Wikipedia:The task of an editor

Editors edit. Sounds simple.

But many Wikipedians think the task of an editor is to create as much verbiage, and as many articles as possible. This essay politely disagrees with that position.

The Cambridge English Dictionary gives two choices:
 * American English to prepare text or film for printing or viewing by correcting mistakes, deciding what will be removed, etc., or to be in charge of what is reported in a newspaper, magazine, etc.
 * British English to make changes to a text or film, deciding what will be removed and what will be kept in, in order to prepare it for being printed or shown:

The key here is that an editor must be prepared to find and correct errors, and to remove text, in order to prepare an article for a reader.

For example, compare Joseph Widney at about 34,000 bytes (3834 words) with Joseph Widney at 194,000 bytes in size (29,000 words).

Ask yourself, as a reader, which one is better suited for your needs? How long does it take to read on your mobile device?

Therefore, it is clear, I trust, that excessive length of any article is an enemy of editors, as it reduces the utility of any article to the reader.

Next is the issue of "accuracy" of articles, which is a neverending story in itself. While many articles intrinsically attract those with specific points of view on a topic (anything even remotely connected to Religion or Politics, for sure), the task of any editor is to verify that the claims asserted to be backed by a reliable source are actually backed by that source. This does not mean we must "closely paraphrase" sources, but it does mean that if a reasonable person can not see precisely how a source is directly related to the claim it is used to support, the editor must try to correct the claim, or change the source used.

Wikipedia has far too many "unsourced or poorly sourced" articles already, and likely does not really need more of them.

The combination of the two primary tasks, then, has nothing to do with padding articles, or adding hundreds of references for claims which are already properly sourced, or using flowery language.

The Elements of Style is a good basis for writers in whatever edition one finds it. E. B. White described it as starting out as a "forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English".

That, then, is a reasonable goal for editors. To seek accuracy, cleanliness and brevity for all articles.

Inaccurate articles, especially any articles using questionable sources, and inflated articles which suffer from excess length, ill-represent what Wikipedia ought to offer readers.