[JimmyM]

That's true, but on Wikipedia they do.

Especially for cases like that - if someone has more 'sway' on Wikipedia than you, they can (and will often) just say something like "Thanks for the source - I'll verify and if it says what you think it says, I'll add it in to the article." Then do nothing, ever again. In fact, unreliable citations, or citations that don't actually say what the citer thinks they say, that can be easily checked online are far more acceptable on Wikipedia than citing a book.

Inertia like this leaves useless pages like "Oplomachi" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplomachi) live way after they should have been merged, as well as leading to the deletion of useful pages/sections/references.

The major articles, which are more likely to get attention, tend to be less dysfunctional than niche interests. That said, there are of course far more articles relating to niche interests than there are major articles.

[jacobolus]

It’s not about someone having more “sway”. It’s about someone having more free time to waste on an edit war.

[Nomentatus]

Oh, believe me, there is sway - there is a hidden hierarchy. If you think you are equal in an edit war, and only need to be persistent, you're wrong. Can you lock an article or part of one?

[mirimir]

So is there a Glassdoor equivalent for Wikipedia editors?