Paraphrased and added to an old revision of WP:We aren't Citizendium:
- One side effect of Wikipedia's style of operation is that certain articles have fallen under the control of a specific author, or small group of authors, who are driven by a narrow viewpoint and who abuse the complex rules of the wiki to prevent outsiders from introducing needed changes to the article. Since their identity is unknown, they can operate in secret within the rules of the wiki, and, because they may be well-known in the community due to the fact that they are highly active, they become nearly impossible to defeat or override. This means that certain important topics are relatively biased and open debate can be suppresed unfairly. Watch out for these kind of people.
Draft of something I wrote a while ago:
- Let me ask you a question: Why do you choose to take time out of your day to edit a website that gives you nothing in return, a website, in fact, which is inclined to take more out of you that you put into it?
- Because you enjoy it.
- If I had a phrase for the totality of Wikipedia it would be: The anarchy of society condensed into something almost organically human, a website of little happiness and lots of pain that derives it powers not from its greatness but from its weakness. Or something like that. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. It is an experiment, an early Internet experiment, in fact, one of the greatest experiments of all time. Humans have created an entire encyclopedia based on "the innate need that all nerds have to correct others", as my friend affectionally put it. And as such, we aren't all that different. We may be Trump supporters or pineapple-on-pizza haters or vegans or lesbians or cat lovers or professional handball players. We may have two kids or no kids or be an only child or be one of thirteen or be old or young or skinny or fat or Chinese or English or Nigerian, but it doesn't matter. Our differences create an equilibrium, the same tentative equilibrium that defines all of Wikipedia. We are not looking to deliberately inflame, or to disrupt, though these things may happen. We are simply seeking to make others understand us, and a lot of non-verbal explanation is obscured in online discussion, which creates a lot of problems. Believe me, we aren't looking to shame or embarass or annoy, though we are all human and it happens. It happens and it isn't fun when it does. Yet, we come back, we return to the screen, again and again and again. Why? Why do we choose to take time out of our day to edit a website that gives us nothing in return? Why?
- Many Wikipedia editors edit to push a POV, whether through lawful means or not. Others see this as a forum in which casual, meaningful discussion can take place. Another group edit Wikipedia solely to benefit readers. The vast majority of editors fall into all three categories.
- There is one thing, however, that all Wikipedia editors acting in good faith have in common:
- We love the truth.
- The collective does not seek to destroy. The collective only seeks to create the best possible truth. Yes, the collective will be different in a week, a month, a day. But it will never be wrong, as long as good people continue to join in the effort, as long as we are able to understand that the 'truth' of Wikipedia might not be our own personal truth, or even the world's truth.
- When we edit, we believe that what we are doing will make the world a better place. When we discuss, we improve. We promote. We shout down. We deny. We accept. And the cycle continues. We do not shout down out of hatred, no. We shout down out of respect. We shout down because we love this place. And we realize that at the end of the day, doing what we want comes second to doing what the collective wants. It took me a while to realize that, but once I did, editing Wikipedia became less of an obligation on behalf of a certain group and more of a responsibility on behalf of all humanity. Once we have realized that, in the eyes of Wikipedia, we have achieved perfection.
Quote from IP 24.246.2.244 in this discussion:
- This entire discussion has been a slog. These visual overhaul discussions always are - people screaming into the void because that's the only way to restore useful features and/or to get their accessibility needs met, people screaming at the people screaming into the void because they don't want their similar gains lost, people glibly summing every argument up as some general sentiment about change that ought to be trampled over, and people ignoring everything everyone else says, all while we're at the mercy of the whims of distant decision-makers.