Thishelp request has been answered. If you need more help, you canask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on theiruser talk page, or consider visiting theTeahouse.

I have some what I think is information that is helpful in dealing with the coronavirus. I want to add it to an article, but need someone who understands Wikipedia & science, & how to collaborate here. And can help thoroughly examine relevant safety issues. And willing to search through data & such a good amount! :D And having OneNote 2010 would really help--I've collected a lot of linked information!I’m feeling the urgency to get the info out. Need help & it looked like you might have relevant experience! I'll keep looking for others, too. I’m super-green at Wikipedia, so please forgive if I’m using wrong channels to contact!I have tried emailing 2 people & posting on their Talk pages but no response so far.Field In (talk)10:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This info needs sharing URGENTLY! It’s related tohttps://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/environmental-services/select-effective-disinfectants-use-against-coronavirus-causes-covid-19 andhttps://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2 Please help out? Field In (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't need to be a scientist or major expert on this stuff! If you can help figure out the structure the info should be put into & sift through sources to identify best ones, that'd be great!

We also need some people who have a feel for what people's reactions have tended to be in this crisis, and can consider very carefully what info should be included.Field In (talk)12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia does not alloworiginal research, you can find the latest information about this virus inthe article.Praxidicae (talk)12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I received a similar message on my talk, would therefore direct attention to above editors comments--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want original research included. But EPA has put this on the list, whereas Clorox etc are on the list, which is being publicized by news outlets. But sodium chlorite not pointed out yet, and you can spray it on your steering wheel & couch without bleaching them; you can spray it on your doorknobs & faucets regularly without having to rinse later. Plenty available right now while other cleaners have run out. Kills microorganisms much faster than other disinfectants. When misted, it disinfects in nooks & crannies where wiping misses reaching. Etc. This is why companies use it.

I'm sorry I've been confusing in my explanations. I have quite a bit of knowledge about many aspects related to chlorine dioxide, but just want to add experts' info. And users should be encouraged to buy something on the EPA list and then use it in accordance with the instructions issued by the manufacturer, yes!

But Chlorine Dioxide (made from Sodium Chlorite + acid) has TREMENDOUS potential for helping contain the coronavirus, through environment and surface disinfection. It's a chemical compound that's tricky to make (which has been addressed through several different approaches by manufacturers), but then far, far more effective than "laundry bleach".

Here are a few sample applications of it

https://www.allodorsgone.com/quick-allergy-relief/

https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2005/food-safety-insider-sanitation-solutions/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-using-chlorine-dioxide/

https://deodorpro.co/product/covershield-antimicrobial-protectant/

https://www.bio-cide.com/

There are many, many, many more products & info sources on this, which I want to look at with someone who wants to see if there are things that would be useful in an article.

Chlorine Dioxide is being used for industrial applications--disinfecting airplanes by fogging, disinfecting food, disinfecting hospital rooms, etc-- but private individuals don't know about it, & how to use it.I am really tired. I need to hand some of this off to someone 'cause if some more people can help with this, too, then people can start having this on the front lines at home.Field In (talk)12:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I've been confusing in my explanations. I have quite a bit of knowledge about many aspects related to chlorine dioxide, but just want to add experts' info. And users should be encouraged to buy something on the EPA list and then use it in accordance with the instructions issued by the manufacturer, yes!

Without knowing specifics about chlorine dioxide such as that it kills viruses much faster, doesn't leave residue, has been EPA verified re. coronavirus, can reach hard-to-reach places, is readily available, etc then they won't be able to use something that's very helpful in fighting such viruses when used in appropriate consumer level applications as well as within industries.

The exec dir of the WHO emergency somethingoranother said around 1st of March that family cluster transmission is what's driving this pandemic. And if we only are using chlorine dioxide at the airplane and hospital level (which they HUGELY are), then we won't stop the main thrust of the virus nearly as well.

The description about MMS concerns being put so centrally in the lead-in section on Chlorine Dioxide makes it immediately sound like a substance that is strange quackery. But that hasn't been the US government's appraisal (They used it to overcome the anthrax attacks a few years ago, & the DOD is now using it for other things), and China's government has it designated as one of the 4 categories of disinfectants they are importing under special exemptions, for use against the COVID-19 pandemic.

I've done aching amounts of study and just want to reference those things in the articles where they are relevant. But don't want to do in by myself. I know I myself can’t possibly have enough awareness, judgment or understanding to create right content. I already tried alone to calm down the disproportionate emphasis on MMS in the article, but my amateurism got a couple editors thinking I was actually promoting pseudoscience, not working on mellowing the slightly hysterical overfocus on MMS on the page (as well as removing statements that might well be valid but citations were used that actually didn’t really endorse those statements, which is not ok.) which creates a knee-jerk dismissal of the entire substance.

People are familiar enough with Clorox that they wouldn't turn away from using it if they read at the top of a Wikipedia article that some radical folks were giving their kids enemas with it. But they are turning away from chlorine dioxide.I think the MMS emphasis had good intentions behind it, but we shouldn't be running everyone off now from an item with great value as an environmental tool in this crisis, just to try to help people who were choosing & getting persuaded to use it internally &at very high concentrate levels as a drink ( MMS).

I want to be examining these elements of this subject on a concrete level, reviewing the publications & studies & industry references with collaborators who will examine them.

I'm feeling despondent about this. My info-gathering has been VERY broad-based but now I'm not really able to distill the appropriate things all by myself. And I feel pretty lousy every time I go to bed and think about someone who's grandma is dying & they are getting sick caring for them when there is something valuable available. The reasons CD hasn't been in the consumer market as much are very involved, and have been shifting as ongoing progress and developments have created new possibilities.

If some people would be willing to examine the information I’ve painstakingly collected, they could help determine if and how some could be helpful.

I don’t think decisions need to be made just based on opinions and assumptions on something with potential to bring –significant—benefits. I can’t keep talking based on those, but I do want collaborative hands-on examination, analysis & decision-making.

Are there people who will review these things?

Field In (talk)14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your wanting to share this information. Just so you know, when you ask things like "Are there people who will review these things?", Wikipedia (WP) is all run by volunteers. There are no fixed jobs, it is whatever a volunteer feels like doing / is able to do. What would be helpful for you to do is to provide the information fromreliable sources. So saying things like "The exec dir of the WHO emergency somethingoranother said around 1st of March that family cluster transmission is what's driving this pandemic." is not sufficient for WP purposes - you need to provide a reliable source that says the exact details (as one example). What you need is to provide are things like this article on ClO2 as a bactericidehere. It might also be useful to work in a sandbox - seeWP:Sandbox. -Ruhrfisch_><>°^°18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiki Help chat last night, some people were communicating in ways that gave me the impression it was on-the-spot final decision-making being done right then by the (admins?), & was binding without further examination. I was distressed that the decisions weren't formed around looking at concrete information, which I believe is what we need on this. Above, I mean "Are there people.." as an invitation for people to help work on this, and for those who join in decision-making to analyze contributions based on concrete info.

Thank you SO much for your helpful feedback!!! It gives me hope that a fair peer review of this can be done. I DO want any article additions to be constructive within collaborative examination of not only what would be possible to include, but what is wise. I support is the purposes & parameters that are intended for Wikipedia, though it's is a progressive journey of understanding ideas (as well as other people, LOL!) & refining thoughts.

Thank you!! I will move forward on your suggestions!

Update: I have put proposals on the Chlorine Dioxide and Sodium Chlorite pages.