It turns out Wikipedia has extensive filtering criteria for articles and included information generally, beyond the criteria of being verifiable and factually correct. There is an entire bureaucracy in place to evaluate new contributions and whether they fit in. There is a debate on how liberally to include information; the political parties involved are apparently called inclusionists and deletionists. On this subject I hold beliefs similar to Gwern. There are many ways to deal with the difference of opinion between myself and some of Wikipedia’s editors. I have no interest in participating in their community, debates, or other governance issues. Thus the way that I choose to deal with this situation is that when I think that something should be on Wikipedia that isn’t there I will:

1. Write up the article as best I can.

2. Publish it on Wikipedia anonymously.

3. Accept changes and edits to it that relate either to the veracity, or the comprehensibility.
4. If a debate or some other sort of community organizing, bureaucratic procedure begins then I will remove the article retaining the helpful edits and post it here. I’ll also include a link to the public Wikipedia profiles of those folks from Wikipedia that feel that the article should be pushed out.
5. If the article is instead accepted or integrated into some other article, then I won’t do anything.
6. If I’m wrong send me an email and I’ll fix it! I’d let you just do it yourself, but hey they kicked it off Wikipedia so it’s not really an option that isn’t annoying.

Compiled with MarkdownHere, using the MarkDownHere Cheetsheet