Peace be with you.
I started contributing to Wikipedia in the hopes of furthering what is sometimes overlooked and easily defeated by opinion rather than being accepted as fact.
We have a grand opportunity at-hand to mainstream what has been marginalized, to clarify what has been arrogantly called false and to reveal what has been missing from the public consciousness, namely the spiritual development of mankind.
It is exciting the thought of assisting to shape a more honest and brighter world using this medium, but it isn't without its challenges.
A bit of critique regarding Wikipedia:
- It would be very advantageous that real names to real people were needed as a qualification to use Wikipedia so accountability can be honored and measured; it is quite frustrating having to continually revert edits from anonymous vandals and battling over perspectives instead of including various sides objectively.
- The manner information is shared through this medium sometimes favors ignorance and narrows the vision of open-sourced knowledge, with biases trumping honest references and limiting a broader approach.
- When editors call for consensus, realize that popular agreement isn't a litmus test for the truth or unbiased objectivity; it is difficult arguing with people's cognition when it is challenging for all people to see beyond personal, social, cultural or religious indoctrination ( what all of mankind suffers from ) in applying critical thinking and research.
- Calling for consensus and treating it like voting, while not calling it 'voting' is disingenuous and hypocritical; any given wiki entry can be deleted or edited according to myopic public opinion, rather than forwarding the pursuit of reason and explorative article development.
These issues can be quite frustrating and discouraging to new editors or those who desire not to pursue the Wikipedia project beyond simply contributing their personal experience and knowledge.