Przejdź do głównej zawartości


More than funds, what Wikipedia really needs is more good editors. The number of people who regularly edit articles in English Wikipedia hasn't grown substantially in years, while the number of articles has, and editor demographics remains skewed. The foundation itself largely stays away from editing, leaving it to volunteers. While articles that get a lot of attention are often good, it's not hard to find ones with biased and promotional content in less-visited topics, and in other languages.

reshared this

in reply to John Mark Ockerbloom

It's downright exhausting to correct an article and add seven or eight primary sources to back it up, and then get brigaded for the next week and have to abandon the account for the sake of one's mental health.
in reply to John Mark Ockerbloom

Pointing out thousands of women editors have left due to the toxicity and misogyny of the editor culture there. The reason Wikipedia’s editor pool doesn’t grow much is its own fault.
in reply to John Mark Ockerbloom

all my edits have been agressigely rolled back despite my best intentions and there was no feedback or possebility to get a mentor.
It's even worse than when you're new to Stack Exchange
in reply to saxnot

@saxnot SE is way more welcoming than Wikipedia, I've found.

Which isn't much, but it's Christmas so I'm thinking of it as a log scale until midnight.