I could add stuff in my field of specialty constantly. I just don't want to jump through all the hoops that come with being a wikipedia contributor, so I keep all my notes on a private wiki.
I have been editing Wikipedia for more than 5 years now. I usually get little push back for the edits I add. I try to keep every sentence cited and use my best judgement with the POV of sources. The worst experience I've had was people deleting content that they viewed through an ethnic chauvinist lens, or someone who strongly believed a statement with little documented evidence (both on the same article.) I keep seeing this viewpoint on HN, but I really thing editing is pretty smooth for most people. There are problems - the visual editor is only visible to those logged in, for example, and there are a good number of rules. But, in general, being bold has been rewarding.
This is largely what's kept me away. I'm comfortable adding piles of sources and citations to pass through some sort of Wikipedia Peer Review-Lite, but if I put in the hard work of creating a repository of knowledge for free and just see it go away...
I've tried contributing once or twice, and my work was erased like marks on the beach, promptly and without explanation. That was enough to ensure I don't do it again.
Perhaps it is the wikipedia administration, moderation, and editing team that have put up such barriers who are selfish. It is selfish to expect others to jump through your hoops to contribute advanced technical knowledge out of the kindness of their hearts.
Just a reminder that you're only assuming that the information that arkades would like to add is even accurate. (No offense to them, I'm sure it is, just pointing out that the process of editing that encyclopedia is burdensome for a reason).
No offense taken. Weeding out for accuracy is a fair and important concern, and there's no reason to assume a random person on the internet is the expert they believe themselves to be.
Though I'd point out that unless wikipedia has a team of people whose expertise equals or at least vaguely approximates my own (or that of any expert that might contribute), I have to raise the question of whether that's really what they're filtering, or simply something that superficially looks like accuracy to someone unfamiliar with the material.
It also assumes that the inaccuracy of the current articles is less than the inaccuracy of articles under a hypothetical alternative moderation policy. That might be true, or it might not - chase away enough contributors and you're left with one-sided, stale information. I imagine that's fine for an article on the simpsons, but maybe not great if you're looking up leukemias.
I do not contribute to wikipedia because I dislike the politics there but I often browse it and see content in technical articles that helped me in the past magically disappearing, or wiki articles getting deleted along with their history because the moderators were too clueless about a certain topic.
And then you end up running into a moderator who just refuses to accept factual well-sourced additions based on their own incorrect knowledge. I'm still bitter from my last attempt to contribute.
Do you contribute to Wikipedia? I have, and to Wikibooks, and it can be a thankless task when you run into an admin who is more interested in formatting than content and more interested in the enforcement of petty rules than in helping the author get it right.
I could add stuff in my field of specialty constantly. I just don't want to jump through all the hoops that come with being a wikipedia contributor, so I keep all my notes on a private wiki.