Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a work in progress

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Problem of addition

From the essay: "...There are also many more thousands of one- or two-sentence stubs; adding a few more sentences ... will vastly improve that article."
Herein lies a big problem. Adding a sentence or two is almost certainly going to come from my OWN knowledge of the subject. There are three subjects I feel very knowledgeable about, in two of which I am professional. But the summation of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability (especially), Wikipedia:No_original_research and even the detail of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view effectively mean that unless the information has been copied from a professional, published in a major publication, available copyright free, then it shouldn't appear. So I can't just quickly add a sentence or two without first finding out who of my colleages might have published similar information somewhere and what the copyright situation is. Oh, and even then I might find that they made a mistake but that's OK because so long as the wrong information can be 'verified' that's what policies of Wikipedia say should appear here, and not accurate information! --Interesdom 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright situation is not an issue. Articles shouldn't incorporate text copied word-for-word from anywhere, regardless of copyright status (with the exception of short quotes). "No original research" doesn't mean we can only include text that has been published in its exact form. Write original text that is not excessively biased, cite one or more reliable published sources in a "References" section and there should be no problem – Gurch 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will never be finished

Do people agree with the above statement? I do. Not only will Wikipedia never be finished, it innately can never be finished, due to its nature.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threadcromancy! Though I would agree with it - it's been nearly six years since this comment was made, and the further we go, the less complete it seems - it's a never ending road ahead, but we'll run it anyways. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to spread the idea of "Wikipedia is a work in progress"

How do we make sure everyone learns this notion? Would it be fair to point every editor who criticizes a stub/start article for being incomplete/possibly having inaccuracies from otherwise reliable sources to this page (as long as it is not misrepresented as a great article/greatest article ever/featured article/whatever)? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny detail

This used a graph to show we're not finished, but now it's a graph extension failure notice instead, which shows it even better. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]