Wikipedia: Different research demonstrates different results regarding the effectiveness of a drug/treatment that causes a big gap among the data being communicated.
Different studies at different times show a big gap between the effectiveness of a drug that could potentially treat COVID-19 that is being exposed on public platforms. Researches should not believe the first information they see, but they should consult various ranges of sources that can confirm the validity of a statement. "It has been reported by many sources that data presented at a conference about a week ago show that treatment with remdesivir reduces mortality by 62%. If there is a reliable source for this, I guess that it should be added. (This is strikingly different from the previous research which had remdesivir having a marginal effect on mortality.)Lavateraguy (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research
0
0
Contributors are:
Who are from:
Tags
CSCW (Computer-supported cooperative work)
Computing Sciences
Related
Different sources of knowledge
The user Jura on Wikipedia talks states that interdisciplinary exchange would benefit specialists
Tweet and reply from Jonathon Block and Glen de Vries about importance of scicomm and pre-print dangers
Steven Nono tweets about the importance of science communication with so many papers being published
Bhramar Mukherjee tweets that the exponential curve of COVID papers needs to flatten
Wikipedia: Different research demonstrates different results regarding the effectiveness of a drug/treatment that causes a big gap among the data being communicated.
Wikipedia: WHO vs Johns Hopkins University (JHU): two trusted sources constantly differ in data.
Wikipedia: Research projects being buried under more research and information is being overlooked or hard to be reached at.
Wikipedia: Inconsistencies in numbers vary from source to source. Does accuracy in data make it credible, or should the source's identity be the deciding factor in reliability?
Wikipedia: Restrictions against preprints and what adds credibility to a source
Big surge of information regarding COVID-19, people should find multiple sources to find reliability in the information, and not accept all information at face value.
Preprints: some researchers believe speed is more important of validity. These are different times when information is needed more urgently, still, it is recommended researchers investigate further on these preprints and peer review them themselves.