Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at. - Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing articles. - Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders. - Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
- Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they have sold. - Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing groundwork. - Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who has left the movement. - Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon, Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been a Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even small groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged down in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many editors only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a clubroom and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove is too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who tend to write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33