What you don't know could fill Wikipedia. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't important.
Perfection does not exist, but there is a point when the editing should stop. There is a tipping point on most articles whereby no further changes will bring additional improvement to the article. Adding new ideas to an article without thinking about its overall impact to the article is bad.
Lead, follow or get out of the way. Follow the standards. Don't change something because you don't like it or be prepared to change everything. If you start changing articles and don't finish, I will change them back for consistency. (See #4)
Consistency is important if not paramount. Standards cause end-users to expect a consistent behavior. They remove barriers to learning and editing, which are the two goals of this encyclopedia. Yes, we have the option of redirects, but this is not a substitute for incorrect behavior.
Most contributors haven't a clue about information architecture. Please think about what you add to articles. If there is a series of articles that you wish to tie together because they have something in common, think about whether or not the readers on all of those articles will care if they are related. For example, if you want to add Taipei's sister cities to Wikipedia, is it really important that readers of the Dallas, Texas article know this? And, for that matter, that they be able to get to the other Taipei sister cities? The answer is no.
Importance is almost always a completely fallacious argument. I work on many entertainment- and sports-related articles. Many contributors feel this is a waste of time, going on to iterate that this is a serious project and, hence, Pokémon characters shouldn't have articles or that major sporting events shouldn't be listed alongside "serious" current events because entertainment is of "no consequence." This is a stupid, stupid argument. Of course, entertainment is important. If it wasn't, movies wouldn't earn billions of dollars worldwide and sporting events wouldn't attract millions of people worldwide. Technically, using an importance argument, most events won't stand the test of time. Will anyone care about some small nation's elections in thirty years? Fifty? Two-hundred? Nothing is important, but at the same time, everything is important. We're chronicling it all so that future people will know what is happening in the world now. So, if millions of people do something collectively to be entertained, that is important.
