[denton-scratch]

> Some articles require pretty strict criteria to edit

500 edits and a 30-day history are not "pretty strict" - it's the minimum evidence that you have a basic knowledge of the rules. Protected articles are articles that tend to attract wingnuts and agenda-pushers.

I keep on coming across editors with a history of (say) 50 minor edits, 100% of which have been quickly reverted for being nonsense or worse. It's a blessing that such editors can't alter high-profile sesitive articles.

[palmfacehn]

From an outside perspective these things make Wikipedia editing look more like a game. It is similar to other online communities where points are earned. Profile pages full of merit badges and bureaucratic roles speak for themselves. Sign in to create a character. Level up to unlock achievements. Cast spells by citing rare editorial policy scrolls.

If players enjoy their game, that's fine. However it should be understandable when others don't want to invest in a Wikipedia lifetime achievement award. Malign incentives for paid editing scams occur where the online game overlaps with people's lives and businesses.

[denton-scratch]

I agree with your complaint about merit badges; I think they signify nothing more than that you have allies among Wikipedia editors. Since editing Wikipedia should be non-partisan, advertising that you have allies suggests that you're a suspect editor.

But I've been editing WP since about 2004. I have no merit badges, and no admin privileges. I have no allies. I just want to improve the encyclopaedia.

[palmfacehn]

There are some good editors on WP. I've even been lucky enough to encounter a few. In most cases you wouldn't know they are there, because they don't engage in high visibility problematic behavior.