This post is available in 2 languages:

Español  • English

Español

Wikipedia en español supera el millón de artículos

Este 16 de mayo de 2013, la comunidad de Wikipedia en español anunció un nuevo récord de edición, cuando «La enciclopedia libre» superó la barrera del millón de artículos.

Wikipedia es la enciclopedia más grande, más actualizada y de más rápido crecimiento en todo el mundo, caracterizada por ser libre, multilingüe y escrita únicamente por voluntarios de todo el mundo, que trabajan en forma colaborativa. Actualmente cuenta con más de 25 millones de artículos en 271 idiomas. Solo Wikipedia en español recibe cerca de 2 millones de visitas por hora, y es la segunda versión de la enciclopedia con más usuarios: hoy cuenta con 16 590 usuarios activos. Es uno de los sitios más visitados de Internet, con lectores que van desde estudiantes y docentes, hasta periodistas, políticos, científicos, artistas y gente de la comunidad civil.

La tecnología wiki es lo que permite que sus artículos pueden ser modificados por cualquier persona mediante un navegador web. Sus contenidos están bajo la licencia libre Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0, que posibilita a los usuarios copiar y modificar el trabajo de terceros, basándose en un principio conocido como copyleft. La base de datos, además, puede ser descargada gratuitamente. Pero el proyecto no se trata solamente de tomar la información necesaria. La enciclopedia funciona gracias a que millones de colaboradores dedican incontables horas de su tiempo libre a mejorar el contenido disponible en la web, desde corregir errores tipográficos, gramaticales y ortográficos, hasta extender artículos y crear nuevas entradas sobre personajes, lugares e hitos históricos desconocidos.

Es en este espíritu de colaboración que, a pocos días de cumplir 12 años, Wikipedia en español ha superado el hito del millón de artículos. No se trata solo de un millón de entradas diferentes, sino del trabajo conjunto de cientos de miles de personas en todo el mundo de habla hispana que, con su contribución individual, aportan a la creación de un proyecto colectivo que está en permanente actualización. Los editores provienen de diversos puntos del globo, de las más variadas profesiones, edades y culturas. Muchos de ellos ya no editan más, otros permanecen como colaboradores pero, invariablemente, todos dejan un poco de sí mismos como legado para la humanidad.

Wikipedia es fiel reflejo del dinamismo del saber y del mundo moderno, uno de los mayores logros de la sociedad del conocimiento. Es una enciclopedia viva.

Millars, Wikimedia España

(more…)

This post is available in 2 languages:

На русском языке  • English

English

Muscovite Aliona Bogdanova’s path to editing Wikipedia came circuitously through her vegetarian diet, a diet, she said, that was at odds with the way most Russians view nutrition.

“When I was a child, I found out that where meat comes from. I decided that it’s not fair to kill animals to get meat,” she said. Her decision was not viewed favorably. “My family, they wouldn’t let me not eat meat because in Russia, people generally believe that it’s impossible not to eat meat and if you stop eating meat, you die!”

Aliona Bogdonova and her son

When she was 20, Bogdanova researched online how to create a proper vegetarian diet and became a vegetarian. She has, however, met resistance along the way, especially when she started her family.

“When I got pregnant, lots of people asked me questions, how can you possibly carry a child and not eat meat because you’re pregnant and you must eat meat?” said Bogdanova. “So I had a breastfeeding consultant who advised me to eat a little piece of meat at least once a week. I didn’t do it because I would, you know, poison myself.”

Bogdanova said she was able to find useful information in Russian about vegetarianism and animal rights on sites like Wikipedia, but, “there’s in general very little information about breastfeeding in Russia, and that has to do with the Soviet school stopping with how people have thought about this.”

Bogdanova has taken passionately to sharing what she’s learned about health and parenting with people seeking information on Russian Wikipedia.

“I wrote several articles about food, about vegetarianism. I edited some articles about parenting, natural parenting,” she said. “But I remember, my first big article is about marzipan because I’m a fan of marzipan. There was only a few words about it and maybe no article at all, and I just knew what I should write.”

To fill the time while at home during her pregnancy, Bogdanova took up soap making as a hobby. Before long it turned into a business. “When you make soap, eventually you end up making too much and eventually comes a point where…you can’t possibly use so much and you can’t find enough friends who you could give it as a gift,” she said. “I use Wikipedia as a research tool (it has so many useful links) and I share things that I learn from my business on Wikipedia, so that everyone can learn.”

Bogdanova is also translating a book about homeschooling, the Teenage Liberation Handbook, into Russian. It’s her first serious translation effort.

Natural curiosity and research drew her to Wikipedia years ago and she credits her upbringing with keeping her in the community of contributors.

“I can’t, you know, pass by something that I can improve,” she said. “Because I grew up in the family of teachers, I was raised on the idea that talking like an encyclopedia is an important scholarly work, and so when I wrote in Wikipedia, I had the sense that I had contributed to this.”

She added, “Once in a while, I find out that somebody has come across this article that I have created about homeschooling, for example, and then I am really proud.”

Profile by Donna Peterson, Communications Volunteer, Wikimedia Foundation

(more…)

Pete Forsyth, an early designer of the Wikipedia Education Program, is now teaching a free online course on Wikipedia and Open Educational Resources, along with Wikipedian and education researcher Sara Frank Bristow. The six-week course, “Writing Wikipedia Articles,” recently concluded its first run, and will be offered again starting 14 May (Americas)/15 May (Asia/Australia). You can enroll here.

The course was born of Communicate OER, a project that seeks to activate the Open Educational Resources community to improve and update Wikipedia articles relevant to its field. Accordingly, as students learn about the technical and social aspects of Wikipiedia, they are encouraged to improve such articles as open educational resources, open content, MOOC, and free license. Students successfully completing the course earn the WikiSOO Burba Badge, which is based on English Wikipedia’s “service awards” and Peer to Peer University’s badges. The course is offered through the Peer to Peer University’s recently launched School of Open.

“This course has allowed us to bring together several communities that are passionate about the same things, but not always closely connected,” Forsyth said. “The OER community brings the values and practices that brought Wikipedia into existence to formal and informal learning around the world. The School of Open provides the perfect environment for a course like ours, allowing us to work alongside colleagues from free culture organizations like Creative Commons and Mozilla.”

Students are welcome to enroll regardless of their background; while some familiarity with wikis or OER can be helpful, it is not required.

“The WikiSOO course is exactly the kind of work serious Wikipedians need to be doing not only to make their encyclopedia better, but to make their community a more sane place to collaborate,” said Christine, a student who earned the WikiSOO Burba Badge in the course’s first run. “This course provides a solid primer of the skills needed to navigate the syntax, discourse, and guidelines you will encounter if you want to make substantive contributions to Wikipedia’s audacious mission.”

Enrollment in the course’s second run is open through next week. (The first class will be held Tuesday/Wednesday.) See the course’s page on the School of Open for more information, or to join the 60 students who have already enrolled!

LiAnna Davis, Wikipedia Education Program Communications Manager

This post is available in 3 languages:

Català  •  Italiano  • English

(This is a guest post by Wikisource volunteers Andrea Zanni and David Cuenca)

English

There was an Indian librarian who once wrote five laws on what libraries should be. The fifth and last law read: “A library is a growing organism.“ Wikisource is a wiki digital library that doesn’t grow by itself. Volunteers like you, like us, make it grow everyday, digitizing books from the public domain, proofreading OCR text and recently also transcribing sheet music.

Almost 10 years have passed since Wikisource started, on November 24, 2003. It began as a support project for Wikipedia. While we cannot tell you what dreams are made of, we know that the Wikipedia dream is nurtured by many of the sources, books and first-hand knowledge that populate Wikisource.

Wikisource users Andrea (Aubrey) and David (Micru) were recently named recipients of a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engangement Grant, and we intend to periodically keep you updated about the progress of our work. We are sharing the progress we have made during the month of April and we invite you to participate defining the Wikisource vision for the future with us.

During the first month of work for the grant, we have been focusing on writing the first draft of the Wikisource values and ways of applying them. The suggestions are based on a Wikimania meeting last year, on our experience with the wiki, and on volunteer wishes. If you expect more of Wikisource, help us expand our list and comment on the suggestions.

That is not only a “wishlist,” but a list of specific proposals that can be transformed into action. As part of this commitment, we are giving support and formally endorsing the GSoC^[1] proposal: Book upload customisation (candidate 1, candidate 2). The reason for this endorsement is the high importance that such a project could have for the Wikisource community, enabling users to import external book metadata and spread it to the relevant pages to avoid redundant work.

There are three other candidates that are additionally applying for the Outreach Program for Women with proposals that, if accepted, will also be of paramount importance:

• Refactor proofread extension: to integrate the Visual Editor into Wikisource.
• Improve support for book structures: a long expected and needed feature.
• Prototype inline citations: combining the wonderful OKFN Annotator with Mediawiki.

We expect that once we have reached an agreement on what the other important tasks for Wikisource’s future are, we can keep offering more volunteer projects.

Another task we are tackling is the relationship with external organizations. It is useless to have an amazing digital library if it is not well connected with other libraries, websites, users and the world. It will take time to develop partnerships with other related organizations, like the Open Library, or free knowledge organizations, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation. We have started developing these connections and exploring possible ways of collaboration.

And finally there is Wikidata, a new member of the Wikimedia family that will also be a key for resolving one of Wikisource’s long standing issues: book metadata management. As a first stage of this ongoing work, we have started the Wikidata books task force to define the necessary properties for having reusable data about books in Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and Wikisource.

In May, we are looking forward to interviewing core users from the different language Wikisources. Special thanks to Haitham for his aid in visualizing the activity data in Gephi.

If you have any suggestions, requests or feedback, please reach out either via email or our talk pages. All Wikimedia users are invited to join and build a better Wikisource together. It’s your call too.

Andrea Zanni and David Cuenca, Wikisource

Note

1. ↑ Google Summer of Code 2013: http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/homepage/google/gsoc2013

(more…)

Last week the New York Times published an Op-Ed from author Amanda Filipacchi headlined Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, in which she criticized Wikipedia for moving some authors from the “American novelists” category into a sub-category called “American women novelists.” Because there is no subcategory for “American male novelists,” Filipacchi saw the change as reflecting a sexist double standard, in which ‘male’ is positioned as the ungendered norm, with ‘female’ as a variant.

I completely understand why Filipacchi was outraged. She saw herself, and Harper Lee, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Judy Blume, Louisa May Alcott, Mary Higgins Clark, and many others, seemingly downgraded in the public record and relegated to a subcategory that she assumed would get less readership than the main one. She saw this as a loss for American women novelists who might otherwise be visible when people went to Wikipedia looking for ideas about who to hire, to honor, or to read.

In the days following, other publications picked up the story, and Filipacchi wrote two followup pieces — one describing edits made to her own biography on Wikipedia following her first op-ed, and another rebutting media stories that had positioned the original categorization changes as the work of a lone editor.

For me–as a feminist Wikipedian–reading the coverage has been extremely interesting. I agree with many of the criticisms that have been raised (as I think many Wikipedians do), and yet there are important points that I think have been missing from the media discussions so far.

In Wikipedia, like any large-scale human endeavor, practice often falls short of intent.

Individuals make mistakes, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t call into question the usefulness or motivations of the endeavor as a whole. Since 2011, Wikipedia has officially discouraged the creation of gender-specific subcategories, except when gender is relevant to the category topic. (One of the authors of the guideline specifically noted that it is clear that any situation in which women get a gendered subcategory while men are left in the ungendered parent category is unacceptable.) In other words, the very situation Filipacchi decries in her op-ed has been extensively discussed and explicitly discouraged on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a continual work-in-progress. It’s never done.

In her original op-ed, Filipacchi seems to assume that Wikipedians are planning to move all the women out of the American Novelists category, leaving all the men. But that’s not the case. There’s a continuous effort on Wikipedia to refine and revise categories with large populations, and moving out the women from American Novelists would surely have been followed by moving out the satirical novelists, or the New York novelists, or the Young Adult novelists. I’d argue it’s still an inappropriate thing to do, because women are 50 percent of the population, not a variant to the male norm. Nevertheless the move needs to be understood not as an attack on women, but rather, in the context of continuous efforts to refine and revise all categories.

Wikipedia is a reflection of the society that produces it.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and as such it reflects the cultural biases and attitudes of the general society. It’s important to say that the people who write Wikipedia are a far larger and vastly more diverse group than the staff of any newsroom or library or archive, past or present. That’s why Wikipedia is bigger, more comprehensive, up-to-date and nuanced, compared with any other reference work. But with fewer than one in five contributors being female, gender is definitely Wikipedia’s weak spot, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it would fall victim to the same gender-related errors and biases as the society that produces it.

Are there misogynists on Wikipedia? Given that anyone with internet access can edit it, and that there are roughly 80,000 active editors (those who make at least 5 edits per month on Wikimedia projects), it would be absurd to claim that Wikipedia is free of misogyny. Are there well-intentioned people on Wikipedia accidentally behaving in ways that perpetuate sexism? Of course. It would be far more surprising if Wikipedia were somehow free of sexism, rather than the reverse.

Which brings me to my final point.

It’s not always the case, but in this instance the system worked. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works.

The answer to bad speech is more speech. Many eyes make all bugs shallow. If you see something on Wikipedia that irks you, fix it. If you can’t do it yourself, the next best thing is to do what Filipacchi did — talk about it, and try to persuade other people there’s a problem. Wikipedia belongs to its readers, and it’s up to all of us to make it as good as it possibly can be.

Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Login screen on the Commons app for Android.

Love taking photos on your smartphone? Now you don’t need to wait to get home to upload your high quality educational photos to Wikimedia Commons, the free image repository used by Wikipedia and many other projects.

The official Wikimedia Commons app for iOS and Android allows you to quickly and easily upload your photos to Commons. You can also upload multiple files and add categories (Android only so far) and share your uploads through your favorite image sharing sites. Your contributions to Commons can help illustrate the world’s largest encyclopedia and make knowledge come to life for millions of readers around the globe.

The “my uploads” view on the Commons app for iOS.

In the future, we hope to add more features and make it easier to browse and discover all the great content Commons has to offer. We also look forward to being able to run more campaigns like Wiki Loves Monuments, encouraging expert Commons users and people new to Wikimedia projects alike to contribute to high-need content areas.

As always, we need your help and input to make these apps better. Take the apps for a test drive and let us know if you encounter bugs, or if you have great ideas for features we should add in the future.

And if you don’t have an iOS or Android device, don’t feel left out! Uploads to Commons for a wider selection of phones and browsers are supported on the mobile version of all Wikimedia projects.

Maryana Pinchuk, Associate Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

An account creation and login process that is simple and pleasurable to use is a must-have for engaging more contributors to Wikimedia projects. On just Wikipedia’s English-language version, more than 3,000 people sign up for an account on an average day. These interfaces are often the first time a new editor interacts with the site, beyond consuming content.

We’re happy to announce that, starting today, users of all Wikimedia projects will be able to try a new look for our account creation and login. For about a week, we’re asking all Wikimedia volunteer editors to give the update a try and help us spot any nagging bugs or errors in translation. We’ll then enable the new forms as the default on all our wikis.

The new account creation (mockup)

Help test the new forms

If you’re a current or prospective member of a Wikimedia community, we need your help. Please give the new interfaces a try, report bugs, or leave comments for us on your wiki’s preferred noticeboard.

We’re providing this week-long testing period–instead of simply rolling out the new interface with less advance notice–to get help making sure our localizations are correct and the interfaces will be bug free for the 800 or so wiki communities we support.

• See the new account creation form
• See the new login form

Both links above are to our largest and most active community, English Wikipedia, but if you’re a contributor to any other project, you can try out the new forms by simply appending &useNew=1 to either URL on your favorite wiki. You can also find more detailed, step-by-step testing instructions if you’re willing to go a little deeper with testing the forms.

How we got here

The new login (mockup)

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Editor Engagement Experiments team has been optimizing these forms, using weekly controlled tests to measure the impact of our new signup form and iterate on our ideas. (See our original announcement.)

Overall, the results of these experiments were encouraging. Using English Wikipedia as our proving ground, our most successful experiment gained around 800 additional signups over a two week period. The relative increase in conversion was 4 percent, from 28 percent to 32 percent of users successfully creating an account after visiting the signup page. The total number of new users gained will change based on seasonal trends. We also decreased the number of errors which held up users after they submitted the form by 14 percent.

This interface redesign marks the first time MediaWiki core (the platform shared by all our projects) is using the new form styles that we have experimented with in account creation, our new onboarding experience for Wikipedia editors, and in other features. The patterns we’re introducing via the new account creation and login, codenamed “Agora” by the Wikimedia Foundation design team, will now be able to be reused in a more standardized way by MediaWiki developers.

The redesigns we’re introducing to login and account creation are hardly radical. Simple use of typography, color and vertically-aligned form fields are not what could be called bold innovation in design. Nonetheless, we’re extremely happy to be releasing an experience that will make signing up and logging in less of a burden for the many contributors to Wikimedia communities, and thus enable them to create great, free educational resources.

Steven Walling,
Associate Product Manager

In the Wikimedia movement, we have a vision statement that inspires many contributions to our endeavor: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment.”

comScore traffic data to Wikimedia sites.

We’re still a long way from realizing that vision, but we’ve recently surpassed an important milestone: as of March 2013, the combined sites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation reached more than 500 million monthly unique visitors, according to the latest comScore Media Metrix data. Our traffic increased to 517 million in March, five percent higher than our previous record: 492 million in May 2012.

While more people are coming to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia sites, they are also staying longer and reading more. Over the past 12 months, Wikipedia monthly page requests increased from 17.1 billion to 21.3 billion, with the mobile share increasing to roughly 15 percent of the total, or more than 3 billion monthly views (data). We’re also gratified to see growth in significant target areas: in India, traffic as a percentage of our worldwide total increased from 4.0 percent to 4.8 percent; in Brazil it increased from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent.

To reach the entire planet, we will need to not only continue to expand our mobile offerings, but also eliminate barriers to access. With Wikipedia Zero, we’re partnering with mobile providers in the developing world to reduce or eliminate data fees for accessing Wikipedia on a mobile phone. In March, we announced the fifth major Wikipedia Zero partnership, which means that the program will be available to 410 million mobile users around the world.

For those who don’t have an Internet connection at all, Wikimedia movement contributors are enabling offline access to Wikipedia, such as the work by Kenyan volunteers who travel to rural schools and install copies of the encyclopedia on computers there. And now, there’s also an open source application for Android phones and tablets that makes it easy to download and read offline copies of Wikimedia content.

The idea of enabling every single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge is still as audacious as ever — but it’s also starting to look like an achievable goal, if we come together to make it happen.

Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

This post is available in 3 languages:

العربية  • српски  • English

This is a guest post from Sanja Pavlović / Wikimedia Serbia Committee for the media

In English

1001 Arabic words

Two participants working together on the Arabic-Serbian dictionary

For the past several weeks, in the office of Wikimedia Serbia, a group of six students of Oriental studies have been working on creating the first online Arabic-Serbian dictionary. Their project, symbolically named “1001 words”, has started on February the 15th, initiated by Wikimedia Serbia and supported by the cultural centre “Nea Pangea”.

Logo of the Serbian Wiktionary

“Working on this project gives me great pleasure, because we can use the knowledge we obtained at the Faculty and turn it into something useful, not only to us, but to anyone who is familiar with the Arabic language, or wants to learn something new about it”, says Lina Aburas; the student who gathered this team. She says since this idea was conceived, everybody showed great interest and enthusiasm. “It was important to find the initiative for a project like this. All team members are good students, team workers and always ready to learn more”, says Lina. Milica Tomović shares Lina’s opinion and adds that working on this dictionary doesn’t mean a simple process of adding words as it may seem at the first glance, but that a lot of hard work stands behind it.

Her colleague Tamara Poletan adds that the dictionary is suitable for everyone since it provides basic information about each word, followed with grammatical features, etymology and examples useful for those who want to approach the subject more professionally. “This project is intended for all groups, both for ones with basic knowledge of Arabic, and for ones that are getting to know this magical language.”

101st word

Last week, after nearly a month, this group of students entered their 101st word. (more…)

This post is available in 2 languages:

Italiano  • English

This is a guest post from Maurizio Codogno (Wikimedia Italia).

In English:

Last weekend, Italy held its general elections. It is not important to state who won, after all, Wikipedia is nonpartisan. However, what I do want to talk about holds a certain importance, and it is closely related to Wikipedia. A few days before the elections, Oscar Giannino—a journalist and economist at the head of the list Fare per fermare il declino (“To act to stop the decline”)—resigned as the leader of the movement after it was discovered that the master’s degree in economics he had claimed to have achieved from the prestigious Chicago Booth university was nonexistent. Doubts over Giannino’s master’s degree had been discussed before, but what caused the story to explode was, in all probability, a post written by Wikipedians Jaqen and Tooby. The post made the rounds of social networking sites and contributed to the first public disavowal of Giannino by the co-founder of the movement, Luigi Zingales, ultimately leading to Giannino’s resignation. I recently interviewed the two authors about their scoop.

 

When did you start writing on Wikipedia? Are you also involved in other WMF projects?

Jaqen: I have been an editor on Italian Wikipedia since 2006 and a sysop since 2007. I recently became a sysop on Wikimedia Commons as well.

Tooby: I discovered Wikipedia in 2005, and I became a member of the community almost immediately. My first edit is dated 24 April 2005. I have also been very active on Italian Wikinews, where I still act as an administrator and bureaucrat.

 

Why did you start working on the Wikipedia article about Giannino?

Jaqen: I think I added it to my enormous watchlist after listening to his radio program.

Tooby: I don’t remember if I ever edited the article: I just followed the discussion.

 

Can you describe how you searched for your sources?

Jaqen: When the master’s degree of Giannino was first questioned in 2011, I found sources that I considered reliable, and they confirmed that Giannino had indeed received it from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. One of the sources was the website of the Bruno Leoni Institute. Then a Wikipedia user said that he had written to Chicago Booth, and they could not find Giannino in their database. So I wrote to the school too. I got the same answer, but they also asked when did Giannino had received his master? That made me think that they had an unreliable database. So when a user removed the information I did not oppose, even if there was no published source against it. In 2013, Oscar Giannino came under attention as the leader of the “Act to Stop the Decline” list. Eventually, an anonymous Wikipedia user published an email from the Bruno Leoni Institute admitting that they were wrong, Giannino did not have a master’s degree in economics. I wrote them an email and they confirmed it. They eventually changed the information in his online biography.

Tooby: I limited myself to “professional” and organizational support: I have been a political and economic blogger for five years, and I have conducted other investigations as an amateur, though not with so much media coverage. However, I feel that I have played an especially moral role in this saga. Both of us appreciated the movement led by Giannino, but Jaqen was hesitant, fearing what eventually actually happened. But we are long-time users of Wikipedia, and we know that even if we do not like them, the facts are the facts, and the reader has the right for them to be presented in an objective, neutral way. Also, thanks to the experience gathered with Wikipedia, hesitations quickly disappeared and we decided to publish all of the material as soon as it was ready and supported by the appropriate sources.

 

Did you expect such a reaction to your discovery?

Jaqen: Has there been? :) It was not our discovery that led to the reaction, but rather the fact that Luigi Zingales publicly denounced Giannino and left the party. What did provoke some reaction, however, was the fact that questions over Giannino’s master’s degree were on the Wikipedia talk page since 2011.

Tooby: I expected a good response, but not this much! Even if we cannot be certain, I believe that our article helped to precipitate the events. We know that there was another journalist who was trying to verify the existence of Mr. Giannino’s master’s degree, and around February 14 it seems that Luigi Zingales had some knowledge of that. However we were able to anticipate all with our reconstruction: we published the article on the morning of 18 February, and it was shared very well before the abandonment of Zingales, announced in the early afternoon. In a way, I feel that we popped the cork.

 

How do you think Wikipedia came out from this story? I’ve heard some people say, “Yes, Giannino made a mistake, but the fault was really of Wikipedia who inserted the false news in the first place.”

Jaqen: According to an article someone tried to say this at first, but it was clear to everyone that this was not true. Wikipedia was just reporting what sources were saying.

Tooby: I believe that Wikipedia will come out much stronger than before. Many Italian observers have recognized the work of Wikipedians in search of the facts in this case. The Wikipedians were stubborn, and wanted to look beyond the “pseudo-official” biographies, such as the one by Istituto Bruno Leoni. I wouldn’t say that all of the participants in the discussion were unbiased in their search for the facts—some people were driven by envy and anger at Giannino. But the important thing is the end result. The neutral point of view is necessarily a collective work, where personal views are filtered from those of other users, allowing only what is verifiable and reliable.

Maurizio Codogno
Wikimedia Italia

Italiano:

(more…)