Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?

This page in a nutshell: Editors should treat article expansions as a gift to readers and an opportunity for editors to collaborate. They should not treat the retention of new content as a prize to be won by following all the rules perfectly on the first try.

Mother, May I? is a children's game in which the "mother" tells the children to take a few steps at a time towards the goal. But before following the directions, the child must first ask for permission to follow the directions. If the child does not follow the protocol perfectly, the child is sent back to the starting point.

Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?. We need encyclopedic content. If Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and other editors remove good content – content that they personally know, or should know, to be accurate and encyclopedic – because the editor didn't jump through all of the "hoops" on the first try, then our readers lose.

Comparison of the game with Wikipedia
Mother, May I?	Wikipedia editing
Mother: Alice, please take one big step forward. Alice: Mother, may I? Mother: Yes, Alice, you may. Alice: (takes one big step forward) Mother: Bob, please take two small steps forward. Bob: (takes two small steps forward) Mother: Bob, you did not follow all the rules. Go back to the beginning and start over. Bob: (wonders why "Mother" is upset that Bob did what he was told to do)	Wikipedia: Editors, please expand this stub. Alice: Here is a source for an existing sentence. Patrollers: Thank you, Alice. Alice: (is happy that her contribution was accepted) Wikipedia: Editors, please expand this stub. Bob: Here is a paragraph of basic and obviously accurate and encyclopedic content with the first source I found in a search engine. Patrollers: Bob, you did not follow all the rules. I'm reverting everything. Go back to the beginning and start over. Bob: (wonders why "Wikipedia" is upset that Bob did what he was told to do)

Alternatives edit

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. It is not necessary to "protect" readers from uncited or weakly cited content that is accurate, relevant, and encyclopedic. Readers almost never read the sources we cite. We need to make sure that our content is good, but pushing for ideal sources does not help readers.
Click the edit button and collaborate. The WP:BURDEN is to provide one source (=not multiple sources) that the contributor (=not the reverter) thinks is reliable. The person writing the paragraph does not have to WP:FETCH an endless stream of sources just because you don't like the content or the sources. If you want a better source, you can add it yourself. Doing that solves your problem (you wanted a better source, and now you have one) and shows the other editor what your standards are.
Tag additions with {{citation needed}} or {{better source}}. Newcomers tend to check back to see whether anyone has responded to their edits. If their new sentence is still there, but a tag has been added, most of them will attempt to resolve the tag.
WP:CHALLENGE only uncited content if you have some reason to suspect that the material is wrong or that no source actually exists for it. Wikipedia does not have a policy requiring that every sentence or every paragraph contain a citation; As of 2024^[update], it does not even have a policy requiring that every article include at least one source. If it's not one of the four kinds of material required to have an Wikipedia:Inline citation (e.g., material that is actually WP:LIKELY (>50% chance) to have a dispute over its factual accuracy or the ability to find a reliable source for it), then you can leave it alone.