User:A Fellow Editor/sandbox/historical essay

Wikilawyering is the norm, not the exception.

'Ignore all rules' and it's associated links has become a joke. Any attempts to bring up 'context' is generally met with a hail of guidelines —often glibly linked via edit summaries. Trying to address qualifiers and exceptions —relevant to a specific context— is generally ignored and met with more pettifog.

It might actually be more respectful (if not ultimately nicer) to let noobs know 'up front' that they have entered into a brutally litigious environment. To address the de facto culture rather than misleading with stated ideals of the past. Would save many from some harsh disillusionment and rude surprises.

Vicious petty geek squabble appears to be, sadly, the accepted norm now on English Wikipedia rather than simply a disappointing exception.

The activities, venues, and talk pages associated with admins seem to have an inherent built in 'canvassing' element to them. Something denied to the general population.

Hmm, I'm grasping at straws a bit for words on this... what I think I'm getting at is that I've a growing feeling (intuition?) and suspicion that this wiki's culture has become strongly divided along class lines as well. "Some pigs are more equal than others". Likely such has been enhanced by systemic structural elements and by prominent members setting examples in action and tone. Average editors aren't allowed to organize a response to organized management. Casual discussion is discouraged on article talk pages, the very venue in which one (who focuses on editing rather than politics) is likely to meet new people.