I feel a similar struggle on Wikipedia where I have to revert a ton of good-faith edits. The editors think they're improving the article, but it always falls af

I feel a similar struggle on Wikipedia where I have to revert a ton of good-faith edits. The editors think they're improving the article, but it always falls afoul of being original research or trivia. I'd hate to discourage potential editors so I always explain why in human terms [0] in the edit summaries but to them it probably solidifies in their mind that Wikipedia is byzantine and bureaucratic. I'd much rather prefer to write content than edit war with newbies, but unfortunately every article has a half-life [1] if its not maintained. Just like for Stack Overflow, caring about the health and quality of the community is often mistaken for elitism and being territorial. (Or maybe it's a natural defense against eternal september?) [2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTF%3F_OMG!_TMD_TLA._ARG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTF%3F_OMG!_TMD_TLA....! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_half-life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_half-life [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September