Talk:Vaccine Confidence Project

A fact from Vaccine Confidence Project appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Vaccine Confidence Project was developed in response to a boycott of polio eradication efforts in Nigeria?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaccine Confidence Project.

Wikipedia

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that the Vaccine Confidence Project is an early warning system for rumours about vaccines?~~ establish the Vaccine Confidence Project as a means of anticipating problems associated with rumours and other sources of misinformation and countering these problems while are sill manageable"..."The project's premise...is that early detection of and timely response to rumours"[1]
- ALT1:~~... that the Vaccine Confidence Project is an early warning system for misinformation about vaccines?~~

Reviewed:Gustav Mayr

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 19:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Article is new enough, long enough, is neutral and without copyvio, but it needs a reference adding to the DYK nomination, so we can see which specific reference you are citing (not just the page as a whole). Although the hook is short, I think it's quite punchy. I would suggest changing "rumours" to "public concerns" though as it's more accurate. Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for reviewing @Lajmmoore:. I have added the source. I still need to provide a QPQ, which I will do soon. "Misinformation" might be an alternative to "rumours", as in the source. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whispyhistory, Yup. "Misinformation" is a nice suggestion. Please let me know when you've done your QPQ. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore:... QPQ completed and ALT1 added, although I think rumours is probably better and well cited, but up to you. Thank you again. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, let's stick with misinformation! I'm happy that all the criteria are fulfilled. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see the hook fact in the article. The article states that it is an early-warning system which identifies and evaluates public confidence in vaccines, not an early-warning system for misinformation about vaccines. I think you could write a catchier hook, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure..will have a think. Maybe someone might help and suggest one. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yoninah for the feedback. How about this for an ALT? I realise it changes the whole tack, but might be catchier? What do you think @Whispyhistory:?
ALT2 ... that the Vaccine Confidence Project developed ~~as a~~in response to a boycott of polio eradication efforts in Northern Nigeria in 2003/04?

ALT2 sounds good, thanks. @Lajmmoore: could you review that please? Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore: the very first line of the article contradicts the hook fact. And there is no inline cite for the hook fact per WP:DYK#Cited hook. Pinging Whispyhistory to tweak the hook and provide the cite. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great - although I don't think the first line of the article contradicts the Nigeria fact - it's just a more generic explanation. Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 ... that the Vaccine Confidence Project developed in response to a boycott of polio eradication efforts in Northern Nigeria in 2003/04? In northern Nigeria in 2003 and 2004 ... rumours triggered a boycott of the polio eradication efforts there that that led to an outbreak ... Incidents such as these led Larson to establish the VCP as a means of anticipating problems associated with rumours and other misinformation. [2] Whispyhistory (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yoninah: and @Lajmmoore:...Please check my further attempt. Thank you for all this. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the grammar of the hook is technically correct, it seems kinda garden-path-y. I feel like "Vaccine Confidence Project was developed..." would be better. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 ... that the Vaccine Confidence Project was developed in response to a boycott of polio eradication efforts in Nigeria? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whispyhistory, I'm happy with ALT4. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore: we're not asking if you're happy with the hook, but whether it accurately reflects the source material and is properly cited in the article. Then you can give it a tick. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lajmmoore (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm the DYK checklist for ALT4 text with ALT3 reference:

ALT4 ... that the Vaccine Confidence Project was developed in response to a boycott of polio eradication efforts in Nigeria? In northern Nigeria in 2003 and 2004 ... rumours triggered a boycott of the polio eradication efforts there that that led to an outbreak ... Incidents such as these led Larson to establish the VCP as a means of anticipating problems associated with rumours and other misinformation. [3]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Lajmmoore (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One minute, Lajmmoore. It's not clear from this thread, but it appears that you proposed the ALT2 hook fact on which ALT4 is based. Per Rule H2, you are not allowed to approve your own hook, even if someone else has tweaked it, since the basic idea is yours. We need another reviewer for ALT4. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approving Alt4 based on earlier review. --evrik ^(talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine industry funding

I have restored the quite proper and uncontroversial acknowledgment that this body is funded by vaccine manufacturers. Another editor has persistently sought to suppress this information, offering his or her opinions about the relevance of this fact. Plainly it's relevant, acknowledged by the body itself and, according to standard practice, its director has acknowledged these links in scientific papers. There is no legitimate reason to suppress this information, as it is properly sourced and relevant to our understanding of who stands behind this body. If the editor wishes to add other sources of its funding, he is free to do so, so long as it is supported by proper referencing. Dreamwoven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19_misinformation#See_also and link back?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Iv'e put a link to this article in the "See also" section of COVID-19_misinformation#See_also, shall we put a "See also" section here too and link back - don't know if that's recommended? Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links in the See also section is potentially confusing, since the purported connection is not strong enough for a link in the article, but someone thinks they are nevertheless linked. This organization may merit mention there because of it's role in fighting misinformation about COVID vaccines, but I don't immediately see that there would need to be a see also link back from here to every topic where it might be seen to have related activities. There is certainly no global expectation that all see also links be reciprocal. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]