I get where you're coming from but it's not really practical. (For a start, how to decide which user is a first-time user, if there even is such a thing today?)

I get where you're coming from but it's not really practical. (For a start, how to decide which user is a first-time user, if there even is such a thing today?) What I will say is that for a while the Wikimedia Foundation was trumpeting things like that somewhat flawed Britannica study and gave out PR messages along the lines of "See, we are reliable and as good as Britannica. Even doctors trust us." (Some journalists are still promoting that sentiment, and I think they are doing everyone a disservice. Example: https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1569781042764222464 https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1569781042764222464 Nobody should trust Wikipedia.) Around 2016 though the Wikimedia Foundation shifted emphasis and its CEO would say things like "We don't guarantee accuracy, do check the references cited in the article". That was the right thing to do. The rest is up to users now. I am all in favour of sharing stories of how things can go wrong when people trust Wikipedia blindly. Here are a few: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho... https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-ra... https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday_fails/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday...