I agree with the submission: I think there is potentially a problem of test edits, or unsourced edits, being reverted automatically or in an unpleasant manner,

I agree with the submission: I think there is potentially a problem of test edits, or unsourced edits, being reverted automatically or in an unpleasant manner, and that newcomers can easily be discouraged from contributing. I think part of it is a problem with the culture, and part of it is a necessary evil: when articles achieve higher quality overall, there is bound to be less adding and more discussing about what to add, so more changes will not make their way to the article. (This is the case for any document, you start with a lot of writing and then there is a lot of painful editing, I don't see why it would be different here.) Also, the more you try to structure and source the articles, and the harder the syntax is going to be, compared to the time where you could just write anything and add it to the article. Yet, for all of this, I have never been able to understand why, whenever a discussion about Wikipedia comes up on HN, so many people complain about getting all their changes reverted. I have edited Wikipedia for years and I think at most 3 cases did I see something reverted for no good reason. Maybe this is because I edit in less controversial areas (computer science), or because most of my edits are just typographic fixes, or because I also edit on different Wikipedias (especially the French one), or because I'm vaguely familiar with some of the customs or policies? It would be really nice if people complaining about bad reverts could provide links to the diff of their edits, the reverts, and the subsequent discussion if any. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that the history is always public, so if something valuable has been reverted for bad reasons, it can be seen, and added back; if someone seems to be discouraging new users from contributing, anyone can see it and let them know; and if there was a misunderstanding, maybe we can see that the two sides were of good faith. It's a bit frustrating to see everyone complain but never have links to objective facts where you can see what went wrong and try to understand why.