Wikipedia is not wiki. Indeed it is not. It is not a wiki like usemod and Ward's wiki etc. It has ceased being egalitarian. The reason is: because it is an encyclopedia. It aims at being an encyclopedia, not just a collection of information for everyone to wade through without any moderation, guidelines, structure or policy.

A corrolary of this striving towards higher quality articles is the meritocracy that comes with it. Admins are awarded their adminship for various reasons, but people with a low edit count and no good article namespace work need not apply. Some people feel that one can only become an admin after coaching an article succesfully through the process obtaining featured status.

The present system of conflict resolution is officially egalitarian. If I protect an article I've been edit warring on, reverted four times and then unblocked myself, blocked an abusive troll that had been attacking me, I can expect an RFC and some nasty shouting at. Good thing too. It avoids abuse of power.

However, whenever admins seem to be favoured (or supportive of each other) in the conflict resolution process, there is tut-tutting, screaming of "tag teaming". There are meat puppets. There is a clique, a cabal, an underground right/left/chicken wing conspiracy to rule Wikipedia, etcetera.

Still, it's very simple. Wikipedia has become a meritocracy. Those with the patience to revert vandalism, explain NPOV to newbies, NOR to partisans, CITE to creative souls, conflict resolution and 3RR to edit warriors... they will be attacked but most of them seem to survive. Editcountitis. Yes. Deep jealousy of Olivier, SimonP, Bryan Derksen and the tangibly absent Derek Ramsey. Because in the end the main aim of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. Neutral. Verifiable. Referenced. Coming to a mirror near you.

Jfdwolff