Toast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
I used to be a fairly prolific editor at Wikipedia, but I quit just before applying for adminship. I got tired of finding myself constantly entangled in idiotic religious, political and nationalistic conflicts. If you want quality over there, stick to articles on botany and linguistics. Try editing anything connected to Islam, Israel or any other touchy political subject, and you're in for months of arguing, committees, subcommittees, heated IMs and emails, tracking down the IP addresses of assholes and contacting their ISPs, all this with usually zero reaction from Jimbo Wales. The Muhammad article may be locked for editing for a while but it'll soon be the same shit again. And again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Wikipedia: great idea, awful management. To be taken with a truckload of salt.
They can, but usually only in the language vs dialect debate, or other more politically than linguistically relevant issues such as "how many Brussels residents speak Dutch". On Wikipedia, Israel/Palestine is a no-go territory, but I've never run into any problems when editing articles on Hebrew or Arabic, for example.
And it pisses me off that people with actual credentials in their fields of interest (like me ) don't have any more weight in discussions than users who can't tell their ass from their elbow but who gladly chime in on subject they know nothing about. There is also a lot of abuse of admin privileges. If you're right but a dozen users uninterested in the subject say you're wrong, and an admin counts up the votes, then you have to put up with bullshit being published. I brought this matter to Wales' attention but his standard reply is that the system works as is, and that for every editor who quits there are 10 who join.