 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
The original author of this piece is Malleus Fatuorum. See his talk page or an archival thereof
I have modified it into both a neat little userbox and the more expansive the form below:
|
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt; and there's little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things. Instead, some editors are concerned only with the status they acquire by climbing up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are done here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the bureaucratic children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse for my behavior (something they'll then use as a reason to reprimand me, as my block log amply demonstrates. |
My addendum: Though Malleus might seem biased, his block log speaks to clear malfeasance on the part of some administrators. A: You shouldn't block people for arguing with you, ever. Ask another admin if you think it's such a big deal. B: The blocks were often reversed within hours or minutes by other admins.
Now, obviously, that's just one power-abuse issue. But Wikipedia is far more than that. It is far better than the some of its admins, and far worse (or at least more stupidly bureaucratic) than its open source and liberal ethos (character) might imply.