User:Elucidate/Essays/Passion within Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: a compendium of human knowledge, and easily accessed by anyone, regardless of their ideas, beliefs or feelings relating to any subject. It is also a wiki; that is, any person, regardless of their intentions or their knowledge, may edit this collection of information.

The problem with this, is that different people feel differently about similar things. When people edit this encyclopedia, they do not leave behind their prejudices, feelings or pre-conceived ideas. They bring them with. The problem here is that most things are essentially subjective; they are defined by the viewer. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, how can it be defined? Harder still, how may a group of editors with conflicting views on the self-same subject write a cohesive and understandable article when no one can even decide upon what the subject even is?

Anonymous editors who feel strongly about a particular topic may take the liberty of editing an article so as to express their own views better, or to present them in a better light. This can result in 'wheel-warring' and violation of the three-revert rule, as each editor strives to make their opinion heard. How is it that we are able to function as a community, when it seems that no one can ever truly agree with anyone else?

Just as passion is Wikipedia's downfall, so is it its redeeming quality. There are editors who dedicate their time and energy to the furtherance of this project, discarding their personal views 'for the greater good'. And can there truly be a higher goal to aim towards?