Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Seeking panelist for virtual conference

Hello,

I'm a health librarian at McMaster University in Canada and a PhD student at Western University also in Canada. I am co-chairing the annual meeting of the Upstate New York and Ontario Chapter of the Medical Library Association. The web site is down right now but we're working on getting it fixed. We would like to have a panel of three speakers and we would like it if one of those speakers could discuss their experience editing and contributing to this page, keeping it up to date, etc. This group of librarians is familiar with Wikipedia, has learned about Wikipedia in a health context and they would value a conversation about Wikipedia's efforts to mitigate the risks presented by misinformation and disinformation relate to COVID-19. If you are interested, you may reach out to me directly via email at: dsmith[at]mcmaster[dot]ca. We would prefer a speaker from the the Ontario, Canada or New York, USA area as this is the catchment area of our chapter. I have done some research into Wikipedia as a health information resource and have a continued interest in Wikipedia's contributions to health information. I am a friend of Wikipedia. Mcbrarian (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Remove or change hydroxychloroquine section

• As we all know hydroxychloroquine has now been proven to be effective so I think that its section is now irrelevant. Fvoltes (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/recent-hydroxychloroquine-study-draws-criticism-from-medical-community.html Even if you ignore the study being terrible, one study does not "proof" make. IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

https://thevillagereporter.com/professor-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-100000-lives-being-stifled-by-a-propaganda-war/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ywj-PZTt4g

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WaPo: "Covid-19 is one of Wikipedia’s biggest challenges ever. Here’s how the site is handling it"

WaPo News (08/07/2020) article ("Covid-19 is one of Wikipedia’s biggest challenges ever. Here’s how the site is handling it") - worth considering? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The Great Internet Garbage Patch

The GIGA Patch, also known as The Great Internet Garbage Patch, is a coined phrase by a data science researcher, Katelyn Morrison (University of Pittsburgh), to describe the vastly large amount of fictional information overwhelming factual information. GIGA Patch is used as an acronym because giga is scaled as a billion - at this point in the Infodemic, we have reached a billion data points of fictional information being spread on social media platforms. KatelynM98 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And? What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to add this phrase or brand this massive amount of malinformation as The Great Internet Garbage Patch (play on words from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch). Just a thought I had, but no worries if it doesn't fit. KatelynM98 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS use the term?Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RS meaning? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym. KatelynM98 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

wp:RS reliable sources, you need to show people use this term.

Oh, gotcha. I see - no, I had created the term I guess so it is not seen anywhere by anyone...Thought adding it here as a coined term would be a route to take to get it to be used by reliable sources. I have spent all summer researching and creating visualization techniques for covid malinformation using data science and machine learning. This phrase is just what I came up with from doing big data analysis on twitter data. No worries about adding it though. Just thought it was cool to share the phrase with this group. :) KatelynM98 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This can be closed as no action.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Closed Not done, seems to be phrase that was coined by the user. No reliable sources supporting change. Please see WP:NOR. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Accidental leakage section should be removed.

This section should simply be removed as it isn't an example of misinformation or a conspiracy theory. In fact, it's the most likely scenario. Rhejhect (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, should be moved to the main Virus page at the "origin" section --Forich (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but it seems to be well within reason and not mere misinformation. I agree that it should be moved to the main Virus page. Please see for more details on research going into the potential of lab origin. 2604:2000:1540:4BD9:404C:895E:F375:6408 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)AZ April 26

I also agree, there have now been two overviews of the hypothesis published by individuals with relevant academic backgrounds. See here and here The former contains several journal references, including some studies that accept the possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.37.162 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above. Here is a quote from a preprint study "Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely."

And from another study "Another possibility which still cannot be excluded is that SARSCoV-2 was created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally released into the local human population."

See the revised toll on China: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/trump-issues-reopening-guidelines-gilead-trial-virus-update

Zezen (talk)

It is too early to tell how credible the leakage scenario is. It is a plausible scenario, but little proof yet.--Muddymuck (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think we should be making judgements of credibility, but as this page is only about misinformation and this does not appear to be that I think removing or moving the section is the right choice. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, there is a relation of this topic to disinformation. Please, check Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Leaked from lab. There are a few episodes of the "accidental leakage" theory. The earliest one (reported on 6 February) was originated from social media hoaxes and harassment to Shi Zhengli. The second one was originally published by Daily Mail about some sources in United Kingdom "not ruling out" the theory (but not advocating it either). The third one was about speculation based on US documents from 2018. It was reported as "speculation" by all reliable sources. The last one was Zero Hedge with some conspiracy theory about Facebook censorship.

So I think that the theory merits inclusion in this page. At least for part of these episodes. The Shi Zhengli harassment definitely belongs here. I guess that it is debatable to what extent the speculation about the 2018 US documents belongs here, for example. --MarioGom (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have missed a large portion of the coverage in reliable sources. I havent seen any current source that specifically calls this theory misinformation. We do *need* to have that BTW to include it here. Try [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Lets be clear, speculation is not misinformation so if thats your argument then you’re also arguing that it shouldn’t be included here. The Shi Zhengli part does probably belong here, but again we need a WP:RS that explicitly calls it misinformation or disinformation. This is not a page for “Speculation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, I was probably not clear in my previous comment. I have examined many sources and posted brief analysis of some in the link I posted. From the episodes I mentioned, only the first one involving Shi Zhengli is explicitly discussed as rumor/misinformation/hoax. The others are discussed as being speculative or lacking evidence, but not as rumor/misinformation/hoax. --MarioGom (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And for what is worth, I agree that a speculative theory is not necessarily misinformation. --MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I would support including the Shi Zhengli episode while withholding judgment on the rest until the WP:RS come to a conclusion. I noticed that a lot of reliable sources make a hard distinction between the speculation that its a wild virus that escaped while under research and the speculation that its some sort of man-made bioweapon which escaped while under research, the first is treated as plausible while the second appears to be pretty easily disproven by virologists. While we can certainly include a mention of the guys who combine the bioweapon conspiracy with the escape theory I think its pretty well covered under Bioengineered virus, Chinese biological weapon, and US biological weapon. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, indeed, the characterization by reliable sources is not so simple. Bioengineering theories are widely considered as conspiracy theories. All the bioweapon theories too, including the spy plot to steal the virus from Canada. Now, there are many conspiracy theories and hoaxes about the accidental leak too, but not all suggestions about an accidental leak are conspiracy theories themselves. MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why bioengineering hypothesis is considered as conspiracy theory despite the fact Shi Zhengli actually did bioengineering of viruses and pubished a paper on it in 2015 - which is now well-known by general public. Conspiracy suggests that there's an evil plot. So by stating that bioengineering version is conspiracy one implicitly calls bioengineering an evil, which is against WP:NPOV. -- A man without a country (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, reliable sources (WP:RS), including reliable sources in medicine (WP:MEDRS) agree that the current stories about the virus being bioengineered are conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories have generally been originated and spread by websites such as The Epoch Times, Zero Hedge or GreatGameIndia, none of which are considered reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hasn't the idea now made its way into mainstream media? When it does, does it still matter that outlets publishing any slightly similar idea also published this idea somewhen in the past? In other words, if Hitler drinked water, should we abandon drinking it? I'd like to understand. -- A man without a country (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society made the mainstream media, we aren't changing the article on the Earth, nor the article on the shape of the earth to suit their fantastic whims. Since proved the world is generally speaking an oblate spheroid, coronavirus was natural - per RNA analysis.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Update on the coverage of the accidental-leakage conjecture: from Apr 24, the website "Health Feedback" meticulously examined the evidence (citing secondary sources) and concluded that: "it is much more likely that SARS-CoV-2 was generated naturally and transmitted zoonotically, without any engineering or lab growth." and "the hypothesis for natural zoonosis is the one that fits all available evidence, is most parsimonious, and best satisfies the concept of Occam’s Razor—that the simplest solution is most likely the right one.". They also omit any cualifications of "fringe" or "conspiratorial" to refer to the hypothesis.--Forich (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to conflate the ideas that the virus was accidentally leaked out of a lab and that this is a bio-engineered weapon. Bio-engineered weapon belongs in the misinformation section. Discussions about the origin of the virus that are well within the realms of the plausible belong in the main virus article. See for meticulously collected evidence that makes a strong circumstantial case that the virus originated in a lab. Importantly, this is consistent with zoonosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1540:4BD9:404C:895E:F375:6408 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous section. While there have been some concerns about China's first level-4 lab, it seems unlikely that the WVI ran a virus through an intermediate animal host by accident. The local markets already had bats presumably infected with a range of wild coronaviruses, in no biocontainment at all, which seems like a more likely source for a wild-type virus. At any rate, we need WP:MEDRS sources, not mainstream media sources, if we want to say things about the origins of the virus. HLHJ (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, are we misreading the Evidence-paper cited above? HLHJ states - without proof! - that there were "presumably infected bats with a range of wild coronavirusses" in local markets such as the seafood-market. But this is what is explicitly denied in the Evidence-paper: "What is confirmed are Dr. Xiao’s claims that bats were not sold at the market, and it would be highly unlikely for a bat to find itself in Wuhan (especially when it should be hibernating)". The other relevant paper (Health Feedback, ed. Flora Teoh) states that it is less likely that the virus leaked rather than that it developed "in the wild. Still: "In the absence of evidence for or against an accidental lab leak, one cannot rule it out as the actual source of the outbreak." And more than that: "an open and transparent review of the laboratory activities at WIV" that could "allow us to confirm or reject this unlikely hypothesis" is apparently lacking. If you ask me, it would be highly challenging to wikipedia's neutrality of this topic stays where it is now.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I won't try to edit the page immediately, but I don't think the lab leak theory, as it is, qualifies as conspiracy theory or misinformation at all. At the very least, this wikipedia page should clarify there is reasonable doubt regarding the lab leak theory at first, and only note clear misinformation related to the lab leak theory that disproportionately assert its credibility. There is even more circumstantial evidence supporting the lab leak theory than the theory that the origin is wild animal trade, which is not listed here.Penguin Kun 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Penguin Kun, if you register using the link in the top-right corner of the page, you can automatically sign and timestamp your comments by adding four tildes. (~~~~). HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Otto S. Knottnerus, per the comment in the previous section I referenced, see the WP:MEDRS Lancet and Nature review papers in the "Bioengineered virus" section of the article for evidence. The "Evidence-paper" is something posted on Github by people describing themselves thus: "We are an anonymous group of researchers. We are not affiliated with any company, nation state, or organization. We are not receiving funding from any sources, public or private". The "Evidence-paper" thus does not meet the WP:RS standard for reliable sources, let alone the stricter WP:MEDRS standard. I'm afraid there are unreliable sources that say almost anything about COVID-19, and some of them look quite authoritative. Same even falsely claim to be by UNICEF or the WHO or some such.

The Healthfeedback article is a lot better, and at first glance I think it is RS but not MEDRS. See also what it says about the lab-leak hypothesis here.

Our Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market article says there may or may not have been bats in that specific market; the CDC and WHO aren't sure (thank you for pointing that out). If the virus jumped to humans in that market, it jumped from the (as-yet unidentified) intermediate host animal, not directly from bats. Certainly wild bats are sold in markets in China. It would be very difficult to be sure that none of the many species of animals sold in the Huanan market had been infected by other animals of the same species which had been infected by bats; wild animals were shipped, live, all over China, and often stored in close proximity. As farmers know, shipping often stresses animals; stress makes them more likely to fall ill. This is presumably what happened to the civet cats which were the intermediate host for SARS. HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss what is the best assesment of the credibility to attach to the accidental-spread-from-Wuhan-lab hypothesis. Choose one of these, and provide a brief comment on your choice:

1. Majority view held by mainstream sources without biases or censorship from China
2. Majority view held by mainstream sources, including sources with biases or censorship from China
3. Minority view, low-to-medium weight
4. Minority view, very-low weight
5. Fringe view
6. Conspiracy theory
7. Absurd and plain stupid

It's a minority view at this point, see the quotes and references at the top of this section. It's a majority view that it is theoretically possible, if unlikely. Even the Nature paper conceded that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumskilz (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Forich (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: NBC News published new evidence (again, circumstantial) on the hypothesis. They also listed the coincidences so far, at the end of the article. If the hypothesis is not disproved by June, I will include a mention of it at the pandemic entry. Then, this entry should be rewritten to account that it is not exactly a misinformation or a (unproven) conspiracy. 14:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We have multiple MEDRS-quality references to say the accidental spread idea is a conspiracy theory (6). Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Sciencemag and Daily Telegraph Australia are covering the story and addding more circumstantial evidence for it.--Forich (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Two PhD professors discuss the lab-accident hypothesis in this podcast for 1 hour. It is the longest and most detailed discussion from authoritative sources about it, as far as I know. We could add a reference to it, since they comment on the circumstantial evidence and provide an independent (regardin wikipedians) synthesis of the issue.Forich (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Their academic grades don't matter - that is not how science works. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was pointing that we should only listen to scientists regarding the emergence of Covid. Academic degress do matter when referring to commentators of Covid, thats why every news outlet add degrees info to their interviews. Since we are moving to RS terrain, this is the RS cited by Dr. Weinstein, it has a lengthy discussion on the lab hypothesis.Forich (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmmm, may well fall foul of SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A simple yes or no question, do they say there was a leak?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The question should not be necessary. Only bullshit needs to be bolstered by academic grades, so, without looking, they do say there was a leak.

If it comes to science, such as here, we do need scientists, but not scientists having an opinion and excreting it on YouTube, but scientists writing evidence-based results that have been checked for accuracy by other scientists. Science does not become reliable through people acquiring truth superpowers when they earn a degree, it becomes reliable by the method they learn to use before and after they earn it. So: not the person it important, the outlet is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Scenario A: "Tonight myself and prof X discuss the accidental leak form a Chinese lab, Prof X you know that leak, that you going to the toilet that is...". Scenario B: "Tonight myself and prof X discuss the accidental leak form a Chinese lab, so you agree there was in fact a leak..." Scenario C: "Tonight myself and prof X discuss the accidental leak form a Chinese lab, so you agree that much of the information was inaccurate but there was at least some circumstantial evidence...". Which of these is the closest?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ok, let's wait to see if RS pick up on Weinstein's arguments, if that happens we can revisit this discussion Forich (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This article that was just published in BioEssays argues that serial passage and a leak should be considered as a viable origin, it's peer reviewed:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RNA not DNA

In the last words of the Bio-Engineered Virus section: "that a well made manipulation of a virus DNA could very likely not be recognized.[109]". (This is an RNA virus.) Change DNA to RNA or insert "sic"? Charles Juvon (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good point. Although the source is not speaking directly to this RNA virus, the source does not mention DNA. Edited. Viral genetics can be RNA or DNA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Closed Charles Juvon (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Subsection on Schools

Misinformation on "schools can reopen safely" is very important. I would start the section with a capture of: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools-faqs.html . Charles Juvon (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

American Academy of Pediatrics: https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2020/pediatricians-educators-and-superintendents-urge-a-safe-return-to-school-this-fall/ Charles Juvon (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NYT indicating most schools can't reopen (fully): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/14/opinion/politics/covid-school-reopening-guidelines.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage . I will contact Gus Wezerek and Lora Kelley to see if they will release the first figure to us. Charles Juvon (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"However, under a scenario in which mobility in the community increases to 80% of pre-COVID levels, none of the mitigating strategies in schools we explored would be able to reduce the effective reproductive number to one or below, meaning the epidemic will grow." https://covid.idmod.org/data/Schools_are_not_islands_we_must_mitigate_community_transmission_to_reopen_schools.pdf Charles Juvon (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

New CDC guidance says Covid-19 rates in children are 'steadily increasing'. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/health/us-coronavirus-saturday/index.html Charles Juvon (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox Created: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Charles_Juvon/sandbox#Subsection_on_Schools is where I will gather references and write. Publication should wait until an explosion of the virus occurs that can be attributed to CDC, NIH, Trump, Biden, etc. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The sort of article Wikipedia should never have

I don't get this article at all. Should there also be pages about misinformation on stuff like religion, wars, history and so on? I remember on a few years back being told that there was no water on Mars. Science was adamant. Yet... there is water on Mars. Science has changed its mind. No-one - not even the WHO - has very much/complete knowledge about this virus. Not yet. And quite a few things that "science" has offered have gone on to be doubted and - in the case of lockdown itself - disputed. Scary stuff, that Wikipedia starts carrying "Misinformation" articles... Big Brother is clearly editing you! 92.184.105.145 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Science changes, Wikipedia would have to change if scientific consensus change, and if it does, we would have to compare the previous and the new consensus. We are not there yet.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that, ReyHahn. Only... Science is already offering contrasting positions on the virus, for example, Mr. Ryan(?) (Exec director of the WHO) has suggested that the Swedish model would be better followed than, for example, the French model. If Ryan is correct, then doesn't that make the French model (ie. nationwide lockdown) another example of "misinformation"?

Secondly, what about the more general point; Wikipedia rightly does not have pages on "Misinformation" concerning countless of other topics - to do so would be almost like writing the antithesis of every article! - so why is there a page on "Misinformation" concerning this particular virus? I don't see "Misinformation related to the Bubonic Plage of 1348" for example. Or "Misinformation concerning the Ebola outbreak".. Or a page called "Misinformation related to the Rwandan Genocide" and so on... Why this topic? 92.184.105.145 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the auther of this post. WHO, the imperial college and other respectable where sources of misinformatione. Their initial models were wrong, their predicts were wrong, and even "facts" about the virus were wrong. However, non of this is in this article. Yet, if you call it "Misinformation" the intention should not matter. This should be a neutral list of facts published about the COVID-19 pandemic which were proven to be wrong afterwards. This should approach should also make us cautious about calling someting missinformation at a point, where it has neither been proven right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.34.157 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

When misinformation becomes notable and articles compiling misinformation about the topic are being written it is ok to have an article about it. For an example see 9/11 conspiracy theories.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to tell you what reliable sources say about a subject. About the subjects in this article, they say it is misinformation.

If you do not want to know what reliable sources say because you prefer unreliable sources, then don't read Wikipedia articles. No problem. Nobody will put you in a reeducation camp for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is difference between scientific disagreement and disinformation (especially when its not even coming from the medical profession, but form politicians or lawyers).Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, we shouldn't have articles on the Moon landing conspiracy theories or Flat Earth or Holocaust denial or any of the thousands of fringe theories out there. We have these as memoirs of history. People who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. MightyArms (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We have 142 separate wiki pages that sprung up on Trump is a Russian agent hoax but not one misinformation article about the Trump is a Russian agent hoax. So odd. I hear the MSM likewise applauded wikipedia's intense Trump is a Russian agent misinformation campaign as is cited for this article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:DFD:C69B:4927:494B (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't invent a fictional scenario and then claim this would have happened. --mfb (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This Article could use a Cartoon

Any suggestions? Charles Juvon (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation -> Hoax -> Humor. I had two ideas: 1) Image of bottle of Clorox and a syringe. 2) Three panels: Fish gills, Darwin, Bearded man with KN95 mask. Also, this article is almost painful to read, and for me as a new User "Be Bold". Charles Juvon (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sold on the idea, you need a better argument than this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Charles Juvon (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Because you have not given a reason why we need one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the most notable and famous example of Covid-19 Misinformation is Trump's comment on disinfectants. (Too bad he didn't say "(N)NRTI's"). Therefore, the idea of Clorox and a syringe. I doubt that is the best idea for a cartoon. Maybe someone else has an idea. I do not want to denigrate the hard work all of you have put into this article. So, if that is the real problem, we can close out this bad idea. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, Wikipedia aspires to be a serious encyclopaedia. Much as this topic may inspire incredulous laughter from time to time, it is in reality not funny at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently article is mostly a list, please separate into a list and an article

The article is already large, but it mostly consists of a list of various misinformation. It would be useful to have an article on the subject of misinformation (How prevalent is it, what are its effects, efforts to combat it, how successful they are, differences among different populations, etc.).

Please split this article into two - one on the subject of Covid-19 misinformation, and one listing the various significant pieces of misinformation. Or, at the very least, please change the name of this article to be "List of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic," to make it clearer what the content here is. Thank you. 172.58.92.90 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please look at this change

I did the following which was immediately reverted by @Nillurcheier: as vandalism.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=973818230&oldid=973818158

What is being made illegal, as I read the news, is not transmiitting misinformation, but transmitting accurate information (labeled "misinformation" by governments who find it embarassing). To say transmitting misinformation has been made illegal misses the whole point.

This is the first time in 40,000+ edits that I've ever been accused of vandalsim. deisenbe (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

With references, both statements could be true: 1) information made illegal, 2) misinformation made illegal. Charles Juvon (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is in the section "Efforts to combat misinformation". Censorship of accurate information (which certainly happens in some places) is not an effort to combat misinformation. Censorship of inaccurate information is one. --mfb (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Deisenbe: for being too rude. I interpreted your edit as COVID-deniers' style. Maybe, I was too fast, and calling it vandalism was not appropriate. Later I saw your edits do not follow the deniers' pattern. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So is anyone going to change it back? deisenbe (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Misinformation" is correct. Attempts to suppress correct information are addressed elsewhere in the article. --mfb (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Overlooked Published article on Covid 19 Prevention and Protection Approach that became the official recommendations of the CDC and White House Months Later

In March of 2020 a report and set of protective and prevention recommendations were published by West Coast Midnight Run™, an online publication, provided an outline for the public to use masks for all the population and not just those infected (which was the prevailing recommendation from the CDC and the White House). The report was produced by a senior editor with an engineering background in environmental controls and indoor air quality standards including filtration systems, contaminant control, Sick Building Syndrome and HVAC systems design. The West Coast Midnight Run™ report https://cover.midnighttracks.org/corona-virus-masks-pocketbook also recommended the production of homemade masks if N95 were out of stock at retailing suppliers and the use of triple layer cloth masks (which was months later repeatedly endorsed by the CDC and several agencies in addition to the White House and reported by national media and press outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A6C2:9400:9993:278F:6D84:27DA (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What does this tell us about Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic that we do not already say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If we want to include the West Coast Midnight Run information in the article, it has to be in the form of interpretation from sources other than the original publisher, saying Midnight Run had been overlooked. (I would certainly welcome any such sources if people were to provide them.) Altanner1991 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• so Wikipedia wants corroborations from the very press industry (that was negligent in the first place) on their own negligence? You will not find any press corporation willing at this point to admit they made this huge error in judgement. There is hearsay about misinformation and there is tangible proof of not only misinformation but incompetence and negligence. This article is tangible proof and perhaps there might be more out there but that is the only one I became aware of thus far. However Wikipedia not mentioning it is tantamount to collusion in protecting the incompetence of the press and the CDC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A6C2:9400:9993:278F:6D84:27DA (talk)

Organizations of many different kinds sometimes criticize the press; we can cite those sources if they mention this topic. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well this article is exactly that, a critique of the press, why are you not citing it?2605:E000:A6C2:9400:E02E:53CD:C716:8FA3 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has NEVER published or mentioned facts that it did not qualify or that did not have corroborations from "OTHER" sources? Wikipedia has never published information on a stub basis with a banner saying ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SUPPORTING CITATIONS NEEDED? I see the same culture at work in trash tabloids is at Wikipedia, publish anything that sells and then omit or skip over those indie publishers that may be putting out far more valuable ad relevant information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:a6c2:9400:e02e:53cd:c716:8fa3 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The report is an important part of the chronology of misinformation, you cite several sources in your article but you omit this crucial detail, in March it was THE ONLY report in the media with the recommendations that ran COUNTER TO ALL OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORTED IN THE MAIN PRESS. If your Wikipedia article is seeking to outline to the public the milestones in misinformation and later rectifications made to the public, this piece of information shows the huge error made by the authorities and the lack of veracity in the press in seeking information from other valid authoritative sources available to them, a failure of the press to recognize the authority of science and engineering professionals and solicit their opinions/recommendations that could have saved lives, instead focusing solely on the CDC, the WHO and the White House. The press displayed gross negligence in conducting its due diligence on behalf of public wellfare and wellbeing and this report and timeline detail is TANGIBLE EVIDENCE of such negligence by all public agencies and press outlets involved that could have prevented millions of infections in June 2020 and well into next year. The infection rates continue adding to their ranks, a vaccine is not on any definite timetable and the toll continues to rise, however had in March anyone done their homework or paid heed to this article, there is no telling how much more prevention could have been implemented and lives saved. Perhaps this story should be in the New York Times or The Washington Post about the ongoing shortcomings of the press and one such blatant example of it with terrible consequences (the potential redirection of the virus trajectory with lower infections globally), verifiable from the publisher (West Coast Midnight Run). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A6C2:9400:9993:278F:6D84:27DA (talk)

What "OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORTED IN THE MAIN PRESS?"Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The press did not report on recommendations by the CDC and WHO to use homemade masks until May 2020 which the article had made in March. The press did not report on the recommendations from the CDC for the use of three ply homemade masks until June 2020 which again the article made in March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A6C2:9400:9993:278F:6D84:27DA (talk)

[[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That website does not look like a reliable source. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The publication has been online for 15 consecutive years, they are members of the Society of Professional Journalists and the author of this article is a state licensed engineer with direct experience in the field of contaminants control. Do you expect any source to be a billion dollar media conglomerate? This about MISINFORMATION and some of that misinformation is due to negligence from your RELIABLE SOURCES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A6C2:9400:9993:278F:6D84:27DA (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

SPINOUT conspiracy theories section to its own article

The unwieldy-ness of this article may warrant a new WP:SPINOUT to an article dedicated only to COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Natural place to host it would be COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

jps (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A recent Mother Jones article about the connections between pandemic misinformation and right wing politics

This source may be useful to editors wishing to expand this article. [8] --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The section on 5G-based misinformation should be made into a page of its own.

There is a lot of well-documented information in relation to 5G-misinformation. It should become a page of its own with a section on COVID-based misinformation. NinjaWeeb (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There is 5G#Misinformation and conspiracy theories and Wireless device radiation and health but no separate article on 5G misinformation in general at the moment. Based on the length the existing sections are fine I think. --mfb (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Need to add Li-Meng Yan's Report as Misinformation being heavily promoted by Epoch times, conservative media, Tucker nowadays despite being debunked

The article should add in full details of the Li-Meng Yan's Report being Misinformation that are already recently been making the rounds a lot these days. Despite the fact that scientists have denounced her work as nonsense - (full of speculations and fabrications) and dressed up as science report via the use of many technical jargons.

“It looks legitimate because they use a lot of technical jargon. But in reality, a lot of what they're saying doesn't really make any sense,” says Rasmussen. She adds that the type of cloning that uses restriction enzymes is very outdated, and so it is unlikely to be used to make a viral bioweapon. And on a basic level, making an engineered virus is not a trivial matter. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd/

Despite that, the Yan report is being heavily promoted by Epoch times, conservative media, and even mainstream media for a while. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources and fact checkers confirming that she is pushing propaganda that is funded by Steve Bannon and the Chinese billionaire Guo. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/09/17/whistleblower-claiming-china-created-covid-19-coronavirus-has-ties-to-steve-bannon/#53295eec22d5 49.181.242.38 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Bannon's fraudulent study

Can someone add this in? [9]

I agree with your proposal. I would have done that except I cannot. The article page is blocked for editing to others:( But I have created a new section in better detail below, giving notice in requesting for editors with the permission to edit, to review, and add it in.49.181.242.38 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed mention of Russia in the heading.

If you are going to make a claim that Russia spreads misinformation or leads a campaign of spreading it through "covert operations" at least back it up by decent sources. So far there has been three of them. The first (https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3051939/coronavirus-russia-pushing-fake-news-about-us-using) is nothing but unfounded allegations about bot accounts by US organizations like State Department, and should be trated as nothing more than an allegation. The second (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-propaganda-a-problem-for-the-kremlin-not-a-ploy-a69879) specifically talks about the fact that Russia had to itself deal with misinformation, and throws doubt on the claims that Russia is behind a conspiracy. So in essence, it is challenging a claim that was made by the first article. And finally, the third source (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-disinformation/russia-deploying-coronavirus-disinformation-to-sow-panic-in-west-eu-document-says-idUKKBN215189) is again mere allegations by several countries, without a single example shown. For example this source says that "fake news (were) created by Russia in Italy - which is suffering the world’s second most deadly outbreak of coronavirus - alleging that the 27-nation EU was unable to effectively deal with the pandemic..." which on the Russian side is just a statement of opinion, and not a false fact. I am still ok If you mention it in the main body of the article, but please cite theese sources accordingly. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Eliminate racism from this page please

Clearly the PRC, being non-white and non-Western, are divinely perfect and exquisitely vulnerable and thus are above any criticism from evil racist white devils (i.e. white "people" who are not self-hating white leftists). Please remove any allegations of wrongdoing by the PRC. Remember, words are violence (when used by white devils), and they cause immense pain to the peace-loving Chinese people, who have suffered thousands of years of oppression by white devils. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.200.25 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What? I am going to just address your basic point. We go with what RS say. If RS say Chinese state media have engaged in misinformation so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Infection Fatality Rate

"In an interview with Sean Hannity on 4 March, Trump also claimed that the death rate published by the WHO was false, that the correct fatality rate was less than 1 percent, " Why is this left in, when we now know that the infection fatality rate is actually less than 1 percent (and apparently closer to 0.5 percent)? Drsruli (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mql_sars-cov-2_-_cleared_for_public_release_20200728.pdf https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-deadly-is-covid-19-researchers-are-getting-closer-to-an-answer-11595323801 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/americas-frontline-doctors-scotus-press-conference-transcript (18:33) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The WHO number was not the infection fatality rate. The infection fatality rate is lower than 3.4%, but that was never the question. --mfb (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is phrased, in the article, as though it was. (And from context, it was clear that this is what Trump was referring to when he said that. Please go see the original video, if you have not already.) (The three quoted sources, referencing the use of the word "hunch", are referencing his press conference where he said the same thing, NOT that interview mentioned in the article). Drsruli (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a quote of the full context as reported in the nbc source: ""I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people," Trump said." That's a very clear description of Infection Fatality Rate from a layperson. (He's not a very technical person.) Drsruli (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-death-rate-media-chooses-ignore-covid-19-realities

As written, "In an interview with Sean Hannity on 4 March, Trump also claimed that the death rate published by the WHO was false, that the correct fatality rate was less than 1 percent, and said, "Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number"" itself is misinformation. WHO’s initial mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3.4%, more than an order of magnitude higher than seasonal flu, which is usually pegged at about 0.1%. But recently the CDC put its “best guess” figure at 0.26%. (That's still higher than the seasonal flu but far lower than the 0.67% death rate of the “Asian flu” of 1957-1958 (H2N2), which, according to the CDC, killed an estimated 223,000 Americans and 3 million worldwide adjusted to today’s populations. That pandemic led to no panic in the U.S., no suspensions of civil liberties, no worldwide recession.) Drsruli (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And again: That number is not the infection fatality rate. It is the case fatality rate. It's now 2.7% and it was never around 1%. But that didn't stop Trump from rambling. --mfb (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the three sources used the term "case fatality rate" or "CFR". They all use the term "death rate", and none of them quote the exact question to which he was responding. But from the context of his answer, it's clear that HE was talking about the infection fatality rate. Drsruli (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(It's possible that Trump was trying to explain that CFR is not a useful metric ("really a false number"), and that people should be focusing on the IFR. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid Drsruli (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

The sources don't use the exact phrase but they do say it's the CFR. Here from the first source, I highlighted two words: "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died". You really need to warp Trump's statement a lot to avoid a direct conflict with reality. Which kind of proves the point. But luckily it's not needed to analyze his words here. We go by what the sources say. --mfb (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't know, because we don't know the question to which Trump was responding. (Maybe he was really asked about IFR. It's not reported. And this is a nuance that is known to be lost on the media.)

"Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died," [Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization] said. "By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." - That's your quote. That's literally talking about the IFR. (If that's your proof, then you're making my case for me.) (Do you see why this statement itself, is misinformation? The Director of the WHO is presenting the CFR as the IFR by comparison in the same statement.) Drsruli (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad Data

Bad numbers are misinformation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/upshot/coronavirus-response-fax-machines.html

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/08/04/us-coronavirus-data-needs-improvement-across-states-experts-say/5580765002/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/us-epidemiologists-say-data-secrecy-covid-19-cases-cripples-intervention-strategies

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bad-state-data-hides-coronavirus-threat-as-trump-pushes-reopening/ar-BB14GGZj

kencf0618 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this page blocking legitimate news?

There is mainstream media and liberal media misinformation not addressed here and conservative media is used as a generalization to block conservative points outright instead of at least addressing them case by case. Raj208 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add reliably sourced information on misinformation not yet included in the article. Doanri (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this one:

On Jan. 21, the day the first COVID-19 case in the U.S. was confirmed, National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci appeared on conservative Newsmax TV and said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”

Sourced as misinformation here: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/erosion-trust-10-things-public-health-establishment-got-wrong-about (and here: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/2020/06/22/c19_some_of_the_many_things_experts_got_wrong_496842.html ) (Michael Fumento is an investigative journalist.)

Also sourced here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD-xBdMKiSQ

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1247180304823062529?lang=en

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/virus-outbreak-infectious-disease/2020/01/26/id/951325/

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/04/13/experts-advice-on-virus-inconsistent-often-wrong/

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2020-04-03-watch-dr-fauci-in-january-say-you-dont-need-to-worry-about-coronavirus/

https://www.corona-stocks.com/fauci-foils-latest-bombshell-trump-didnt-distort-anything/

Drsruli (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing sources call New Zealand fascist after it beat COVID-19 again

The irony hurts, but this article has some misinformation about NZ's pandemic response that could be added to the article. --mfb (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The "World Doctors Alliance" reassuring us SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax

FYI: https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/ indeed with a small group of doctors, scientists, ... in a convincing setting, claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax, 5G plays a role etc. And fact check by https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/a-video-posted-by-a-european-based-group-called-world-doctors-alliance-falsely-claims-the-novel-coronavirus-is-a-normal-flu-virus/?article_id=740360 No time to waste on this, just to signal it here, greetings from Brussels, SvenAERTS (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What about Operation Lockstep?

Internet seems full of this claim, example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rockefeller-operation-lockstep/ -- LS (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

ProPublica source for inclusion

• Allen, Marshall (May 17, 2020). "'Immune to Evidence': How Dangerous Coronavirus Conspiracies Spread". ProPublica. Retrieved May 26, 2020.

Louie Gohmert

"Representative Louie Gohmert from Texas hinted in July that he caught coronavirus because he wore a mask more often in the days leading up to his infection."

The source does not claim that this is mis-information, merely reporting the amusing speculation. Drsruli (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The only one quoted in the article. (The Daily Beast.) Drsruli (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ohh I see, you are objecting to content, seems a tad undue. Why do we need to know what this person thinks?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Scott Atlas

Scott Atlas isn't mentioned in Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#United_States. This situation might be worth fixing. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"the WHO had never advocated lockdowns as a means for controlling coronavirus"

Sorry I am new, please go easy!

The article states the following: "However, the WHO had never advocated lockdowns as a means for controlling coronavirus.[414]" The wording of this is highly misleading; WHO has consistently said along the lines of "We do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus" and "WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time". In my opinion the source is garbage right-wing propaganda with low factual reporting.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/lockdowns-should-be-last-resort-whos-europe-chief-says.html

Kauri0.o (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure which misinformation that paragraph is targeting in particular, and I don't see a connection to Brazil either, so I suggest removing it. --mfb (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant Vitamin D Study

There are studies that suggest Vitamin D plays a role in COVID-19 deaths/recovery. Conspiracy theories only benefit when mainstream websites (such as Wikipedia) deny plain things which can be easily found by a simple google search. This entry should be changed to something like the following:

Vitamin D

Claims that Vitamin D pills could help prevent the coronavirus circulated on social media in Thailand.[352] The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, while noting that "current advice is that the whole population of the UK should take vitamin D supplements to prevent vitamin D deficiency", found "no clinical evidence that vitamin D supplements are beneficial in preventing or treating COVID-19".[353] However, a study from Trinity College in Dublin did find that "Vitamin D plays a critical role in preventing respiratory infections, reducing antibiotic use, and boosting the immune system response to infections."[354]

Source: https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/vitamin-d-could-help-fight-off-covid-19-new-tilda-research/

I do not think we should be reporting anything based on a single report. That report is not a reliable secondary source. It's a primary source, a research team's opinion about a finding from their own project. If reliable secondary sources begin to claim that this Dublin report is significant then we have a justification to report it, however right now this just does not pass WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I know a bit about the vitamin D issue - I think it is at the moment controversial, not a specific issue of misinformation. IMO vitamin D should be removed from this article for this reason. A source that nicely and briefly summarizes the situation as I understand it: The Lancet. Bdushaw (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Infodemic" in lead

I noted the curious word "infodemic" in the lead, a word new to me. There is an ordering problem in that the word is used in regards to Trump first, then perhaps defined at the bottom of the lead as a WHO term. The ordering should be fixed; move WHO paragraph up? move Trump sentence down? I am also not so sure that "infodemic" associated with Trump is supported by the RS - that should be double checked. I had understood it as the "single largest source of misinformation" - not unrelated to the infodemic, to be sure, but does the RS make that specific identification? Bdushaw (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your confusion is somewhat understandable, as the lead is horribly written and explains the usage by the WHO at the end, rather than the beginning. However, the word has had wide currency during the pandemic, particularly since the first meeting in late June. Viriditas (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

At the VERY least, the wikilink to the word should be up at the point of the mention WRT Trump, rather than WRT WHO. But the writing is poor, noting "THE infodemic" in the Trump sentence, leaving the reader to wonder "what infodemic"??? and "what is an infodemic"??? I suggest a sentence toward the top explaining what an infodemic is, with wikilink. Bdushaw (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but I had to go to work and I lost my edit. I can try again later or recommend you give it a go. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dubious Cornell study

I'm surprise the inclusion of this has not been challenged when placed in such a prominent position. There is more than a POV-pushing there. Reading the actual paper, it's only an analysis of English language articles (not mentioned in the original edit until I added that), that the President of the United States would be covered widely in English language sources should not come as a surprise. The wording that "the President of the United States was likely the largest driver of the COVID-19 misinformation" becomes a definitive statement "was the "single largest driver" of the COVID-19 misinformation" ("likely" was omitted). It should really have been deleted as non-neutral. That the research paper also turned mentions of Trump in discussion of misinformation into him driving the misinformation "infodemic" (the two ideas are very different) is frankly dishonest and distasteful, the researchers are showing their ideological bias there. I get that huge number of people don't like Trump (and I don't have a good opinion of him either) but Wikipedia is not the place to drive a POV demonisation campaign here. Hzh (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't been challenged because it's based on solid data — 38 million pieces of content from 1.1 million articles over a five month period. The rest of your comment is also unsupported. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So you think "he is likely the culprit" is the same as "he is the culprit"? You think mentions of someone in discussion of misinformation is the same as that person driving the misinformation? You think omitting an important qualification in a statement is correct? Hzh (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What I think isn't under discussion. The preponderance of sources on the subject are clear. Here's The Telegraph: "Mr Trump's role in the "infodemic" is unavoidable: he has repeatedly retweeted QAnon supporters, as well as Leftist pranksters, and has boosted or started some of 2020's hottest political fictions. One study branded him the biggest spreader of coronavirus misinformation, while a government whistleblower has accused him of attempting to suppress evidence of Russian meddling." Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What is written in the article is under discussion. If a source says "X is likely a murderer", can you write "X is a murderer" in an article? You should an opinion on that because Wikipedia does. There is also a clear bias in the source, so should you use a biased source? You should an opinion on that also. Hzh (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you discussing? The article says, "A Cornell University study found that US President Donald Trump was the "single largest driver" of the infodemic." You have not disputed this wording or statement in any way. You merely asserted that it was biased or erroneous, without evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the paper, that's the original source. Hzh (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What bias? We have a source for this or is it just an academic push back?--Moxy 🍁 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Cornell paper the NYT article is based on? Hzh (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure did... in fact I am the one that added the study link to the source ... I can help you get full access if need be. Are you claiming one of these academic writers has a proven bias or just that Academia leans left in general?--Moxy 🍁 01:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm only saying the writers of the paper show bias by turning the number of mentions of the Trump in discussion into Trump driving the misinformation (whether the academia leans left is not under discussion). They are two different things, and conflating the two is a sleight of hand dishonesty. Hzh (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have and I did. Why did you add back the dubious tag and change the wording again? Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that you have read the original source, can you answer the question I posed earlier - if a source says "X is likely a murderer", can you write "X is a murderer" in an article? Also, if a source says "French newspapers write a lot about the French President", can you write "Newspapers write a lot about the French President", removing an important qualification in the statement? This is just basic Wikipedia editing policy. The dubious tag indicate that what's written is not accurate. We can discuss the content of the paper later. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "now"? I read the study when it was originally reported on two months ago. This article said, "A Cornell University study found that US President Donald Trump was the "single largest driver" of the infodemic." The study concluded "that the President of the United States was likely the largest driver of the COVID-19 misinformation 'infodemic'". The NYT wrote "Mentions of Mr. Trump made up nearly 38 percent of the overall “misinformation conversation,” making the president the largest driver of the “infodemic” — falsehoods involving the pandemic," and cited the lead author as saying "the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid." You seem to be hung up on the study using the word "likely", while both the NYT and the lead author do not. There is a simple explanation that does not involve George Soros or leftist caravans of Marxists from south of the border. Qualifiers like the adverb "likely" are generally removed as unnecessary in news stories. They are implied. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is still the same, Wikipedia articles are not news article. The word "likely" is in the study. If a study says "X is likely the murderer", and NYT then reports "X is the murderer", do we write "X is the murderer according to the study"? Clearly not since this is not what the study says, that NYT chose to omit "likely" shows where it leans, and we are not bound to follow NYT's leanings. Then there is the question of whether "Mentions of Mr. Trump made up nearly 38 percent of the overall “misinformation conversation,”" is the same as Trump being "the largest driver of the misinformation “infodemic”". They are clearly not the same - "Misinformation conversation" is not the same thing as "misinformation", for example, the sentence "X is often mentioned in discussions about the murderer of Y" in not the same as "X is the murderer of Y". That the authors of the paper chose to see them as the same show their bias. Hzh (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Wikipedia uses secondary sources like The New York Times to write articles. We generally don't use scientific wording, such as the qualifier in question, when the secondary sources don't use it. Further, the usage you describe is reserved for scientific journal articles as an ambiguous hedge unique to that style. In many cases, there is a translation of sorts between different styles of articles and their source material; for example, from scientific writing, to legal writing, to crime reporting, to sports writing. It is unlikely, for example, to find the colorful language of sports writing in any of our encyclopedia entries on sports. In the same way, scientific articles on Wikipedia are written in the popular vernacular. Your argument doesn't appear to be persuasive given the preference for the house writing style. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It simply isn't true we don't use qualifiers. We cannot state something in WP:WIKIVOICE as unambiguously true unless it is clearly so. In scientific topic, it is also preferable to use scientific journals as source rather than the popular media particularly on medical issues per WP:MEDPOP (a NYT article would not be acceptable in some cases, since newspapers "tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result") Note what it says on scientific and medical information: For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources.). While Wikipedia encourages scientific articles to be written in ways that makes it more easily understandable to the general readers, there is nothing that says you can state thing that changes the meaning of what the paper says. In this case, it is NYT's interpretation of what the paper says, which is inaccurate. You cannot ignore the qualifier that the paper uses, because it changes the meaning of what's written, you are introducing certainty that isn't present in the paper. Where is the house style you speak of that allows you remove significant qualifiers? You also need to answer the problem with the original paper. Hzh (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is Four Seasons Landscaping-style argumentation. What's next, are you going to release the Kraken? You are throwing everything you can find to see if it sticks. You are still asserting, without any evidence mind you, that there is something wrong with the source, something wrong with the wording, something wrong with The New York Times, and something wrong with the lead author. Weasel words are discouraged, and hedging qualifiers are the house style of scientific journals, not Wikipedia. What sources are you using to cast this material in doubt? You have the burden of proof. May I remind you, the lead author of the study in question was quoted by the NYT saying, "the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid." Furthermore, this isn't the only study or datapoint pointing to Trump as the primary driver of misinformation. We have consilience from independent lines of investigation, all pointing to this same conclusion. For example, we have surveys and studies of people in red states, people who listen to conservative media, and people who identify as Trump supporters — all showing a heightened proclivity towards believing in, sharing, and helping contribute to the infodemic. You are behaving as if the Cornell study is some kind of outlier; it most certainly is not. Earlier today, Trump asked his supporters to stop watching Fox News and to start watching OANN and Newsmax, two of the largest purveyors of covid-19 misinformation on the planet. I don't see how your argument is tenable or can be taken seriously. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you citing a single Wikipedia policy or guideline, and your assertions have been disproved by actual policy and guideline. Accuracy of reporting of technical information if important, if you are arguing that accuracy is WEASEL, then I would suggest your read WP:MEDRS and WP:WEASEL carefully. If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your assertions with actual policy and guideline, otherwise what you said is just random noises. We have already seen that the headline of NYT does not reflect the actual paper it is trying to report, whatever else the NYT wants to claim about what the author says is irrelevant, since the wording written here is "A Cornell University study found that..." and we have the actual paper to check whether the study said that. Hzh (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion, your claim, your lack of evidence, your burden of proof. The lead author of the study told the NYT that "the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid." The word "likely" was used as house style in the article abstract of the study and doesn't change anything. The secondary source doesn't use the word "likely", which is why it doesn't appear in this article. I hope that clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no confusion. Newspaper like the NYT may be considered an independent primary source in this case per WP:MEDPOP (it seems like you have not bothered to read it and keep arguing what's contrary to the guideline), and not relevant to what's written in the lead, which is about what's said in the study. You can write that "New York Times claimed that...", or a "Cornell researchers said that..." but not "A Cornell University study found that...", since the use of the word "likely" in the study shows that it has no such certainty in what it says. Come up with actual Wikipedia policy or guideline that can support your assertion, otherwise you are just engaging in pointless argument. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Cornell study is the primary source, and the NYT is the secondary. Furthermore, a content guideline about medical articles has no bearing or relationship to this discussion. You're very confused. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is clear you did not read WP:MEDPOP - it says The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. It's more than medical articles, and extend to other scientific information. One of the reasons for not regarding them as reliable is because they tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, which is exactly what NYT did here. In cases like this where the newspaper report research, it is regarded as WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

None of that applies. The NYT is a secondary source about a quantitative analysis, not experimental biomedical results. I remain unimpressed and unpersuaded by your argument. The sources have consilience. They have simply counted the number of times Trump has misinformed the public, and they have independently confirmed that Trump comes out on top. Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't think it bothers me that you are not convinced, given that all that you have said are not based on any policy or guideline, just random assertions about house style and how qualifications can be omitted, assertions that appears to have been plucked out of thin air. From what you just wrote, you also don't understand what is being said about Trump either (they are not counting the number of times he has misinformed the public, but the number of times he is mentioned in misinformation conversation), therefore any claim of consilience is meaningless - you need to understand what is being discussed before claiming that. 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not that we should add more weight by saying more in the lead but perhaps more would be beneficial. So working with the key finding of the study that says "President Trump within the context of COVID-19 misinformation comprise by far the largest single component of the “infodemic.” Trump mentions comprised 37.9% of the overall “infodemic" Both the New York times and Washington post conclusions say Cornell University researchers analyzing 38 million English-language articles about the pandemic found that President Trump was the largest driver of the “infodemic." Thus far not seeing any sold case to dismiss an Ivy League research university study as a whole and I think Hzh has moved away from this original POV. Lets offer some alternative word like above see if others see fit for a change.--Moxy 🍁 17:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you said that when no one has made any serious challenge to my point, nor do I understand why you think I've moved away from the "POV". Something being from of Ivy league is no argument to accept what the paper says. Can you present your argument against my point? Hzh (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply don't belive your interpretation is correct. Nor has any bias been shown on your part. Best ask others to get involved and see if anyone sees your POV on this. funny timming--Moxy 🍁 02:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Let us also remember that Cornell is not the only study to have come to the same or similar conclusions, as there is consilience in the literature. Case in point: "Fake news and coronavirus: Detecting key players and trends through analysis of Twitter conversations" (2020), from researchers at the University of the Basque Country. They reached the same conclusions about Trump as Cornell did, but focused mostly on how the misinformation spread on Twitter. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You can present it on the lead as well if you want to (although it may raise the issue of DUE weight), it still does not address the issue at hand. Hzh (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• An editorial in WaPo for 10/04/2020 ("Frenzied speculation over Trump’s health only feeds the misinformation mess he created") uses the "likely" wording:

A recent report from Cornell University found that Mr. Trump has been “likely the largest driver of the COVID-19 misinformation ‘infodemic’ ” in traditional and online media: Almost 38 percent of articles containing debunkable claims, including that hydroxychloroquine could be a miracle cure for the disease, mention the president in the context of the inaccuracies. The researchers note how damaging this misinformation can prove, whether it prompts people to attempt to treat themselves with harmful substances or reduces trust in health authorities trying to promote responsible behavior.

Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Disputed claim of Taiwanese Govt that they warned the WHO on human-to-human transmission early

I think this issue is too important to be left out of the article. The WHO came under fire when Taiwan said that it had been the first to warn it via an email, and that it was deliberately ignored. The Taiwanese health authorities later released the the email it sent to the WHO as evidence as this. However, the WHO, citing the contents of the email, has disputed the claim that Taiwan warned it. The Taiwanese health ministry posted this on Twitter and other platforms. This is the full text of that email:

"News sources today indicate at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, China. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the sample are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment.

I would greatly appreciate if you have relevant information to share with us

Thank you for very much in advance for your attention on this matter"

As such, when this email was released, the WHO issued a response, clarifying that "they (the Taiwan health ministry) did send an email but that email was not a warning. It was a request for more information on cases of atypical pneumonia reported by news sources."

To summarize:

1. the Taiwanese government claimed that it warned the WHO about the human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 via an email. source: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2020/03/25/2003733321

2. It then later released the contents of this email. source: https://twitter.com/MOHW_Taiwan/status/1248915057188024320

3. Citing the contents of this email, the WHO denied that it was warned about the possibility of human-to-human transmission. source: an interview by Goa and WHO officials https://goachronicle.com/taiwan-did-not-warn-us-about-human-to-human-transmission-world-health-organisation/

I want my reasoning here to be clear. By reading through the email, it would seem that it was not a warning about human-to-human transmission at all, corresponding with the WHO's claims. But what if the Taiwanese health ministry did intend to warn the WHO? It would seem that the letter did not make this clear. And because it was not clear, the WHO was not warned even if it was intended to be. And because the Taiwanese government has spread what appears to be misleading claim, this I believe can be categorized as misinformation. Misinformation is defined by Wikipedia as "false or inaccurate information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive."

This might fit under "Government".

Best regards

Chokoladesu (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Please remove the following, under Brazil:

However, the WHO had never advocated lockdowns as a means for controlling coronavirus.[419] Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus. “We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” he said. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.”[420]

Reason:

Misleading wording, low quality sourcing. Attempts to validate Bolsonaro & Trump. Refer to my other section on this topic for additional info. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation from Cambodian government

If of interest, there's plenty of reporting on the Prime Minister of Cambodia downplaying the virus that could be added. See: 1 2 3 3 Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín survey (via Nature)

Fox News has been particularly scrutinized for its part in amplifying dangerous misinformation. In a phone survey of 1,000 randomly chosen Americans in early March, communication researchers found that respondents who tended to get their information from mainstream broadcast and print media had more accurate ideas about the disease’s lethality and how to protect themselves from infection than did those who got their news mostly from conservative media (such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show) or from social media. That held true even after factors such as political affiliation, gender, age and education were controlled for.

Discussion about Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín, D. Harvard Kennedy Sch. Misinform. Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-012 (2020), in Philip Ball & Amy Maxmen (27 May 2020). "The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories". Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 17:26, November 28, 2020 (UTC)

Minor typo for fixing

There is the following typo in the last sentence of the 'Casedemic' section: "....variables that cam influence PCR tests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.218 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)