If your particular niche has avoided this, bully on you. But I personally wouldn't want to join it, because if more people come on board, that means more attention and thus (in my mind, at least) greater likelihood of attracting the wikilawyers.

Just Googling around Hacker News, I find a number of innocuous pages whose maintainers have had to defend themselves against deletion.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2752285

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=216723

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=288200

You might agree or disagree with some particular cases, and sometimes things go the right way, but either way it's still a hassle that you have to fight. Personally, I don't remember what the specific pages were I used to help maintain. I was doing it because I wanted to help out and I saw those pages could use it rather than because I cared a lot about the topics. But I do remember it was unpleasant and I wouldn't want to deal with such people again.

Cite the Wikipedia debates you say are happening. Citing HN freakouts isn't a valid argument, because anyone in the world can spark one at any time, because anybody can nominate any article for deletion.

The thing is, even when you succeed in fending off all that, it doesn't really feel good to have spent time on Wikipedia politics.

The fact that anybody can nominate any article for deletion doesn't really run counter to my point, which is, to reiterate:

> No matter how innocuous the topic, if somebody takes notice of it, you'll often find yourself constantly having to fight random people … it was unpleasant and I wouldn't want to deal with such people again.

In fact, when these freakouts happen, people who believe in the articles and know how WP works have to take pains to tell people not to jump into the AfD debate and start "voting" for the articles, because that actually makes the process work worse. Most of the time, when a self-evidently valuable article is proposed for deletion, WP's editors do a just-fine job of making sure they aren't actually deleted.

What you did here was move the goalposts. You claimed that computer scientists are getting shot down in content debates on WP. I asked you to point us to one of those debates happening, where the "jerk brigade" of editors and admins on WP were shouting contributors off of topics. All those debates and shoutings-down are logged.

You responded by highlighting discussions on HN of people freaking out about deletionism. We already know people on HN are freaking out about deletionism. Stipulated! The point is: those people freaking out on HN are mostly wrong.

But no, I am not moving the goalposts. I'm pretty convinced at this point that you've projected other people's goalposts onto my playing field. I'll quote myself again:

> No matter how innocuous the topic, if somebody takes notice of it, you'll often find yourself constantly having to fight random people

> Just Googling around Hacker News, I find a number of innocuous pages whose maintainers have had to defend themselves against deletion.

> Personally, I don't remember what the specific pages were I used to help maintain. I was doing it because I wanted to help out and I saw those pages could use it rather than because I cared a lot about the topics. But I do remember it was unpleasant and I wouldn't want to deal with such people again.

Those have been the goalposts all along. I didn't say anything about getting "shouted off topics." I just said it involves more headaches than I feel it ought to. (Clearly some people like mjn and yourself haven't had that experience, and I'm glad, but that doesn't take the bad taste out of the mouths of people who have.)

If the "fight" we're talking about here is (a) one simple sentence stating why the subject is notable and (b) a couple of links, I'm not sure "fight" is the right term.

The people I've seen run into problems most often are either in political hot-button areas, or have too close connection to a subject: someone writing an article on their own programming language, on their own academic contributions, their own company, or that of someone/something they have a close relationship to. If anything, that kind of CoI editing is still rather laxly tolerated, rather than too strongly policed. I know of at least one university that actually has paid staff writing puff pieces on their professors, and most of them are sadly still there, untouched, because there honestly isn't that much close scrutiny.

Imo experiences are much better if you start from the perspective of wanting to improve the encyclopedia, rather than from the perspective of wanting to get a particular thing into it and then maintain/defend that article. The way I usually work: start with a good source I have no personal connection to, and write articles based on it (and citing it!). For example, pick up Knuth's TAOCP, find some interesting subjects it discusses that are not yet covered in Wikipedia, and write a well-cited article. There are >99% odds that people are going to be happy with that kind of contribution, not try to delete it. I've recently been doing that with some books on archaeological sites, and I've gotten only positive comments about it; people are generally happy that I'm filling in articles on important sites that Wikipedia still lacks articles on, and that I'm doing so with references to good scholarly literature on them.

That's not to say every encounter with another editor I've had is positive, just that I think it works reasonably well on the whole, especially given the scope of the endeavor, which I would have guessed was frankly impossible, if you had asked me 10 years ago ("random people on the internet writing the superset of all subject encyclopedias?! won't it just be filled with cranks and nonsense?!"). Actually that's an interesting aspect of the HN reaction: HN is generally worried about Wikipedia being too closed, too deletionist, etc, whereas I'd guess that 90% of the world is worried about Wikipedia being too permissive, not fact-checking or insisting on sources strongly enough, etc. The most common criticism outside HN is pressure to add more reviewing and quality-control mechanisms, which gets especially strong in the wake of occasional hoaxes or libel scandals.

This sounds quite interesting. Do you do this by rough intuitive feel, or is there any quantitative/analytical data from Wikipedia that can be used to prioritize attention this way? (For example: a list of places where the imbalance between readers/inbound-Google-referrals and content/active-editors is greatest?)