|
1. Wikipedia is a gigantic project and major improvements cannot be made within a short period, so be patient. Wikipedia is the most ambitious project I've ever witnessed in this lifetime, the quest to collect the "sum of all human knowledge" is incredibly vast and it is truly a global project. But only a very small percentage of people ever edit Wikipedia in a meaningful way. It is frustrating that we can't attract more active editors, as the project could become 10 times larger and 10 times better in overall quality within a few years. But all we can do is be patient, try to build it brick by brick, and inject some love and affection into a few articles, and concentrate on improving the overall quality of each article slowly.
2. Article subjects with many brief mentions in books are probably notable. If an article subject has dozens of hits in reliable sources, even if brief, chances are the subject is notable. Too many editors and guidelines here expect to see massive amounts of coverage and for many topics this isn't possible due to time period or location in the world. If enough scraps of material can be compiled to write a credible start class encyclopedia article then the article is likely notable. I think the guidelines here should be updated to reflect this and that "extensive coverage" isn't always possible.
3. Red links are productive. However unsightly they are, it is VERY important that notable missing articles are red linked, which will in turn root out many more missing red links, a chain which needs to be in place if the encyclopedia is to reach its potential. Unfortunately many of our editors are ignorant about missing content or short stubs and assume that if an article is missing or short then it's probably not notable and should be deleted. I'm of the opinion that a considerable percentage of our existing articles need to be restarted/rewritten or partly rewritten from scratch and fully sourced. Very few people want to dismantle an extensive article on an important subject and rewrite it, something which needs to change if the overall quality of the website is to greatly improve.
4. Show your appreciation for others. Hitting the thank button occasionally and taking the time to award people for articles you like I think would go a long way towards raising the community spirit on here. Many of our editors are not appreciated enough. I try to thank different people a few times a week for good work I see on the main page.
5. Infoboxes can be useful, even essential in a lot of articles where there is a lot of data not easily put in prose. But in many arts biographies in particular, if there is no information about the career and it's little more than a list of wives and a cemetery I think it puts undue weight on trivia.
6. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
7. AI is the future, whether we like it or not and we should slowly integrate its use into Wikipedia editing in a productive way when it becomes more reliable. While I don't think LLMs are, as of 2026, smart enough to produce reliable content enmasse with sources without errors, I think they are already useful for generating overviews of topics and highlighting important points. I think AI has massive potential for content and it will eventually make us all much more efficient as editors, particularly with things like finding sources and drawing up citations. I concede that it is very difficult for the community here to accept and people are right to still see it as a liability when it still produces content and sources which aren't verifiable and isn't used responsibly. Human life will never be the same as AI becomes more dominant, being very wary of it is natural, but I am convinced that the current ban on LLM use cannot be a permanent thing as at some point Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming obsolete, a relic of the old web, if it doesn't start to use AI.
8. Quality is paramount. Great experience tells me that slow and steady wins the race. Consistent editing on one topic, even if only half an hour daily will be much more productive for Wikipedia and yourself long term than sporadic heavy editing on many topics and periods of inactivity. Ultimately, readers are looking for decent, readable articles which present verifiable facts in a very clear, digestible way. Editing Wikipedia can be an overwhelming experience given the scale of the project, but try to make every article you see decent and you can't go wrong. | 
Jun2006.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg)
_by_shakko_06.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
