Wikipedia: WHO vs Johns Hopkins University (JHU): two trusted sources constantly differ in data.
"I'm not sure if this was discussed before. As of May 17, the number of confirmed cases by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) covid dashboard, which is the most commonly used resource was: 4,710,614 As of May 17 the WHO total was: 4,525,497 JHU seems to have come from more sources that are also reputable, including the WHO. The WHO sources are likely just national sources, which vary widely in how often they report, while other sources may gather data and report more often." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittyG (talk • contribs) 18 May 2020 (UTC)
0
1
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.