 | 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: Identifying problems is a valid way to contribute to Wikipedia, even if one does not know how to orwish to go the extra mile to solve them. |
Solving problems on Wikipedia often involves multiple steps: first, the problem needs to be identified, then a solution agreed upon, then that solution implemented. Sometimes, an editor will have the technical knowhow, emotional capacity, or simple desire to participate in only one of these stages. That is perfectly okay; Wikipedia is acollaborative,incremental effort in which editorscan choose to volunteer as much or as little as they wish.
Editors who participate only in the first stage sometimes receive pushback. A maintenance tag you added will be removed with summary "just solve the issue, don't add an ugly tag"; an editor will respond to a brainstorming session on systemic solutions tobias by saying "just go write some articles in the area"; a redlink to a clearly notable topic will be removed, citingWikipedia:Write the article first. Sometimes the pushback is framed as encouragement tobe bold.
This sort of response is inappropriate. Identifying problems is only the first step in resolving them, but it's a helpful step, and even if an editor only takes that one step, it's a net positive. They are laying the groundwork for other editors—who may be more qualified to tackle the later steps—to find and finish the job.
The response is particularly pernicious when it relates to systemic issues. These issues, by their nature, call for systemic solutions: changes in guidance, process, or design. Because Wikipedia operates on such a large scale, and because othervolunteers aren't required to fix any problems you identify, even the most prolific contributor would be capable of making only a tiny dent in the issue just by working on it by themselves. Discussions on larger reforms are needed for these issues, and they should not be shut down out of defensiveness about the problem orattachment to the status quo.
There are some instances in which pointing out a problem can be disruptive if done inappropriately. Particularly, it is important to:
You should be careful when identifying problems in areas where you have not worked extensively or with which you are unfamiliar, as these instances are especially likely to be deemed unhelpful. The area's regulars may have relevant expertise about the problem, but you may also bring a fresh outsider's perspective that the regulars have missed.
Some problems are already well-known, and are either beyond our control (e.g. stuck in aPhabricator backlog) or deemed by prior consensus to be a necessary evil (or evennot an evil at all). Identifying these issues is okay (especially if you didn't know about the history), since sometimes additional attention can get a task un-stuck, orconsensus can change about whether it's worth tolerating. However, do not continue to harp on them beyond the point of usefulness. If editors are constantly pointing out an unsolvable issue in an area where you work, consider writing an FAQ.