Wikipedia:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about

related topics
{theory, work, human}
{work, book, publish}
{system, computer, user}
{style, bgcolor, rowspan}
{math, number, function}

More recent guidance on these issues is given at Wikipedia:Starting an article.

Two of Wikipedia's rules to consider. Both of these guidelines are controversial.

Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about

Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about. One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute, however this creates a problem to whether the information posted is true, but another thing that makes it great is that it encourages Wikipedians to stretch their interests and learn about new things, so that they can add to the 'pedia. A third great thing is that it's so easy to create new articles and to learn to wikify articles.

Some users see the ease in which new articles can be created as problematic. Many users know something about a subject, but few have exhaustive knowledge of the subject they are writing about. That leads to users creating stubs (very short articles) that need to be extended by someone with more knowledge before the article can be useful to anyone. This irritates some because it leaves a lot of unfinished work in Wikipedia.

Other users have diametrically opposite views of stubs, that an iterative style of development can indeed be beneficial. They feel that the problem described above isn't a problem but a part of the normal wiki process, that a not-so-good article is better than no article at all.

Always make articles as complete as possible

(an alternative phrasing)

Whenever you create a new article, always try to make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. However, an article that is seriously incomplete but a useful start is welcome, too. But first check so that the article you are about to create doesn't already exist in Wikipedia. Or maybe your new information would be better placed in an already existing article? If you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, concentrate on adding content; do not worry too much about formatting.

Full article ▸

related documents
Timothy Freke
Duncan J. Watts
Tony Buzan
Hubert Howe Bancroft
Library of Congress Classification
Wikipedia:List of controversial issues
Alexander Bain
Greg Egan
Charles Hapgood
The Skeptic's Dictionary
Ole-Johan Dahl
Ken MacLeod
Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques
Douglas Lenat
Pat Cadigan
Classic book
Dicaearchus
Enchiridion of Epictetus
David D. Friedman
Udo of Aachen
Gustave Flaubert
George Pólya
Homesteading the Noosphere
Georg Henrik von Wright
Paul Ginsparg
Adelard of Bath
International Council for Science
The Surgeon of Crowthorne
Hugh J. Schonfield
Ein Yaakov