All communities require skill of an user who wish to make a new contribution.
Suggest an article to hacker news. If the title does not pass spell check, is inconsistent, or is of unreasonable length, it will be rejected by the community. An title out of "style" will not be as successful as one in style with the community.
Suggest a patch to an open source project. If the code is not bug free, documented, and readable, it will be rejected.
Report a software bug. Writing a bug report that will be taken serious is almost an art.
Suggest a answer/question to stackexhange board. If the text is not readable, spam free, or on topic, it will be rejected.
Each community has a unique set of requirements for new contributions. It often takes different skill sets to successful contribute in a meaningful way. Most if not all communities suggest new users to first read and observe before making new contribution. Many forums makes this specific point in FAQ's and user guides.
Wikipedia's requirement on new article is harsh, but I would still put them as less harsh than adding a patch to a open source program or writing a bug report.
Maybe communities like to think of themselves that way, and if it were really just based on "skill" that would be less of an issue. But in reality these things are more often based on who you know. In most open source projects, no matter how good my patch (or bug report) is, if I'm not friends with a maintainer it will be ignored or rejected. Same for Wikipedia. The quality and skill of the actual contribution is practically irrelevant, it's mainly about the pissing matches with other "editors": if you have time to babysit the page and undo reverts, and then navigate their hierarchy and appease the right people before you get banned. Most people won't bother: they will add some information they know, see it get reverted, and never try again.
What page did you edit, land in a pissing match with an editor, babysit reverts on, and then end up getting banned for working on?
In fact, to make it simpler: what page did you edit on Wikipedia in which any of these things happened? The nice thing about Wikipedia strife is that it's all archived, so let's talk about specifics.
Suggest an article to hacker news. If the title does not pass spell check, is inconsistent, or is of unreasonable length, it will be rejected by the community. An title out of "style" will not be as successful as one in style with the community.
Suggest a patch to an open source project. If the code is not bug free, documented, and readable, it will be rejected.
Report a software bug. Writing a bug report that will be taken serious is almost an art.
Suggest a answer/question to stackexhange board. If the text is not readable, spam free, or on topic, it will be rejected.
Each community has a unique set of requirements for new contributions. It often takes different skill sets to successful contribute in a meaningful way. Most if not all communities suggest new users to first read and observe before making new contribution. Many forums makes this specific point in FAQ's and user guides.
Wikipedia's requirement on new article is harsh, but I would still put them as less harsh than adding a patch to a open source program or writing a bug report.