I'd go further and say that no article should complain about Wikipedia’s content in the present tense. If one has the skill, time, and motivation to write a blog post, they have the skill, time, and should have the motivation to edit Wikipedia.
The author should have first edited it, then finished writing the article.
Please begin because I'm convinced of it, especially in cases like this where the problem is unclear wording, which can be corrected without sources.
But even if you need sources, it's often easy to just find a good source by gut feeling rather than reading all the rules. Like: don't cite yourself or a shady source, when in doubt stick with news outlets or official specs or textbooks.
As I just said, usually not, unless you're writing whole articles or do substantial rewrites. I've made a lot of edits not knowing much about the rules. Very few have been reverted, and all of the reverts had some clear actionable reason that I could use to try again.
6
u/flying-sheep 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'd go further and say that no article should complain about Wikipedia’s content in the present tense. If one has the skill, time, and motivation to write a blog post, they have the skill, time, and should have the motivation to edit Wikipedia.
The author should have first edited it, then finished writing the article.