Next 3.5 years if we are lucky.

AI in this form has been used for like 15 years, to generate trillions of dollars worth of value Suuuuuuuuuuure it has....

It's more expensive, true: £76. Not if you order 50 or more!

So you're not going to address your fake ass numbers that are total bullshit?

[image: b875af36-bb62-437c-8a9e-2cb390bcea47.jpeg]

The short answer is that I really, really suggest you try other things before trying to create your first article. This isn't just me; every experienced editor will tell you that creating a new article is one of the hardest things any editor can do, let alone a newer one. It's why the task center lists it as being appropriate for "advanced editors". Finding an existing article which interests you and then polishing and expanding it is almost always more rewarding, more useful, easier, and less stressful than creating an article from scratch. And if creating articles sounds appealing, expanding existing stub articles is great experience for that. The long answer is "you can", but it's really hard: New editors are subject to Articles for Creation, or AfC, when creating an article. The article sits in a draft state until the editor flags it for review. The backlog is very long, and while reviewers can go in any order they want, they usually prioritize the oldest articles out of fairness and because most AfC submissions are about equal in urgency and time consumption. "Months" is the expected waiting time. If you're not using the English Wikipedia, you can try translating over a well-established article from English. There's no rule that says sources have to be in the language of the Wikipedia they're on, although it's still considered a big plus if sources are in the same language. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are predicated on you understanding other policies and guidelines like "reliable sources" and "independent sources". They're also intentionally fuzzy so people don't play lawyer and follow the exact letter without considering the spirit of the guideline. The English Wikipedia currently has over 7 million articles. There are still a lot of missing articles (mostly in taxonomy, where notability is almost guaranteed), but you really need to know where to look. When choosing an article subject, it's extremely important to avoid COI. Assuming you have a subject you think meets criteria, now you have to go out and find reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject to confirm your hypothesis. Now you need to start the article, and you need to do this in a manner which: Is verifiable (all claims are cited) Is not original research (i.e. nothing you say can be based on "because I know it") Is reliable (all citations are to reliable sources) Is neutral (you've minimized bias as much as you can, let the sources speak for themselves, and made sure your source selection isn't biased) Is stylistically correct (there's a manual of style, but just use your best judgment, and small mistakes can be copy-edited out by people familiar with style guidelines) If the article is nominated for deletion, you have to keep your cool and argue based solely on guidelines (not on perceived importance of the subject) that the article should be kept. New articles are almost always given more scrutiny than articles which have been around; this isn't a cultural problem as much as it is a heuristic one. An article deleted feels much more personal than edits reverted (despite the fact that subject notability is 100% out of your control). Some of these apply to normal editing too, but working within an article others have worked on and might be willing to help with is vastly easier than building one from scratch. If you want specific help in picking out, say, an article to try editing and are on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem acting like bowling bumpers if you're afraid your edits won't meet standards.

What a treasonist piece of shit.

I gotta admit, I’d love to see what their lobbying could accomplish.