I am FeralOink on Wikipedia, a rara avis female editor. The only incidents when I have been summarily reversed without due process have been on female sexuality articles, by other female Wikipedia editors.

Most Wikipedia editors, young and old, mean well. There is a strong thread of anti-intellectualism and disrespect for facts and authority… in some Wikipedias, not all. German, French and Norwegian Wikipedians are great. Russia Wikipedia seems good, well they try, not easy given circumstances. UK Wikipedia or Wikimedia seems something of a cesspool. In general, bad behavior is taught by example and reinforced by a small but influential few. Chided but initially well meaning contributors get bad attitudes from summarily doled out criticism and mistreatment. Rejection and lack of respect hurts, leads to disenfranchisement and cynicism, desire for revenge.

For me, editing Wikipedia is its own reward, as it reveals (often indirectly) the basis for trends and belief in current events, politics, culture, that I lack access to view, thus understand otherwise.

Prior comments by A Fork Is Mightier Than A Sword and sock Mmm said that there is a dearth of solutions to the Jimmy Wales governance model. That was in 2008. We now have big data 😉 Slightly seriously, I floated a suggestion recently. It was ignored, but my thoughts were of an editor-owned Wikipedia, with Jimmy Wales given a decent salary (maybe $500,000 per year) and appropriate title. He wouldn’t need to pander to Bono, Richard Branson etc. If he continued to give highly-compensated private speaking engagements or was otherwise unsatisfactory, we would fire him.

Again, thank you for your honesty and open mind, p2p Foundation.

Anyway, if you are interested in a change, think that in the discussion here somebody has already proposed the only two solutions to the problem.
As contributor, you can either become part of the core group of a project to be able to show what you think are the problems (effort that counts more then knowledge, the ignorant scholar that shut up a professor and so on), or, as Wird Krapht suggested, you can fork. I don’t see the need to rewrite it, is it open or not?

I agree about the value of the brand that may be too attractive for editors. The vast majority of them would not even consider to leave, at least at the beginning. In fact “project 1” would be more valuable than “project 2”, because it attracts more users and contributors.

However, project 2 has some advantages over project 1. Reputation of project 1 and of its core group are extremely low. Project 2 may be able to make the adjustments that project 1 desperatly needs and is not able to make because it’s stucked in the actual situation. Project 2 in this case may be able to construct a reputation that make its brand valuable.

If this story makes even a little sense to you, you agree that project 2 has reputation. project 2 has project 1 contents improved in what people believed were project 1 main problems, or at least some of them. For instance, more accurate scientific review. Are those factors sufficient to attract enough people in order to move on with affordable costs in terms of effort and time spent by its contributors? Maybe.

If Open can beat Closed, why shouldn’t Open beat Open?

Anyway, if you are interested in a change, think that in the discussion here somebody has already proposed the only two solutions to the problem.
As contributor, you can either become part of the core group of a project to be able to show what you think are the problems (effort that counts more then knowledge, the ignorant scholar that shut up a professor and so on), or, as Wird Krapht suggested, you can fork. I don’t see the need to rewrite it, is it open or not?

I agree about the value of the brand that may be to attractive for editors. The vast majority of them would not even consider to leave, at least at the begining. So “project 1” would be more valuable than “project 2”, because it attracts more users and contributors.

However, project 2 has some advantages over project 1. Reputation of project 1 and of its core group are extremely low. Project 2 may be able to make the adjustments that project 1 desperatly needs and is not able to make because it’s stucked in the actual situation. Project 2 in this case may be able to construct a reputation that make its brand valuable.

If this story makes even a little sense to you, you agree that project 2 has reputation. project 2 has project 1 contents improved in what people believed were project 1 main problems, or at least some of them. For instance, more accurate scientific review. Are those factors sufficient to attract enough people in order to move on with affordable costs in terms of effort and time spent by its contributors? Maybe.

If Open can beat Closed, why shouldn’t Open beat Open?