One of my "crusades" is that Wikipedia really *is* a social network. The social aspect may not be emphasized as it is on Facebook and similar sites, but the fact is you can't do anything on Wikipedia without it being observed by others. (I note that over the years, the Wikipedia documentation has gradually eliminated the "Wikipedia is not a social network" guideline.)

Regarding your observation, it's interesting to point out that that guideline has gone from "Wikipedia is not a social network" to "Wikipedia is not a social networking service". Because, as you say, of course Wikipedia is a social network (but so is any other community of people interacting, even a boring workplace), and the purpose of that statement all along was that Wikipedia is not like Facebook. That part is still true: Wikipedia is mission-driven and social for the purpose of collaboration, and therefore consciously avoids many social features that are not regarded as furthering that goal. Even better than making the point that Wikipedia really is a social network might be to make a point of the fact that it is a *social encyclopedia*.

Based on experiments like the Wikipedia Teahouse, I think it's better to go into Wikipedia knowing it is a social space, and to be aware that anything you create or add won't be owned by you, but is going to be a collaboration. Regarding all the different editors not as adversaries (however terse their statements) but as teachers and collaborators shouldn't diminish one's enthusiasm for adding content, and should mitigate many of the problems people have by thinking of Wikipedia as a monolithic encyclopedia.

I would never advise a newbie to jump into a controversy, but observing passively how controversies develop and resolve themselves can be an instructive lesson.