" 

 :Hi, Reenie. 

 :Welcome to Wikipedia! 

 ::I added (and tidied) a few things on the ""bastard pop"" page as my first attempt at wiki-ing... I was a bit disappointed to find most of it has now vanished! 

 :Can you remember what you added/tidied? The main reason (pretty much the only reason really) why things are removed from that article is because they qualify as vanity spam. Because the barrier of entry is so low for bastard pop, it's very easy and tempting for bootleggers to treat the article as free advertising. As a result of this, I often remove links to non-notable bootlegs and bootleggers fairly promptly. The downside of this is that editors like yourself may occasionally have a good faith addition removed without knowing what's going on. There's quite a bit of discussion about this on the article's talk page, incidentally. 

 ::is it that people basically have their own articles/entries to oversee as they see fit and only include what they think is right? 

 :It is and it isn't. All articles on Wikipedia belong to everyone and can be freely edited by anyone. That's a core principle of Wikipedia, and indeed of most wikis. Moreover, Wikipedia counsels against editors squatting on articles, and cultivating the delusion that somehow they, and they alone, own the article. However, in practice, some articles tend to be dominated by a small number of editors (and in some cases by one editor). A large number of our featured articles are labours of love in which a handful of editors have slaved over the article to get it just so. Conversely, there are a large number of neglected articles that appear to be desperately in need of a champion, someone to lavish a little TLC on them, even if that occassionally means challenging and questioning edits that might previously have passed unremarked. In other words, taking no pride in articles and taking too much pride are both discouraged. Taking an interest in an article without investing so much ego in it that it damages the article: that's the ideal compromise. After all, it's inevitable that we'll all have to stop editing one day -) 

 ::I know the wiki idea is that it's an organic process of addition, with prudent editing, but is that how it really works? 

 :It works like that on some articles. Some articles interest no-one and hardly ever get edited. Some articles are pretty much complete gems, and don't cry out for substantial changes. Some articles are constantly being vandalized and repaired, and undergo few net changes. The process you mentioned can best be seen on articles about unfolding news events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and the 2005 civil unrest in France. 

 ::I'm currently writing a book on the whole bootleg/bastard pop/mashup thing for a major publisher and was rather surprised at some of the ommissions from the more recent (last few years) parts of the otherwise excellent article and would love to be able to add a little more. 

 :Sounds great. Go for it! 

 : "