>But the main space pages are seen by millions of people, and are not an appropriate place to write drafts. The visibility is entirely why it should be where c

>But the main space pages are seen by millions of people, and are not an appropriate place to write drafts. The visibility is entirely why it should be where contributions are made and not in behind the scenes obscure spots. It's ok for pages to be flawed. If you fix a grammatical error instead of reverting a contribution, you might teach the person who made it something. If it's uncited, you should cite it, tag it, or leave it, you shouldnt be reverting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_t... >Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them IF YOU CAN'T. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they SHOULD BE RETAINED if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research. I dont have some radical position here. It's written right into editing policy. Removal should be saved for when contributions cant be fixed, not because you think they are ugly blemishes, and dont want to take the time to improve them. An "incomplete" contribution should stay IN the article, waiting for someone else to come along and mend it. Preference for an article to look "finished" should take a back seat. Facts and Ideas first, spit polish next. Always prioritize the former.