Wikipedia is no longer a scrappy little community of people who like writing essays. It's a walled garden of information and the only way to moderate is with an iron fist.
Wikipedia is no longer a scrappy little community of people who like writing essays. It's a walled garden of information and the only way to moderate is with an iron fist.
Have you considered, for instance, the possibility that relaxing the moderation (and -- yes -- allowing some real abusers to slip through the cracks) but dealing humanely with those who the admins can interact with would be better for Wikipedia on the whole? (Probably not.)
That Wikipedia has fewer volunteer editors does not in itself indicate a decline in quality. Maybe all the people that left were shitty editors.
That you disagree with the way they handle enforcement of the rules you broke is not evidence of a deficient system, only that you don't like it.
I have my own misgivings about wikipedia, but the post linked here doesn't mention any of them.