I have previously contributed to Wikipedia’s History of Chemistry article, and have since seen it taken over and re-written from everyone from scientific illiterates to people from cultures who had at least a notable chemistry tradition, but rarely did it delve into science; yet, they would plaster the history article with information that blew the contribution of their country out of proportion. Much of my writing is there, at least the tone and points of information is there.
But even if they deleted everything I wrote, I would still be happy if what remained was an improvement and was more scholarly. I am not the World’s Leading Authority on chemistry’s history, and my guess is, neither are the best contributors to this article. I just went to that article just now, and it looks well-referenced and not as flaky as before. But it has taught me that writing for Wikipedia is an invitation to flakiness and informational instability. If you like those sorts of challenges, then make an account for yourself on Wikipedia and begin writing.
Over the next little while, I have a desire to offer the world my writing of the history of chemistry, free of flakiness, as far as I can see it. I propose that it will be in a series of writings rather than one impossibly long article. Later, I will try to do the same for math.