How many Wikipedians does it take to Change a Light Bulb?
1 User to start the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_a_Light_Bulb article.
1 editor immediately deletes the article because it is auto-biographical.
1 “anonymous” user to start the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_a_Light_Bulb article (We don’t count him – since he is of course the original user).
1 editor to tag it with the “No original research” template (Without giving a reason).
1 editor to claim the article is nonsense (Without giving a reason).
1 editor to claim this content is commercial (Without giving a reason).
1 editor to claim it violates the wikipedia “Neutral Point of View policy” (Without giving a reason).
The original user to ask why the editors thinks this way on the talk page.
10 editors to note that the original user forgot to sign his statement, but without answering the question posed.
1 user to delete all links.
1 user to delete anything remotely interesting, because it violates the wikipedia “Neutral Point of View policy” (Without giving a reason).
1 editor to revert it.
1 editor to revert it back.
1 editor to revert the revert and delete a little more of the original content.
10 users to rant in the talk page that Changing a light bulb is not notable enough.
1 Person to argue that the article should be merged into the main article about the inventor of the light bulb, and slaps on another template.
4 persons to gradually delete content, until the section contains less information than the public phone book.
1 deletionist to remove the article completely because it is a stub (too short).
The original user leaves Wikipedia – never to return again.
3 months from now:
1 different user feels the absence of the Changing_a_Light_Bulb article, create it and start the cycle all over again.
How many inclusionists Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
2 – one to screw in the new bulb, another to carefully store the used bulb in case someone needs it in the future.
Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?