The problem as I see it with Wikipedia is that the very same complaints editors have about the "superpowers" of the foundation can be said of these supposed representatives of the community. Who as editors have become powerful judges who exercise their own form of "superpower". As I view it, Wikipedia as an organization is a structural mess. What it appears to be is all the bad aspects of a republic, where those chosen to govern have their own self interest in mind and the fact that as community representatives they cannot fairly govern and represent all the different views and opinions of the community equally. The problem here is that the foundation doesn't oversee the governing of the community. If it had, there would be fewer problems and there would be someone responsible to get the volunteer editors to judge fairly.
From my own experience with dealing with these editors is that their policies are applied on an individual editor preference. My proof are the external linked educational and well researched Google Maps of historic and scientific events I have attempted to place on Wikipedia which were rejected by some editors and approved by others. I have had as many rejected as were accepted, and I have over 30 external linked Google Maps currently on Wikipedia. Google Maps of plate tectonics, thermohaline circulation, geology, the American Revolution, the Amistad revolt, solar energy plants, etc. So why were the others Google Maps like Lewis and Clark's Expedition and Darwin's Second Voyage of the Beagle rejected as spam?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
