 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to edit: it is not a competition. |
Wikipediais not working to a deadline, though it is not an excuse for complacency. There are various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means.
We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until itssignificance is unambiguously established. If you need help with something, do not be afraid to ask for help in theTeahouse. If you post the article before it is ready, another editor may submit your article for deletion.
Wikipedia is notWikinews and has no need toscoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in youruserspace or sandbox until you have thebest possible article,fully referenced, a masterpiece ofneutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn astub or whatever into agood article. Wikipedia isnot a competition either.
Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is abad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content is a far greater accomplishment.
We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article until its lack of significance isunambiguously established.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let theediting process fashion an article up to ourstandardseventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work,so what? Wikipedia is awork in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to befinished today. It merely needs to haveimproved on yesterday.Perfection is neither desired nor achievable.
Remember also thatconsensus can change over time. New people may bring fresh ideas, established users may change their minds when new things come up, and we all may find a better way to do things.
Above all, the principle ofcreating an article which is unfinished was once a consequence of the now historicalsecond rule of Wikipedia,Always leave something undone (though thepresent procedural policy no longer discusses this). By creating an unfinished article, you encourage other people to contribute; collaboration on articles will earn you far greater respect than solo editing.
Whether the addition/removal to the article can be justified or not, it is sometimes better to handle the dispute at the time it occurs. Generally, referenced additions can be viewed and evaluated by other users more easily, since it is much easier than tracking the additions / removals from article history, and generally "let it go" cases are forgotten after a while, unless an editor bothers to check every single entry in article history.
Also discussing cases after a while may consume much more time than early solved conflicts since non-solved conflicts generally turn out as personal conflicts between editors.
Moreover, since editors try to edit in their free time where they can do anything else, they may not find such time in the future to edit or discuss these matters to improve Wikipedia. And it is frequent that some users actWP:POV orWP:BIASed (andWP:Systemic bias in the worst cases) because of their political or religious views or they may not have any expertise in the article they edit. From time to time they may haveWP:COI, or act like theyWP:OWN the article, they may take things personally and may not beWP:POLITE (verbally or worse with their editing style) so, whether or not you assumeWP:GOODFAITH, you may not come to an agreement. At those times, you may seek third-party review help from uninvolved editors to come to an agreement between both parties.
There is a deadline—or many small deadlines—we aren't aware of. People die, people move away from editing or reading, Little Johnny's homework is due. Meanwhile, we have articles that have been unreferenced for several years, articles that have been stubs since 2001 and so forth—and the amount ofidentified work keeps growing. Withoutcontinual improvement and automation, the potential of Wikipedia will be only partially fulfilled—moreover without a sense of urgency these things will not be done in a timely fashion.
Just as there is no deadline, there's also no enforced plan for writing Wikipedia. No specific tasks are assigned to specific individuals. While one editor may have a to-do list or a page in their user sandbox ready to start a new article, another editor may beat them to the punch either unknowingly or deliberately.
Editors shouldn't get upset when they lose the opportunity to create a new article. No oneowns an article. When you miss out on a chance to create a new article, instead of feeling robbed or slighted or considering acts of vengeance, you might look and see if there's any way you can still contribute. Maybe there are grammatical errors or typos you can correct, or you have text you could add.
You arenot obliged to edit Wikipedia, deadlines are unnecessary, so there is no deadline to make an edit, create a page, etc. Deadlines usually come when you are obliged to do something.
Don't stress out too much about your edits' choice of words. Just quickly preview to detect and fix markup syntax errors and then submit. Should a better wording come to your mind, you can edit it in at any later time, andso can anyone else.
Although Wikipedia itself is not working to a deadline, processes and WikiProjects within it often have deadlines – typically about one week. For example: