Q: I read a blog page / Twitter / Facebook post and it says masks don't work and the research is bogus. Why can't I say it here?
A: Wikipedia hasverifiability andreliable sources policies that state you must provide "verifiable, reliable sources" for contentious claims in articles. In the context of medical claims, an even stricter policy,WP:MEDRS, applies.
Q: It's not a matter of opinion; I read the source material, and all the so-called evidence for masks is obvious nonsense that any rational person can see through.
A: Unfortunately, Wikipedia also has ano original research policy that does not allow users to make edits based on their own conclusions drawn from their own interpretation of source material. Please find some evidence fromreliable sources todirectly support your claim. In the context of this article, that generally meansmedical reliable sources.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates toCOVID-19, broadly construed, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This article wascopy edited byRsjaffe, a member of theGuild of Copy Editors, on 1 November 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve allCOVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited tojoin and to participate inproject discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDisaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
According to the Wikipedia article for thecovid-19 pandemic, there is not scientific consensus that the pandemic is over. Rather than open a can of worms about something not even scientists agree on, it would make a lot more sense to just rename the article toFace masks during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns for clarity.173.222.1.146 (talk)00:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, NIOSHhas developed a method for evaluating the effectiveness of this type of public health intervention, around the same time as the TB document mentioned above.
Details start atpage 59 in the 1992Performance evaluation document. In short, NIOSH evaluates respirators compared to the ideal of a"zero control failure rate".
Which means, according to NIOSH, that the respiratorhas to work properly, and usershave to follow directions (saying it again...29 CFR 1910.134)
It's described as being similar to the approach used in evaluating the effectiveness ofcontraception, where the risk of user error in both cases is high.
That this is left unsaid in most respirator RCTs may speak to the... significance of their findings.
For researchers that wish to generalize their respirator-performance study findings to larger groups, a two-stage process in [sic] involved during which external validity problems can arise. First, researchers must define atarget population of persons, settings, or times (e.g., efficacy of respirators worn by most users in the U.S. for specific respirator-wearer samples torepresent these populations. However, samples usually cannot be drawn systematically in a formal randomized manner and are drawn instead because they are convenient and give an intuitive impression of representativeness. However, the settings and conditions of any given research study may severely hamper thegeneralizability of the results.
I smell contradictions happening here. If mask review papers are not defining thepopulation the papers being reviewed draw from, andespecially if they makebroad conclusions about N95s without doing this due diligence, removal should seriously be considered underWikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article.
Drawing from a hospital, or a country for that matter, AFAICT according to NIOSH, isnot systematically random. NIOSH describesfit test panels that can be formed to represent the US...
So any paper that claims to be able to do this as an "RCT" is highly dubious IMO. Missing 29 CFR 1910.134 is just a clue that something may be amiss when the authors did their background research. ——Randomstapler'salt19:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to attach a clean up template pointing to this, and create a list on adherence to NIOSH statements seen above.I will also note, for readers who skipped to the bottom,this draft which was trying to reweight one section without the NIOSH context, while compromising with other users. I don't think it's usable now, in light of the definitive source above. Here's my preliminary checklist - the more passes, the reliable IMO, and the points near the top may be important to determining reliability:
? If measuring respirator efficacy in use, does it describe the population? (Country (fit test panel), hospital, ethnicity?) More importantly,is this made clear?
? Is the paper or review careful not to paint broad strokes across the effectiveness of respirators, given the above? (This would require knowledge of APF studies, like is said in the NIOSH document above which, if not cited, would create a verifiability problem)
? Does the review/paper make clear whether the study is forvoluntary use, or not? (The study of the general public wearing masks would be voluntary use, butwould not be allowed, or expected, in a TB outbreak).
? Bonus points if the paper/review mentions Appendix D of 1910.134, which covers voluntary use andis very short.
? If used in a hospital (where voluntary use wouldnot be expected) does the review/paper require fit testing? (Fit testing is required by OSHA under 1910.134, and 1910.139 (TB) before it was shot down in 2003)
The following are probably less important, but would be ideal for any respirator study:
? Mentions 42 CFR 84?
? Mentions 29 CFR 1910.134?
? Mentions 30 CFR 11?
? Mentions APFs?
? MentionsA Performance Evaluation of DM and DFM Respirators, orLANL respirator studiesspecifically?
This might take a while for me to verify and clean up.
Once again proving that... themore papers are included, in addition to it beingmore likely a less-rigorous one would slip in... it'll take more work to verify it all, since most of us (including me) don't like removing information. If you're willing to help me with accounting for inconsistencies between sources, thank you.
None of this is how Wikipedia works - we are not to engage in amateur peer-review ofWP:MEDRS sources based on occupational safety regulations or suchlike. That is the job of the experts who write the MEDRS - to judge whether and how such things apply.Crossroads-talk-22:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads, can we have someone else's input here? Hence the cleanup template? I would also suggest youquote relevant policy, like I quoted the source above.
Also, interpretation of sources can result in different conclusions, hence the need for discussion. Sources don't exist in a vacuum.
I found it interesting you made no commentuntil I put up the cleanup template. Please do not remove it. Otherwise I'd really be talking to myself, and that isn't helpful to me or anyone. ——Randomstapler'salt18:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As encyclopedia editors, we're not to perform systematic review or peer review. We summarize reliable sources based on encyclopedia standards (thus your checklist is out of scope). —soupvector (talk)14:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soupvector - Yeah, that's what I felt a little too, hence why it was preliminary. But I wonderwhat else could be used to account for the discrepancy.
You know... this reminds me of trying to figure out the efficacy of qualitative fit testing with only the sources inDocket H-049A in 1981. You could use the sources to make any assertion. Source reliability depends on the NIOSH DM/DFM source, which was published later, and cites the docket. If it was 1981, Iwould not include information on efficacy. Hence my feelings here.
Edit: At the same time, we aren't supposed to include every bit information on a topic, and we need some way to discern reliability. This checklist is (my) way of attempting to do that. ——Randomstapler'salt21:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of masks and respirators to prevent COVID-19 is highly dependent on technique/fit, supply availability, adherence - and so undermined (i.e. infection) during behaviors outside the area of study - that confounding obscures the effect; this is magnified by the temporal gap between the behavioral change and the measurable outcome. In my professional experience, respirators are very effective (e.g. in my hospital we did careful contact tracing and did not find evidence of transmission during protocol-adherent encounters; and I was the attending physician on our COVID-19 ward starting in March 2020 and never contracted it in months of face-to-face care) None of that is MEDRS of course, just context for my sense of the variability in experiences (and meta-analysis does not reliably overcome residual confounding). Mandates are a social/administrative action, for which the efficacy will depend on adherence (trust, alignment, etc) - and coupling of the change to the effect. Perhaps we should deal with this is a way different from interventions that have immediately measurable effects. —soupvector (talk)21:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gebretekle[1] is a 2025 systematic review that highlights the points I just made about confounding (and many others about difficulties in this space). Sorry - should have provided in my comment above. —soupvector (talk)00:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soupvector - I had a quick look at your reference. Just my initial impressions, let me know what you think.
It appears it cites these three papers[1][2][3] for face masks. (Also cited is[4] but that's one more level down, so I'll ignore that for now).
With respect to the three papers (without evaluating the validity of the data itself, for the record), they don't seem to follow the guidelines for evaluating a population recommended by NIOSH, andthe review itself makes no mention of this either:
Cook and Campbell have suggested that it is useful to distinguish between (1) target populations, (2) formally representative samples that correspond to known populations, (3) samples actually achieved in field research, and (4) achieved populations. They have noted: To criticize the study because the achieved sample of settings was not formally representative of the target population may appear unduly harsh in light of the fact that financial and logistical resources for the experiment were limited, and so sampling was conducted for convenience rather than formal representativeness. . . . it is worth noting that accidental samples of convenience do not make it easy to infer the target population, nor is it clear what population is actually achieved.
(Page 51). Under... some... checklist, this source would beless preferred, because these two sources are inconflict with each other. Maybe it could be included under some other review, or if other sources are worse (in terms of consistency, or addressing of past sources). Perhaps it doesn't meannever, just if no other better source can befound.
At the same time, statement do impact the lives of people (and researchers, as much as I dislikeWP:citogenesis), so maybe it would be appropriate to just not look intoefficacy at all on an article, despiteWP:DISCLAIMER. I prefer this, as you've seen above, but I understand if others prefer the former.
I may have under-emphasized one of these twoconflicting views in my head when trying to explain myself, apologies if I did. Goes to show how difficult recognizing potentialgood-faith (see below) reliability problems can be.
I'm sure there may besome source out there that doesn't conflict, but it's gonna depend onluck. (Luck might also apply to researchers, but I digress.) Lucky I was able to find a couple dockets so a POV was not excluded, but that was only because I was suspicious, and becauseI edit a lot of respirator articles... additional expertise could really speed this along, by comparison.I change my mind a lot...——Randomstapler'salt02:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference I provided isWP:MEDRS conformant for this topic. My sense is that you're trying to perform additional peer review, which seems out of scope - and this seems to be the issue being discussed here on this talk page - we should represent published reliable sources neutrally (i.e. whether we agree with them or not). —soupvector (talk)02:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CDC and NIOSH reports can be a source of content depending on relevance and scope, but just as high-quality statistical principles may clearly state certain principles, we cannot undermine MEDRS by saying that a peer-reviewed secondary source violates such principles in our opinion - if the reviewers & publisher vetted the work then we reflect that in a neutral way (we don't do original research ourselves). I get the impression that you've heard this before? —soupvector (talk)03:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soupvector, there is another thing I'd like to add. CDC and NIOSH are also "authoritative" sources, as in "it's the law". CFR is theCode of Federal Regulations.
And... um... you still haven't pointed outwho decides what reviews or papers to include in articles. I'dlike to think a checklist is objective, but, as you can see, opinions may vary.
CDC and NIOSH are US authorities for certain things (not encyclopedias); also, this is a global encyclopedia, the rules for which explicitly forbid doing our ownoriginal research but rather presenting content inreliable sources with aneutral point of view (i.e. we reflect what they say, and represent anynotable controversy in a way that reflects the corpus in RS). In medical contexts, of course, we haveWP:MEDRS as a more specific guidance for RS. The re-vetting you seem to propose does not to align with WP policy as I understand it. —soupvector (talk)03:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soupvector Regardless, I still don't understand one selects papers when writing Wikipedia. Do you just click on the first results? Do you pick randomly (valid, but questionable)? Based on what trends on social media? (Yikes!) Such things will happen a platform anyone can attempt to edit.
And how much do you include? As I alluded above, including more than one source for a statement may widen the view... or it may increase the chances you will cite a subpar paper. To say nothing ofthread mode.
Personally, I just start with what NIOSH says, since again, it's the law, and the WMF is based in the US. I like to limit liability when writing, given thesurprising number of lawyers involved in the creation of respirator rules. (I also work in copyright patrol, so there's that too). ——Randomstapler'salt04:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others may step in here to teach you about sourcing in WP in general, but you have previously invokedWP:FOC, and I think you're steering off-topic. To wit, your invocation of social media seems provocative and tangential in the current discussion, given the repeated invocation of MEDRS. I'm disengaging, wishing you well. —soupvector (talk)04:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Back to the tag. @Femke, @Pppery, ultimately, the reasonWP:MEDRS exists is because we, and the WMF, don't want theliability, that comes with pseudoscience, floating about Wikipedia.
However, respirators have alitigious history, and thus we have to be careful when selecting sources to support or disproveefficacy, if we should even include it at all.There are laws governing its use.
Therefore, in the interim, until an expert opinion is found, or reviews are found that cite the law (or when speaking internationally, standards) a tag should be added so people read the article more critically.
I hope I've made my position super clear this time,without having to read stuff I've wrote before.
Stop trying to browbeat other editors into submission. The above exchange has proved my comment below correct:And your most recent edit probably stood for three days because everyone else lost the will to engage with you.* Pppery *it has begun...19:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Select "last 5 years" and "meta-analyses, reviews and systemic reviews"
Click on the first 5 to 10 reviews, disregarding those published in lower-quality journals likeFrontiers orMDPI.
Summarise all the remaining papers. Read them to see if they agree or disagree. If they clearly disagree, give all points of views,weighted by how prominent they are. You will likely need to expand the number of papers to figure this out.
Yes. Randomstaplers/Randomsalt's goal of "checking sources" for compliance with an American federal agency's regulations or advice is not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It inappropriately elevates one country's regulator as the last word on the topic, and based on the extensive discussions above, appears to be being referenced with the goal of negating the findings of other secondary sources. PerWP:MEDPRI:Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints.Crossroads-talk-21:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The purpose of this tag was to get more input into the references I found.Verifiability is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and getting to it can be difficult. That's the purpose of the talk page and the notice. I'll also point out the section inWikipedia:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations that determining weight is difficult. Note this quote:Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sourcesCrossroads, until someone comments here, let's take this to your talk page. ⸺(Random)staplers05:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are not allowed to do original research, we have to rely heuristics, grammar, copyvios, and most importantly,corroboration with other sources, etc. I think the problem here is that we're interpreting the policies differently, which is not unusual for a project as large as en-Wiki.
In short: I'm presenting my heuristics that I think would best corroborate with the source I found.
It's clearly too soonsince I haven't even edited the article yet other than placing a tag, while I finish reading the quoted source. Also, this RFC is malformed. ⸺(Random)staplers05:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag. While it's okay to read sources somewhat critically to assess quality, doing peer review with a specific list of criteria goes to far on OR territory.—Femke 🐦 (talk)08:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke That reminds me... I had an "expert needed" tag put in in November before it got removed prematurely. I should probably re-add that, since thatwould be unambiguous. ⸺(Random)staplers08:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That too would need a good reason. To some extent, all WIkipedia articles need an expert, as it's mostly written by non-experts. What makes this one stand out? Tagging articles should only be done if there a concrete need, as the tag itself makes an article worse, as it gives a warning to readers the text may not be reliable. I don't see any argument here for that.—Femke 🐦 (talk)08:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... the fact there's been a protracted dispute on this talk page? I should remind you that I told the moderator to end the DRN. And the issue with citations not agreeing with each other has definitelynot been solved.
I mean people sayWP:OR all the time, but not only is saying that not helpful without quotation, the reason why I'm making these connections is because the references I read (AIHAJ) tend to refer to the things said in the checklist above. ——Randomstapler'salt18:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, maybe it's because I'm stating my views too transparently, giving my own interpretation? I also alluded to this in the DRN... I do this, because I feel suppression might create more problems than it solves. Those views obviouslyshould not be included in the article, but not expressing them here doesn't seem honest to me. (I think it also runs contrary to the approach in other topic's talks, like math) ——Randomstapler'salt18:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tag removed. To Randomstapler... national guidelines like NIOSH guidelines should be based on reliable research. They take time to update - just like anything bureaucratic does. If there are papers being published that contradict NIOSH guidelines, that's not evidence those papers are wrong, it's evidence that the guideline hasn't been updated to reflect current science yet. It doesn't matter whether you think a scientific article is wrong or not. If it's been peer reviewed in a reputable journal,we treat it as fact. There is no room foryour opinion on whether the article is right or not, nor for you totry and complete your own peer review of the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!03:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery - I changed the tag in response... even though it doesn't seem like a big change, I think it stillis a change that stood for a couple days. That... doesn't seem like edit warring to me.
Given that tags are used whenone doesn't have the time to fix things, andI still haven't fixed it yet, (and would appreciate expert guidance) wouldn't a tag be necessary here? ——Randomstapler'salt23:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried to add a tag to this article three times. Three different people, including myself, have reverted. That's edit warring. My reading of the previous section is that others don't think a tag is warranted.* Pppery *it has begun...23:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at the history. You've been pushing an against-consensus campaign to restructure this article for months. And your most recent edit probably stood for three days because everyone else lost the will to engage with you.* Pppery *it has begun...23:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery That may be true. But thatstill doesn't answer the contradiction issue.
That's exactly it Pppery. I'm thankful you and others are weighing in since I've gotten frustrated with trying to address this issue over and over and over.Crossroads-talk-22:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? Does the review/papernot allow modification of the respirator? (Modifications void the NIOSH approval -see the OSHA video on counterfeit respirators)
.svg)
The redirectCOVID mask has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 15 § COVID mask until a consensus is reached.Thepharoah17 (talk)02:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]