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 osamadre@hotmail.com:
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 ahcoleecu@gmail.com 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe