Miscellaneous desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 22[edit]

Effects of COVID-19 on Wikipedia editing[edit]

With so many people out of work and school because of COVID-19, and so many recreational facilities closed, do we know if there has been a spike in the number of people editing Wikipedia in recent weeks? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone can answer this better by knowing a better place to look, that perhaps has actual edit counts, but the general siteview stats would appear to suggest the opposite. From 1/1/20 to 3/1/20 there were an average of 264,534,046 daily views, whereas from 3/1/20 to 3/21/20 it dropped to an average of 237,138,969 daily views. I don't know if that is statistically significant, but assuming that it is (and that the number of people viewing the site and the number of people editing it follow roughly the same trends), I would wager that the average number of people editing has dropped as well. (Info from https://tools.wmflabs.org/siteviews/?platform=all-access&source=pageviews&agent=user&range=latest-20&sites=en.wikipedia.org) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under any reasonable model for the underlying random process, that will prove a statistically significant deviation from the null hypothesis. --Lambiam 15:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With many public libraries closed, as well as probably internet cafes and the like, that could figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were all partying on the beach for spring break. --Lambiam 15:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries? You mean there's still some of those that aren't blocked for a year under "{{schoolblock}}" or "{{anonblock}} likely a school based on behavioral evidence"? I'm being sarcastic, but I know there are a lot of libraries (patronized by more adults than children) that get hit with those kind of blocks over a person writing "poop" on an article or because they share an IP range with a lot of K-12 schools. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews are not prevented by these blocks, only editing. I suspect many people were editing from work, and if they are not at work, they may be behaving like they are at home. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could actually be a decrease in editing, esp. as all live sport has stopped. Lots of those areas have seen a massive decline in editing, simply because X event/match/tournament has not taken place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are busier than ever because of Coronavirus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

simpler references[edit]

1. I love wikipedia and view it as a tremendous advance in our culture.

2. I would prefer to use a similar reference source that is mostly written for non experts.

- if I need to find out what viral load is and I'm not a doctor, it's confusing to have it described with words I can't understand "viral titre or viral titer" "HIV-1, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus." (HIV-1 vs. other options and B vs C throw me off)

- if I need to find out what Hemoglobin is, it's confusing to have it described with "metalloprotein", "erythrocytes", "Channichthyidae". I expect people who know what "metalloprotein", "erythrocytes" and "Channichthyidae" are don't need to look up Hemoglobin, so why bother the rest of us with their terminology.

Is it possible to have another wiki type reference source that removes the technical expertise of experts who don't need wikipedia to understand their subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0E:C256:904:3F07:E7E2:BBEE (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Simple English Wikipedia ? Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weakness of some (too many) articles. The lead should be as accessible as is reasonable to anyone not familiar with the field and give the important basic stuff, no more and no less. Less important details and more technical stuff should be pushed back. Using our Hemoglobin article as an example, there is no need to start off with a technical term like "metalloprotein" that most people have never heard or seen used. The Simple English Wikipedia (which is not an English Wikipedia that is dumbed down, but a Wikipedia written in simple(r) English) gets this right: "a protein in red blood cells which contains iron". There is absolutely no need to show off by mentioning ~~Midichlorians~~ Channichthyidae already here; "almost all vertebrates" is good enough. So Wikipedia is a work in progress; one useful function of the reference desk, next to helping people find answers to their questions, is identifying shortcomings in Wikipedia. Sometimes it should contain the answer, but it doesn't.

One of several advantages if you register for an account is that you can set your preferences. One of the user preference pages is about gadgets. One gadget I myself find very useful is called "Navigation popups". When enabled, an article preview (basically the first few paragraphs of the lead) pops up when you hover over a link. In most cases when I encounter an unfamiliar term, that already tells me what I needed to know, so I save myself some clicks and can just quickly read on. --Lambiam 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to see the article preview, Wikipedia:Page Previews are enabled by default for editors without an account. The difference between page previews and navigation popups are primarily features intended for editors, so I'm unconvinced this is an advantage for the OP although I guess it's true that in part due to the focus on images navigation popups can sometimes show more text. Of course both options do require you to have Javascript enabled and may not work well on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]