleach cures coronavirus”, Facebook will have the information removed as well as have the hashtags associated to the misinformation blocked or restricted on Instagram and Facebook.[61] Endorsements and up-to-date information will be available through posts on the top of Facebook’s News Feed for guidance that is presented by the World Health Organization.[61] An educational pop-up with credible information will appear when using the search function on Facebook, or through a related hashtag on Instagram that is based on data from global health organizations and local health authorities.[61]

Usage by celebrities
During the pandemic many celebrities took to social media to interact with their fan bases and attempt to alleviate the situation through posts, acts of kindness or trends. Some have had posts swiftly condemned by the public, such as Gwyneth Paltrow who deleted an Instagram post about her designer fashion and Jared Leto who caused anger with his Twitter post about coming out of a 12-day silent meditation isolation in the desert.[62] Other celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres and Gal Gadot received kick back for their social media posts, of complaining in about being stuck in her California mansion and gathering all of her celebrity friends to sing John Lennon’s “Imagine” respectively.[63]

Other celebrities or their family members used social media to announce their positive diagnosis of the disease such as Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, Idris Elba, and Daniel Dae Kim.[63] After recovering from the virus actor Daniel Dae Kim, used his social media to highlight the donation of his plasma, to a Vitalant blood donation center in hopes that his plasma contains active antibodies that could help others.[64] An Instagram post made by K-Pop Star Kim Jaejoong claiming that he had contracted the disease and was in the hospital receiving treatment, was later deleted and framed as an April Fools’ Day Prank to raise awareness of the pandemic.[65]

Social media was used by celebrities to raise awareness for charitable action during the pandemic. Ansel Elgort posted an almost full front nude of himself on his Instagram page used the caption to post “OnlyFans LINK IN BIO” which directed fans to a GoFundMe created by actor Jeffrey Wright to feed frontline workers during the pandemic.[66]

Black Lives Matter

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalism
United Kingdom
Many media organisations have reported slumps in advertising revenue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, said the pandemic had caused the “biggest existential crisis” in the history of the press, as local and national newspapers experienced circulation decline.[59]

On 20 March 2020, the London business newspaper City A.M. suspended its print edition and announced it would halve its staff pay in April.[60]

Independent Digital News and Media, the owner of The Independent and indy100 news websites, furloughed some of its staff and cut wages for employees.[61]

BuzzFeed announced it was ending its news operations in the UK, as well as in Australia, partly due to a slump in advertising revenue due to the pandemic. Its ten news staff in the UK were furloughed in the cutback.[41]

The newspaper group Reach plc, which owns titles including the Daily Mirror and Daily Express, reported a 30% fall in its revenues for April 2020.[62] In July 2020 it announced that due to falling income it would cut 550 jobs.[63]

By May 2020, 50 local newspapers had stopped appearing in print. Meanwhile, digital subscriptions to The Times newspaper were up significantly, according to its editor John Witherow.[64] Amid the pandemic, the Daily Mail overtook The Sun as the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK in May 2020.[65]

In July 2020, The Guardian announced it would cut 180 jobs. Figures at the newspaper said that revenues would be £25 million less than the year’s budget.
COVID-19 misinformation

COVID-19 deniers use the word casedemic as a shorthand for a conspiracy theory holding that COVID-19 is harmless and that the reported disease figures are merely a result of increased testing. The concept is particularly attractive to anti-vaccination activists, who use it to argue that public health measures, and particularly vaccines, are not needed to counter what they say is a fake epidemic.[182][183][184][185]

David Gorski writes that the word casedemic was seemingly coined by Ivor Cummins – an engineer whose views are popular among COVID-19 deniers – in August 2020.[182]

The term has been adopted by alternative medicine advocate Joseph Mercola, who has exaggerated the effect of false positives in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to construct a false narrative that testing is invalid because it is not perfectly accurate. In reality, the problems with PCR testing are well-known and accounted for by public health authorities. Such claims also disregard the possibility of asymptomatic spread, the number of potentially-undetected cases during the initial phases of the pandemic in comparison to the present due to increased testing and knowledge since, and other variables that can influence PCR tests.[182]
Guy Macon goading banned users into a violation – What is the policy?
I am topic banned from one topic and my talk page is being riddled with provoking discussions from Guy Macon, trying to prompt me to violate my ban. Is there any entrapment policy here? –Frobozz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[33], [34] – Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, here – written after the ban was imposed – you quite clearly imply he has misbehaved, so it’s unsurprising that Guy Macon feels the need to reply to defend himself. Filing an ANI claiming an editor is provoking you and gravedancing, whilst you appear to be provoking him, is probably not a great look? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You can ask Guy Macon to stop posting to your talk page and this should be respected. But if you’re going to do that, you need to shut up about Guy Macon. Don’t refer to them directly or indirectly. I suspect if you do that Guy Macon will also stop posting to your talk page without asking. If you ask Guy Macon to stay away from your talk page but then keep talking about them there, I’d fully support an indefinite block of you. BTW I’m sure you’ve been told this before, but stop posting random requests for help on ANI. Use the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk or frankly just ask on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Vaccine hesitancy

Notice that the Talk page has about 15000 views and the article over 5 million views , on matters of consensus the voting group is even less representative.

Should we include a section on the Sweden policy controversy?
It seems relevant to the Europe section and to the article as a whole.Php2000 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

we’re trying to shorten the article, not make it longer, though all topics are important–Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. We don’t have a lockdown here, and not significantly more deaths per capita than other countries, along with avoiding as severe economic impacts, and that the disease will start to spread anyway as soon as the restrictions are lifted, along with having to handle the following economic depression and starvation. Here is a useful article in that regard:–april-2020/ David A (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Belongs in the article on the country IMO. Different people read the data different ways is likely the most one can say. Sweden (328) has more deaths per capita than comparitors like Denmark (91), Norway (42), or Finland (50). But not as many as say Spain, Italy and France. Belgium counts more aggressively than others so really cannot be compared to anyone (Belgium is taking into account all deaths not just deaths with a positive PCR diagnosis).
Than on the economics side of things, it is unclear if Sweden is doing any better.[18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Given Sweden’s different approach regarding this issue, I think that it is of public interest to compare the results. Also, our local experts estimated that we would have had 40% unemployment if we had gone ahead with as severe lockdowns as many other countries. We will still get 14% unemployment according to the latest estimates, but it is still far less bad than the alternative. David A (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Per “We will still get 14% unemployment” so the same as the United States? Norway is at 15% Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Sweden’s deaths plateaued. It will help calculating the worldwide impact of the mitigation. Iluvalar (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Discussions about Sweden’s policy has featured heavily in news from other states – I was surprised not see it in the article already. It’s definitely relevant. Hentheden (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Here we have “daily confirmed COVID19 deaths per million people”[19] Sweden is third globally after the UK and Ecuador. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This one gives total deaths per million, which I find more useful [20]. It puts Sweden down a notch. I wonder if Sweden is doing the same as the UK; including all deaths where COVID is mentioned on the death cert, even if the cause of death is something else? Here in the UK we’ve got the questionable policy (according to something doing the rounds on social media) that if someone got run over by a bus and then a post mortem found COVID infection, they’d be listed as a COVID death. Arcturus (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
A big fan of Our World In Data as well and it shows Sweden is higher than all the countries around it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support, as their decision not to lockdown received news, criticism, and now, a high death toll. Definitely worth including imo. QueerFilmNerdtalk 00:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Sweden’s position is (almost) unique in the West and the MSM give it a great deal of attention. There should be a section about it in the article. Arcturus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Many should oppose to adding more sections, because the page starting have some delay on loading the content even with a “high performance” computer or internet. It should be placed somewhere else related to COVID-19 pandmeic. Regice2020 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems like there is a consensus for adding this section so far. David A (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there is. Arcturus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Are some skilled editors willing to start working on such a section then? As I mentioned earlier, I think that the complete lockdowns that much of the rest of the world are doing seem unrealistic, as the disease will automatically start to spread just as much as in Sweden as soon as the countries open up again, and then they will have economic depression, massive unemployment numbers, and likely starvation on top of the pandemic to deal with. David A (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Sweeden took a novel contrarian position related to lockdown and has received widespread press coverage for it, thus WP:DUE to include, regardless the objections to article length (that are possibly and attempt to censor using WP:TOOLONG as an excuse). TOOLONG is not a justification to exclude important content that helps with WP:NPOV, this should be obvious. There is clear early consensus here to add, thus I started a section Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19,_there_are_no_rules,_there_are_no_rules

I have many editing interests: you will most likely find me helping to coordinate the Venezuela WikiProject or at current events, where I try to help keep the very busy current disaster/attack/political hysteria articles from getting too messy when they’re on the main page or an ITN candidate. I am also interested in media, editing pages on film and artwork. If you want any suggestions in these areas, or with editing article structure, leave me a message. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Kingsif/Review things quick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Kingsif
Jump to navigationJump to search
Among my specific areas of interest, I also do a fair amount of article reviewing on Wikipedia, predominantly at DYK and GAN. This can be considered a weighty task and something that can lead to burn-out quickly. I won’t say it’s easy to review articles that are particularly long, technical, or otherwise complex – things that can often be established at a glance and turn reviewers off. That just leaves a handful of particularly dedicated reviewers to bite into them, which is probably worse for everyone, ultimately.

Of course, I still do it. And I have a few tips to review things quickly, without doing it in a rush, that may get others to do it, too.

  1. Know the guidelines. The better you know and fully understand the criteria of the review process you’re involved in, the easier it will be for you to review. There will be no need to keep checking it, no need to follow to a point the outline reviewer template, no need to ask questions. It also means you can get stuck into the review and approach different areas of concern as they appear, rather than re-reading. But make sure you do understand them.

  2. But, it can help to have a ‘starting’ process. There may be parts to approach first without needing to read the whole article at all. At GAN, it’s easy to use the earwig tool to check for copyvio first; this also lets you know if there’s any flagrant violations that would halt the review before it’s even started. Similarly, a source check can be done through the refs and skim-reading at GAN and DYK. Having a ‘starting’ process also makes reviewing feel less unwieldy: you’re not looking a big, messy, article thinking “oh no, where can even start”. You know where to start.

  3. Don’t skimp on source reviews. They’re important, even if it feels lengthy and tedious and hard. For DYK, isolating the correct single or few source/s should be relatively easy, and a Ctrl/Cmd+F within that source (if online) for choice keywords will prevent you needing to read it all (unless it’s something like a journal article that argues the point throughout, or similar). A lot more editors are also adding helpful page numbers to citations. Offline sources either need to rumbled from an online library version or given good faith, and some questions can be useful. It may be easier to open all the sources in new tabs before you begin to get everything laid out.

  4. Also don’t forget article history. Article history is needed for both DYK and GAN in different ways. It can be overlooked, but on top of contributing to criteria can also tell you other things about the article. I can only say you’ll know how when you see it, if a certain edit sticks out for, perhaps, being a large page change or a small collection by an otherwise uninvolved editor. Red flags that may not be all too noticeable in the article text may include little POV inserts throughout or replacing a source URL with spam, all the way up to surreptitiously removing entire sections or image vandalism. Who knows what you’ll find.

  5. If you see a recurring problem, scan over it through the rest of the article. This may sound like strange advice, but if for the first two sections you notice there’s consistently an issue with using the wrong quotation marks, or the same weasel words, or something else in the range of ‘likely to persist’ – and these generally come under GAN style issues – then make a note of it in the review, suggest a fix, and forget about it. Try not to let your brain activate every time you see it, because even if you don’t list every instance in the review, your thinking time is going up. Similarly with phrasing; if there’s issues with how things are phrased per the appropriate MOS, you probably don’t need to suggest ways to fix each instance. Instead, link to the MOS and try to descriptively identify the underlying problem so all instances can be worked on in the same way. Most editors can take the initiative.

  6. Flex the appropriate MOS. Different subject WikiProjects have different specifics in manual of style. If you think you’re dealing with a specialist topic article, go to the project on the talk page and familiarize yourself with any MOS/essays/other guidelines they have. This helps you give better targeted advice and prevents giving advice that doesn’t apply or is plain incorrect for the style required.

Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what is happening to the page article view versus the Talk Page View stats , The Video seems at variance with the general data now that I am double checking this is a work in progress so please check the links and data before jumpoing to any hasty conclusions, I am going to double check as there are a few paterns in here relevant to blocking and edit abuses on the Coleman page including tag teaming behind the scenes, that it goes on is in no doubt at all.
The Four Pamphleteers Wiki Ballot Grub Street Journal Edition.

A drs Note for Jimbo from Dr Vernon Coleman, Novel Edititus Wikipedius Bias 21
Here is a young Dr. Vernon Coleman, better known to some as the “Old Man in a Chair”, on ATV Today (the then ITV regional news service for the midlands) in July 1981. Courtesy of the Media Archive for Central England (MACE).

Description: Dr. Vernon Coleman from Leamington Spa refuses to state the nature of his patients’ illnesses on sick notes. He maintains that illnesses should be confidential and that the notes could ruin a patient’s career. The Department of Health and Social Security, who pay sickness benefits, made a formal complaint and this afternoon Dr Coleman had to appear before a medical committee and was told that he faces a £1,000 fine if he continues to write ‘ill health’ on sick notes. Shots of Dr Vernon Coleman in his surgery and close up shot writing ‘ill health’ on sick note.

Wikipedia Why it matters and how to participate.Drs Prescription from Dr Vernon Coleman
The Puff Peice Deletion Discussion, A Glorious window into the ingroup Bias of the Wikipedia Elite, See Zhil ( Zhil Laners.)

The Puff Piece.

By Wikipedia editors – <a class="external free" href=";oldid=952520646">;oldid=952520646</a&gt;, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Author: rogerglewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

Leave a Reply