In the many years I edited at Wikipedia, I tolerated:
- Editors with sociopathic personalities.
- Editors who crave power (often with little content-building desire or activity).
- Editors with no desire to learn, let alone respect, policy and guidelines.
- Editors who dominate others via a too-strict adherence to policy and guidelines.
- Wikipedia's inability to define, let alone apply "consensus".
- Wikipedia's unusual and inconsistent definition of "notable".
- The mysteries of Wikipedia's hierarchy (including communications not transparent to the community).
- The admin job-for-life culture.
- Spending most of the first hour of my day fighting vandalism.
- Software development not completely specified by the developers' customers: the editing community.
- Editors who believe that the aesthetic appeal of articles is more important than their content.
- Luddite editors who fight to the death to resist progressing Wikipedia from being a nineteenth-century textbook (especially when it comes to referencing).
- The degradation of article content mainly due to the poorly-worded additions of the uninformed.
- Inconsistencies across articles which are largely due to the bizarre "first major contributor wins" philosophy.
- The exodus of good editors.
I woke this morning with the certainty that I no longer want to tolerate these, and I can't envisage a reversal in Wikipedia's failure to deal with such issues.
Thank you to the editors whom I respect and with whom I've enjoyed working (you know who you are, so I wont risk omission via enumeration). Best wishes to you all, and I hope that you can continue the good work with strength which I no longer posses. In quiet moments there was joy in building content, however I now realise that it is only a matter of time before one or more of the above points further destroys that joy.
I wonder what's happening outside ...?