[cxr]

Editing Wikipedia is not the same as developing software, and they're different enough for the distinction to matter. Wikipedia is not Nupedia, and the comparison in this comment between Wikipedia and open source software maintenance is simply flawed from the start.

Wikipedia explicitly does not have owners.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content>

The statement that "one must earn the right to discuss" alone has the minor problem that it is totally antithetical to the actual policies and guidelines that Wikipedia aims to adhere to.

[stoperaticless]

Wiki, open source projects, stackoverflow and democratic country, all are different, but they definitely have similarities.

Established old-timers have significantly more authority than newbies in any organisation.

Trust built over time matters.

[cxr]

> Wiki, open source projects, stackoverflow and democratic country, all are different, but they definitely have similarities.

A unicycle and a hula hoop have similarities.

As I said, the distinction matters. The argument by metaphor in your previous comment is off-base.

Feel free to address concretely what I wrote in my previous comment.

(Though I have doubts about the quality of any insights that might be offered; no one referring to Wikipedia as "Wiki" is informed enough about Wikipedia to be informative about it.)

[stoperaticless]

I think you want me to address the policy, that you linked to.

Well, the wiki’s policy is irrelevant. Or only 50% relevant.

I see that the policy tries to provide some “spirit of the law” and/or hints to avoid edit wars and such, but evidently many follow the policy only in letter and just know what not to mention, i.e. to not trigger the policy. (instead of rejecting edits with “I own this” or “I know this better”, edits get rejected with “citation needed”)

> As I said, the distinction matters.

I see you sincerely believe that it does, but I’m of different opinion.

People in any group form a hierarchy, and have (frequently unwritten) “traditions”. And those are features, not bugs.

Hierarchy is not necessarily strict or formal, but it helps with coordination.

“Tradition” is the actual way how things are done. “Tradition” can be changed by policies, it may even implement the policy to the letter, but it always encompasses more than the policy contains. Because it’s almost impossible and most undesirable to have policies for each breath we take.

> Feel free to address concretely what I wrote in my previous comment.

Somebody has older account then me here and is feeling authoritative I see. Thanks for good practical illustration.

[ErikBjare]

I thought "Wiki" was used to include other wikis.

If you dismiss peoples opinion ("quality of any insights") on the basis of their choice of words or abbreviations instead of the content, it becomes really hard to assume you're arguing in good faith.