Wikipedia:Wikipedia, bicycles, and wagons

It is common to see newcomer Wikipedians who are working really hard, and with complete good faith, to try to contribute to Wikipedia. They truly deserve thanks and encouragement for that. But it's also common to see some of those newcomers, despite their hard, heart–felt work, finding it really difficult to make contributions which survive the editing process here. If I were in their shoes — and, indeed, most experienced Wikipedians have been in similar ones here — I'd be feeling very frustrated and unappreciated and might be thinking about leaving. We would like to say that we appreciate their intentions and their hard work even if it has been mostly unsuccessful and would encourage them to stay and keep trying.

What Wikipedia is, not what it's not

It's easy to find out what Wikipedia is not, but sometimes harder to realize what Wikipedia is: It's a dead-solid, absolutely-serious encyclopedia and there are very strict rules and guidelines on what can be included and what cannot. When people put in things that don't fit within those rules, the editing process here can be pretty brutal.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition.

The full text of a traditional encyclopedia, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, can be accessed here. Let me suggest that newcomers who have been directed to this essay should read a couple of articles there and compare them against what they have written here at Wikipedia. Encyclopedias do not include in-depth analysis by the editors, personal opinions of the editors, or discussion of the quality or editing of an article within the article itself. Neither does Wikipedia. (That's not to say that some of that doesn't creep into Wikipedia and go uncorrected, sometimes for long periods of time, but that doesn't mean that it's condoned.)

When editors contribute here, their work must fit within the encyclopedic goal and standards of Wikipedia. It may be that what they want to do with their writing doesn't fit within those goals and standards. They may want to offer analysis, or new research, or reviews, or their observations, comments, and opinions about subjects. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do that kind of writing, but it does not have a place at Wikipedia because it does not fit within the purpose of Wikipedia. When that kind of writing is done here, other editors are neither being vandals nor censors when they remove it, they are instead merely trying to uphold the purpose and rules of Wikipedia.

An analogy

A bicycle and a wagon made from bicycle parts.

Wikipedia.

Let's say someone takes a job in a bicycle factory, but instead of making bicycles he makes wagons out of the bicycle parts. Is it wrong for the factory to say, "your wagons are very nice but we just want to make bicycles," and to disassemble his wagons? Is it vandalism to disassemble his wagons? Is it censorship of his creative efforts? The answer to both questions is no. Does the worker have the right to try to talk the factory into making wagons? Yes, but is the right way for him to do that to continue to make wagons even though he knows that the factory does not want him to do so? No. Does the factory have the right to punish or to discharge (fire) him if he keeps making wagons, or if he continuously reassembles his wagons after the factory disassembles them? Yes.

All of that is true here at Wikipedia, too. It may be that a newcomer wants to make wagons, not bicycles. That's fine, but this is not the place to do it. It may be that they think Wikipedia should become a bicycle and wagon factory. That's fine, too, but the way to try to make that happen isn't by continuing to make wagons, but to try to talk Wikipedia into allowing wagons. (If that's what they want to do then this is the place to start, but they need to understand that it is not likely to succeed.)

Suggestions and thanks

We hope that all newcomers will want to continue to try to make bicycles, but if they decide that Wikipedia's purpose is too narrow or that its rules are too complex and too hard to understand or to use we will, sadly, understand if they choose to leave. But if they decide to stay, they have to make bicycles, not wagons.

If wagon-making newcomers do want to stay, many of them have not been very successful at learning–by–doing. They probably ought to take a break from editing for a while and use the time to study the extensive help that's available for Wikipedians. There are also experienced editors who are willing to serve as mentors and who are always willing to guide new bicycle-makers. Again, all thanks and encouragement to those who want to stay to help make Wikipedia the best bicycle factory ever to exist.