- The damage to self-esteem that comes from finding out that you are not so good at writing that, you know, crystal clear prose as you always sorta liked to think that you was good at writing before you came to Wikipedia and had people correcting your horrible prose writing and tautological redundancies all the time, not to mention bad grammer and spelling and stuff. manning, age 8
- Things you think you understand, and don't, and write about, are written about further by people who think they understand them, and do. Not recommended for people with fragile egos or thin skin. KQ, guilty as charged
- Is creating large numbers of wikipediholics
- Ain't a resume builder. You aren't allowed to claim authorship of any article. True, but there are 2 arguments to that. 1 - If you want someone to evaluate your own work, you can always guide them to the revision history section. 2 - there are countless places to in the world build your resume... Wikipedia just ain't one of them. It ain't so good for picking up hot babes/guys either. MB
- You might have to work with people who believe the polar opposite to you on a given subject, and their opinion might win the day for reasons other than being correct. Of course, this problem is restricted solely to the Wikipedia, and would never happen within a workplace, a family, a sports team...
- Way too many pages are merely stubs. "Find a stub, fix a stub"
- It seems popular topics like Abortion or get written about, whereas less popular ones never receive attention. They will get attention when some interested party gives it to them. Hell, I'm doing "Australian prime ministers" which ain't exactly of universal fascination, but I don't care - it interests me.
- People who raise endless objections on /Talk? pages, instead of fixing what bothers them.
- If you correctly internalized rules of English capitalization at an early age you find yourself making trivial corrections rather than getting on with content.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)