Wikipedia contributors should rely on published sources. Way too many articles are either straight dumps of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 text, or they rely on other web sources of unkown quality. Try reading a book, or chasing up published information over the internet. Discovery Channel or someone's pet theory web site just don't cut it.
Don't reference primary historical sources in Wikipedia articles unless you are quoting. Primary sources need interpretation. Lots of qualified historians have published those interpretations. If you rely on primary sources, you are either naively taking at face value things that historians have found a need to interpret, or you are doing that interpretation, which is not what Wikipedia is for. More than likely, people quote primary sources but are actually relying on secondary sources for their interpretations. Cite the secondary sources.
Copyright paranoia means that the quality of images on Wikipedia is generally poor. It is embarassing to read articles of living persons and have only fan snapshots at public events to illustrate them. I hate copyright paranoia!
As a related grumble, why do so many Wikipedia articles on historical persons have anachronistic images of those persons or events from centuries (even millenia) later. If you can't find an image of a tenth century French king, then don't insert an image from a nineteenth century history book!
There are many Wikipedia articles that are not very clear unless you have training, or have read widely, in the relevant field. This is a problem with Wikipedia: those with knowledge (and probably enthusiasm) in a particular field will probably write an article, but they may not be able to explain it to someone with no particular knowledge in that field. I have found that this applies to articles on technology, science, and even history! The opening paragraphs of such articles must be written to be intelligible to any informed "layman." Technical issues can be reserved for later in the article, or even left out altogether. Some historical articles insist on using names unfamiliar to the English reader, instead using names and terms appropriate for another language (see, for expample, the great naming debate on the Kings of Scotland). Users of Wikipedia should only be expected to be fluent in the English language, and names and terms should be those commonly used in English. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
I've been reading a lot in the media about the slowdown in Wikipedia's growth, and some associated comments from occassional editors who feel excluded because their work gets reverted or deleted. I have no doubt that there is some exlusivity growing in the Wikipedia community. I am, at best, a casual contributor - only as time allows. Yet I have not felt the cold winds of edit reversion as some have.
My hints for a happy experience:
Cite sources. People who feel their edits are discarded often fail to cite. Yes, the citation train gets a little wearying, and some can get a bit precious about it. But, on the other hand, if you feel you have the latest and greatest idea, then Wikipedia is not the place to write it.
Find your little patch. If you edit anything and everything, you will probably get reverted. What I do is find a few things that I am interested in, and beaver away at those. There are heaps of topics which need better articles, or articles created. Get to know your patch, and thrive in it.
Avoid controversy. If you edit an article on a controversial subject, you are just begging for a hiding. Medieval Fraxinet attracts little attention. The State of Israel does. So guess which one I edit? Some subjects do attract fanatics and propoganists just waiting to delete any reference they don't like. That is why an article on Transdniestria, which is essentially a creation of the Russian army and survives on the revenues from smuggling, is so bland-positive - anything too bad is represented as POV, or otherwise deleted. You can read incredible comments wars in pages such as that on the Bagratid dynasty, from people who are obviously biased and grinding a nationalist axe.
Be bold. Yes, this was once Wikipedia's dominant motto, before the pedants moved in. But bugger the pedants. If someone reverts your edit, check that your edit is reasonable, fits into the guidelines, and is sourced, then revert the revert. If you really want to add a section to Transdniestria about its nefarious activities (I wish someone would!), then get some good sources, write in a detached, factual style, on go for it!
Get a life. Don't get too worked up because someone doesn't like your edits. Don't live your life fuming over how those Wikipedia elites excluded you. Fly below the radar, like me and thousands others. Be civil and don't get sucked into long debates on discussion pages. Breath and walk away if an edit just won't "stick". Reality is bigger than Wikipedia.
Hastings, East Sussex (1992), a Cinque Port - Hastings Castle from the outside. Hastings is the location of the truly excellent Foyle's War television series.
