As such, folks will contribute however they see fit, and we accept these contributions as long as they can reasonably be construed as being helpful, or at least not harmful. To support the goals of being a volunteer built encyclopedia, we've developed the five pillars and many, many policies / guidelines / protocols / essays. Many of these are descriptive, documenting after the fact trends and protocols that have evolved over time. As such, there's often a lag between current practice and what's documented; to truly grok Wikipedia requires time and observation.

The term community is often used to describe the volunteer work force -- it's a bit of a misnomer because Wikipedia is so large no editor participates everywhere and certainly not all the time. This results in wide variation in how individual situations are handled; editors who expect consistent uniformity will be frequently frustrated, whereas those that are flexible and tolerant will find the place more to their liking.

What this means for the individual editor is that you can do your own thing and your efforts and passions will be at least tolerated, at best appreciated, as long as you don't interfere with others doing their thing. It's also vitally important to understand that "being right" isn't as important as it might seem. (See verifiability for the reasoning behind that.) At the end of the day, consensus is paramount, which means politics. This is not a negative; politics is how humans moved beyond beating each other with clubs to come to agreement.

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
— Blaise Pascal

• Be concise. Wikipedians are, in large, by nature friendly and collaborative folk. Their tendency will be to read in good faith what you write. If you consistently write overly long contributions, saying in one hundred words what could have been said in 20, consideration turns to annoyance. Failing to take time to write as succinctly as you can is trading your time for theirs, it's just kinda rude. If you're consistently being told tl;dr it's time to tighten up the prose.
• One and done If you going to present a viewpoint, try to do it just once and address the reasonable aspects of the issue. Avoid the tendency to reply to every statement that disagrees with yours; someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't understand what you said the first time and you need to repeat it for them. Did! - Did not! - Did too! exchanges are tiresome and add nothing to the discussion. Obviously if a new point or aspect is brought, then it's appropriate to address it.

For when the One Great Scorer comes. To write against your name, He marks-not that you won or lost- But how you played the game.
— Grantland Rice

• Fight hard, fight fair, lose gracefully Doing what you think is right, arguing constructively will be respected. Attacking others and continuing when it becomes clear the consensus is going against your position won't be.
• Don't go to the well too often. Behavior that may be overlooked once or twice or ten times can suddenly result in editors being shown the door. Don't assume that because no action was taken the first time editors complained about something, the behavior is acceptable or will be tolerated indefinitely.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!
— Barry Goldwater

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
— Chicken Little

• Extremism in defense of Wikipedia is a vice. Over the top rhetoric distracts from the actual issue you're trying to address, and becomes tiresome over time.
• Beware false dichotomies. Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. Some conflict situations can be win-win -- both editors have good intentions and sound policy arguments. An editor expressing support for one position isn't necessarily disparaging the other. Some conflict situations are lose-lose; stating that one editor isn't acting reasonably isn't necessarily affirming or excusing the other.