My experience in trying to donate any amount of time and effort to wikipedia has been nothing but pain and suffering at the hands of extremely possessive "little hitlers" that do everything possible to defend their "turf".
You are suggesting that volunteering at the corporate/entity level is different than volunteering at the wiki level ?
Of course, if the article doesn't exist at all, you risk a war with the deletionists who've decided certain turf shouldn't exist. And occasionally there's a one-two of one user shredding an article as "excessively detailed", then another nominating it for deletion because it lacks content...
But overall, I've found it a more approachable way to contribute than trying to change or extend any article with an opinionated 'owner'. (At this point, I suspect Wikipedia's factual errors are less likely to come from "anyone can edit" than from possessive and mistaken writers actively restoring errors.)
In my experience, some of these "little hitlers" appear to be (controlled by) larger corporate entities in some way, shape or form. When the "turf" becomes profitable for some, it becomes very difficult for others to cut the grass so to speak.
Wikipedia has a great output. In my view they don't need my time and effort. They're doing great now. When I see a message asking to donate money, I do, because I assume they do need that if they're asking for money.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "Wikipedia has a great output. In my view they don't need my time and effort. They're doing great now." We really need a lot more help here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Typo_Team
"The Wikipedia Typo Team is dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia by correcting typos and misspellings. If you see any typos (even minor ones), please correct them. This kind of editing is a never-ending job, so we could use your help! Please consider joining our team. All you need to do is start correcting typos."
Re: "When I see a message asking to donate money, I do, because I assume they do need that if they're asking for money." please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikipedia-fundraising-drive-should...
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
http://thewikipedian.net/2016/03/11/modest-proposal-wikimedi...
Or any person with any kind of ideological charge, especially a boogeyman to some group or other.
The problem with Wikipedia is the fanatics with infinite time, which it accumulates because they're the ones who never give up. The other issue is it's inability to actually deal with problematic users, as the moderation doesn't teach the fanatics to be good, it just teaches them to not be so bad they'll be banned.
There are hundreds of thousands of words of meta discussion about whether to use –,—, or - in titles.
This even made its way to Arbcom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...
Pity, I profoundly admire Wikipedia.
Lucky you.
If you had been allowed to edit, your edits would most likely have been reverted so fast as to be confused with an automatic process. New pages would be up for deletion immediately. A swarm of people with far, far more time on their hands than you could ever have would block you every step of the way.
There is this notion that well meaning, knowledgeable individuals can make small, worthwhile contributions to wikipedia and slowly refine the resource as we all chip in our little bit.
This notion is false.
It's a real shame because I would love to contribute time and effort in the way that people think they can contribute to wikipedia.
If you know that your edit is at risk of being reverted, you can argue for it on the talk page beforehand. Then if no one replies, you can just make the edit and mark it as "per talk"/"see talk page". If the other person reverts, you can now argue that they're in the wrong because they didn't provide a constructive objection beforehand.
It's a silly game, but it helps provide clarity when editing contentious topics.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "Has it become that bad?" No. Not even close. The people who complain about such things are typically newbies who make the mistake of trying to "fix" articles on highly contentious topics with hundreds of edits per day. Just pick a page that hasn't been edited in a while, which is most of them. The history tab tells you how often it gets edited.
(BTW, thanks for disclosing your affiliation always.)
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "I habitually use a VPN, and Wikipedia does not let me contribute (specifically, edit pages), even if I am logged in."
You can request permission to edit Wikipedia through a VPN.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption
"Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption, which allows editing on an otherwise-blocked IP address... If you will be editing using an anonymous proxy, including a VPN service, you must send your request to..."
> An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion, allowing them to edit uninterrupted through the IP address range block. The conditions for granting this are that: the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs.
My highlights. At any rate, I'm not going to invest more time and work into being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/ipblock-exem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption
EDIT to add: Discussion of that (IMHO silly) policy here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exempt...
There are a huge number of trolls and vandals who would love to be able to avoid being blocked by using a VPN. Wikipedia has to balance the need to stop them with the need to let legitimate VPN users edit.
In May of 2018 I posted a request for Comment and got a clarification on who should be granted IPBE.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exempt...
The result of that discussion was:
:It's likely safe to say that administrator judgement on a case-by-case basis can decide whether the provided justification constitutes a legitimate need and whether that need is sufficient to grant IPBE.. it's pretty clear that the community at large likely also doesn't want it to be routinely granted, for lack of a better phrase, just because someone wants it and could hat-collect it. Someone should likely, for example, actually be affected by a block to request it and/or someone should probably be able to explain their need for the additional layer of privacy rather than just, 'Hey I want IPBE because I said the word privacy.' "
That was the decision of the Wikipedia community. If you think that decision was "silly" you are free to post an RfC and see if the consensus has changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Reque...
EDIT: But I do trust it. So maybe it doesn't matter?
Sometimes they don't even get through the first sentence before the person has to stop them with corrections.
edit: sorry, was being a bit rude.
I don't know a feasible solution, but I often think the prominent voices are more of a problem than the average contributor.
Maybe not tracking the amount of contributios would help. More anonymous access to help against echo chambers and networks?
But I do remember reading about a physicist who wasn't allowed to edit the Wiki on their theory! (sorry can't remember who / when)
:Would you really prefer it if Wikipedia allowed David Miscavige ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige ) to edit the Wikipedia page on Scientology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology )?
:Wikipedia's policies on writing about yourself are spot on. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_e...
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re "I've heard bad things about writing articles on Wikis. Lots of ego-wars." you hear those things from new Wikipedia users who decide that the first thing they should do is either [A] "Fix" the Donald Trump article, [B] try to use Wikipedia to advertise their garage band, or [C] try to correct the biases I list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:YWAB
If you pick an article, check the history, and find that it ISN'T getting 300 edits every day, you will have a much easier time improving that article.
My Wikipedia page has a link so you can email me. I will be glad to help if you want to become a Wikipedia editor.
EDIT: Fixed a bad link.
Also, that link doesn't work. think you need a dot! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_bia...)
This works:
I replaced it with another page on Wikipedia that redirects to the "User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased." page.
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...