Indeed. It's a very noticeable problem at the Wikipedia in Portuguese. During a workshop with librarians from the National Library last month, I was kind of shocked by the huge amount of semi-automated warnings they were receiving, some of them completely useless, as they were directed to code-editing rather than the Visual Editor they were using. The librarians were also puzzled by the apparently pointless aggressivity and hostility coming from the environment they were trying to join.
On the other hand, content is now much more reliable than it used to be - there is even a movement at our local wikipedia which is working to completely eradicate unsourced articles from there. Even more, we kind of justify that hostility against newbies with the notion that the project is being actively protected and surveilled against vandalism and fake claims. So yes, I concur that "fact-checked encyclopedia" is more appropriated today than "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - at pt.wiki as well. Paulo 2018-04-15 15:21 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[email protected]>: > Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to "outsiders" > Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons > > Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel > > ------ Original message------ > From: Robert Fernandez > Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; > Cc: > Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia > > Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies, > organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English > Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone > can edit" anymore. So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and > relevant claim these days. > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking > to > > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We > used > > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest > > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and > > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion > > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else > > uncomfortabe with this? > > -- > > Anthony Cole > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
