This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.

Shortcuts: WP:TIND WP:DEADLINE

Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline. There are two points of view on what this lack of a deadline means.

[edit] View one

What's the rush, big fella?

We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established.

Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn a stub or whatever into a good article. Wikipedia is not a competition either.

Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content will earn you far greater kudos.

[edit] View two

The Wikipedia logo will never be complete.

We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article until its lack of significance is unambiguously established.

Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable.

Above all, creating an article which is unfinished is the second rule of Wikipedia. That way you encourage other people to contribute; collaborating will earn you far greater respect.

[edit] View three

Whether the addition-removal to the article can be justified or not, it is sometimes better to handle the dispute at the time it occurs. Generally referenced additions can be viewed and evaluated by other users more easily, since it is much easier than tracking the additions-removals from article history, and generally "let it go" cases forgotten after a while, unless an editor bothers to check every single entry in article history. Also discussing cases after a while may consume much more time than early solved conflicts since non-solved conflicts generally turn out as personal conflicts between editors. Moreover since editors try to edit in their free time where they can do anything else, they may not find such time in the future to edit or discuss these matters to improve Wikipedia. And it is frequent that some users act WP:POV or WP:BIASed (and WP:Systemic bias for worst case] because of their political or religious views or they may not have any expertise in the article they edit, time to time they may have WP:COI or act like they WP:OWN the article, they may take things personal may not be WP:POLITE (verbally or worse with their editing style), so whether you assume WP:GOODFAITH or not you may not come to an agreement. At that times you may seek for 3rd party review help from uninvolved editors to come to an agreement both parties may use.

[edit] View four

A WWII-era recruiting poster for Merchant Marine sailors tries to inspire a sense of urgency: "Let's Finish the Job!"

There is a deadline - or many small deadlines - we aren't aware of. People die, move away from editing or reading, Little Johnny's homework is due. Meanwhile we have (as of 2009) articles that have been unreferenced since 2001, articles that have been stubs since 2001 and so forth - and the amount of identified work keeps growing. Without continuous improvement and automation the potential of Wikipedia will be only partially fulfilled - moreover without a sense of urgency these things will not be done in a timely fashion.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Editing policy
• Wikipedia:Don't panic
• Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow
• Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
• Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress
• Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision
• Wikipedia:Recentism