User:SL93/Wikipedia philosophy

Wikipedia editors can be a mean bunch of people and admins are no better. I have enough experience to be considered an experienced editor, but I still loathe discussions with admins that I have never conversed with before. An admin may seem like a good person from their user page and may seem like a good person at the beginning of a discussion, but then things can easily turn ugly. I only became an established editor because I was thrown into tough situations by mean spirited editors. I had the account Schuym1 that I left because the abuse was so bad. An admin even said that I had coprophilia because I created an article that had to do wiith a book about feces. I created the article only because it was notable and had no article. The admin never apologized or acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

Whenever editors broke the WP:CIVIL policy by insulting me and/or cussing at me, I was told in ANI by admins that I was over-reacting. The username of my current account was Joe Chill as in the minor Batman villain Joe Chill that killed his parents. The admins went so far as to make jokes about me when they thought that I was over-reacting which had to do with variations of saying "Chill out, Joe". The editors who insulted/cussed at me as well as the admins never apologized or acknowledged that what they did was wrong.

So many Wikipedia editors are full of themselves and the greatness of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great, but not as great of a project that it is made out to be. Editors act like Wikipedia is the most if not one of the most important sources of human knowledge. These editors need to understand that Wikipedia shutting down is not a big deal. Wikipedia itself is just an online collection of content already available online and offline. The content is still there and people would usually only need to do a little bit more research to find what information they want. It is good for editors to build up their experience on Wikipedia, but that experience is so trivial in relation to things that are truly important.

Featured articles are great as a collection of information that can be found elsewhere, but that is all a featured article or any other article is. Paraphrasing sources correctly is not creating new content. The work of editors is not trivial, but it would be more impressive if it was their original research. Original research is always not allowed. If someone who is considered an expert in their field of expertise decided to add content to an article in that field that isn't sourced, how can we say that is wrong? Why should an expert be expected to search for sources? Why would an expert even feel the need to search for sources?

It is my belief that people should not donate to Wikimedia. The organization receives plenty of money from other sources to keep the projects running. It has been reported that Wikimedia makes far more money than they need in each donation drive. If I wanted to donate, I would donate to a cause that is actually important in the grand scheme of things. That would include cancer research and aid to soldiers which could be soldiers from any country as far as I'm concerned.