Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/Special report

Discuss this story

"... Wikipedia was the single most used source of Ebola information in the 3 most affected countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea), ahead of CNN, CDC, and the World Health Organization (WHO) during the worst part of the outbreak." That is pretty intriguing. How can we ensure that the articles in this important area do not fall prey to the "rot" that is typical on Wikipedia? As long as Wikipedia can not guarantee any level of quality, let alone a high one, it seems unlikely that many serious health organizations would be willing to enter into partnerships that could improve the breadth and availability of our content in this area.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have already partnered with the NIH, Cochrane collaboration, UCSF College of Medicine, and are working a bit with the World Health Organization. They are interesting in these partnerships not because our content is universally great but because it is universally highly read. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But to what extent and for how long? For the resources it takes to cope with all the vandalism and edit wars they could probably build a new hospital instead. Eventually someone will question the cost-benefit relationship.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a few years for the NIH, Cochrane and UCSF. They are not putting in the resources required to build a hospital :-) which is 100s of millions to billions. Would be nice if they did though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Would be nice if they did though." That's what I mean :)--Anders Feder (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes most initiatives are fairly small at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is becoming a problem in fringe articles. Especially with organic food MEDRS is often used to keep positive, verifiable information by reliable sources (like agricultural colleges and universities) out of the articles. That is undermining the stature of MEDRS. The Banner talk 15:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have not really followed the content dispute regarding organic food. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't followed any content dispute either, but that may be seen as a positive influence of MEDRS. Widefox; talk 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, signpost writers/editors. But what does "equal to 127 volumes the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica" mean? Approximately 4 times the size of the 32-volume EB, or 127 times the size of the entire EB? --do ncr am 07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4 times the 32 volume EB Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. So "127 times the size of one volume of the 32-volume EB" would be more accurate but awkward, so I revised the article in this diff to say what you just said. Revert/reword if not helpful but I think this is good. Thanks. --do ncr am 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]