Contributor training . . .

TDurden527, it's okay to be bold!

Seriously, it is. If you try things out, as Altenmann said, even if you make mistakes other people will often help you --- it can be a good way to learn. Incremental improvement is also fine: if you make something just slightly better (like, add an imperfect citation), somebody else will likely come along after you and improve what you did. That's totally fine: that's how it's supposed to work.

Also, it helps to be aware that everyone you're interacting with is just another editor, like you. Sometimes when people's edits are reverted they take it personally; they feel like "Wikipedia" is reprimanding them. (As though their work had been deleted by Flickr or Facebook, as though they had broken the terms of use or done something terribly wrong.) On Wikipedia though, that's not what's happening.

If your edit is reverted on Wikipedia, that just represents the _opinion_ of another editor, and he or she may be wrong. You shouldn't necessarily experience the reversion as a rebuke or sanction.

If you are very inexperienced the odds are good the other editor is right and you were wrong. But even so, as long as you are editing in good faith and not being utterly reckless, other editors should be supportive of you, and should want to help you. If not, then frankly I think they --not you-- are the ones with problematic behaviour :-)

It's a good thought to be "OK to be bold" but the fact is that you will likely have your article deleted in ways that will confuse you utterly. The whole issue of NPOV is much too academic for most newcomers (even being called a "newbie" may be humiliating); and the first AfD (article for deletion) notice you get will undoubtedly make your heart sink and leave you floundering and unable to figure out what to do. So you will let it unfold and walk away in despair when it goes against you for no reason you can understand. You may not even know that you are supposed to argue in favor of your article on a special page. (what is a talk page anyway?). Deletions are at the heart of the issues as the survey points out repeatedly, and os it should be much harder to delete and more help given to new editors who try to create. Otherwise, silently editing and being a good citizen is th only alternative, and not a very satisfying one.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. However, considering that Wiki is in the process of trying to attract and keep editors "frustration," "floundering," "humiliating," and "despair" not a good way to do that. Not judging just an opinion.

An example. I wanted to change one word in a sentence from "established" to "current" and someone called OrengeMarker man said "current" was derogatory. Like give me a break.

If that's how inflexible some are going to be then screw it.

OrangeMarlin wrote "deprecated", not "derogatory". "Deprecated" means "not recommended to use". And both of you user funnier English than mine. (Like, OPrangeMarlin wrote "no scientific consensus doesn't change suddenly", so his sentence is quite flexible both ways. :-)

Thanks Max - I stand corrected on the mistake of Deprecated vs. derogatory.

I'm not sure how certain words are determined to be deprecated. Can you tell me?

As far as how fast scientific consensus changes, it is a small matter to me.

Thanks.

BTW, after reading OrengeM mans talk page I consider him a disgrace to Wikipedia. I support a permanent ban on him.