I guess I haven't actually found that to be true, despite editing in many niches. Sure, sometimes stuff gets shuffled around, but that's okay too: I want people to improve on my work, which sometimes means moving it elsewhere, splitting it up, whatever. I don't feel the need to "own" the articles I write. If anything, I want more people to do so! I've written articles that are 100% untouched years later even though I know they are not really "done", and someone could improve them. It can be quite nice when someone comes by and tidies up a rough draft: fixes some spelling, adds an infobox and geographical coordinates, rearranges my text-dump into some nice sections, formats my citations nicely and adds ISBNs and DOIs to them, etc.
The people I've seen run into problems most often are either in political hot-button areas, or have too close connection to a subject: someone writing an article on their own programming language, on their own academic contributions, their own company, or that of someone/something they have a close relationship to. If anything, that kind of CoI editing is still rather laxly tolerated, rather than too strongly policed. I know of at least one university that actually has paid staff writing puff pieces on their professors, and most of them are sadly still there, untouched, because there honestly isn't that much close scrutiny.
Imo experiences are much better if you start from the perspective of wanting to improve the encyclopedia, rather than from the perspective of wanting to get a particular thing into it and then maintain/defend that article. The way I usually work: start with a good source I have no personal connection to, and write articles based on it (and citing it!). For example, pick up Knuth's TAOCP, find some interesting subjects it discusses that are not yet covered in Wikipedia, and write a well-cited article. There are >99% odds that people are going to be happy with that kind of contribution, not try to delete it. I've recently been doing that with some books on archaeological sites, and I've gotten only positive comments about it; people are generally happy that I'm filling in articles on important sites that Wikipedia still lacks articles on, and that I'm doing so with references to good scholarly literature on them.
That's not to say every encounter with another editor I've had is positive, just that I think it works reasonably well on the whole, especially given the scope of the endeavor, which I would have guessed was frankly impossible, if you had asked me 10 years ago ("random people on the internet writing the superset of all subject encyclopedias?! won't it just be filled with cranks and nonsense?!"). Actually that's an interesting aspect of the HN reaction: HN is generally worried about Wikipedia being too closed, too deletionist, etc, whereas I'd guess that 90% of the world is worried about Wikipedia being too permissive, not fact-checking or insisting on sources strongly enough, etc. The most common criticism outside HN is pressure to add more reviewing and quality-control mechanisms, which gets especially strong in the wake of occasional hoaxes or libel scandals.
The people I've seen run into problems most often are either in political hot-button areas, or have too close connection to a subject: someone writing an article on their own programming language, on their own academic contributions, their own company, or that of someone/something they have a close relationship to. If anything, that kind of CoI editing is still rather laxly tolerated, rather than too strongly policed. I know of at least one university that actually has paid staff writing puff pieces on their professors, and most of them are sadly still there, untouched, because there honestly isn't that much close scrutiny.
Imo experiences are much better if you start from the perspective of wanting to improve the encyclopedia, rather than from the perspective of wanting to get a particular thing into it and then maintain/defend that article. The way I usually work: start with a good source I have no personal connection to, and write articles based on it (and citing it!). For example, pick up Knuth's TAOCP, find some interesting subjects it discusses that are not yet covered in Wikipedia, and write a well-cited article. There are >99% odds that people are going to be happy with that kind of contribution, not try to delete it. I've recently been doing that with some books on archaeological sites, and I've gotten only positive comments about it; people are generally happy that I'm filling in articles on important sites that Wikipedia still lacks articles on, and that I'm doing so with references to good scholarly literature on them.
That's not to say every encounter with another editor I've had is positive, just that I think it works reasonably well on the whole, especially given the scope of the endeavor, which I would have guessed was frankly impossible, if you had asked me 10 years ago ("random people on the internet writing the superset of all subject encyclopedias?! won't it just be filled with cranks and nonsense?!"). Actually that's an interesting aspect of the HN reaction: HN is generally worried about Wikipedia being too closed, too deletionist, etc, whereas I'd guess that 90% of the world is worried about Wikipedia being too permissive, not fact-checking or insisting on sources strongly enough, etc. The most common criticism outside HN is pressure to add more reviewing and quality-control mechanisms, which gets especially strong in the wake of occasional hoaxes or libel scandals.