User:SB Johnny/sandbox2

Wikipedia is not on a deadline

When editing or contributing to articles on wikipedia, it's important to remember that there is no deadline for publication, and no particular date by which the encyclopedia must be "complete". In fact, this encyclopedia will probably never be complete, but this is not a weakness, because wikipedia's dynamic nature allows it to be "published" in a new edition several times per second as wikipedians continually add to and improve its content.

Remember that wikipedia is a community project, created by the slow process of consensus, voluntary contributions by knowledgeable and interested contributors, driven collectively foreward by the various personal styles of the individual editors, and always pointing foreward to new and more exhaustive treatments of the topics addressed by each article.

With that in mind, here are a few guidelines to keep in mind:


 * There is no reason at all to engage in edit wars. If wikipedians find themselves involved in a dispute over the content or style of an article, it's best to simply use the dispute resolution tools, and call a "cease-fire" until consensus can be reached.
 * Stubs are often better than nothing. While it can be a bit disappointing for a reader to find a stub when they're trying to find good information on a subject, a good stub will at least go a bit beyond a simple definition, and perhaps provide some context using wikilinks.
 * Often, a tag is better than deleting uncited information, even if the tag stays around for a while, unless of course the claim seems outrageous or outlandish. Many wikipedians contribute from memory, "citing" what they learned in school or college, read in a paper or magazine some time ago, etc. If it's useful information, it should be available for the reader. If the reader sees the &#91;citation needed&#93; link, he or she will be informed that a bit of information should be taken with a grain of salt.
 * Red links are sometimes better than stubs. When one topic really needs the support of another topic, and there is no article for that topic, red links show other editors where work is needed. While a reader might be frustrated by red links (which by definition lead to nowhere), they also point out that there are related topics they might want to look up on a search engine, and/or even start an article on the related topic if it's something they're familiar with.