I once saw a great example when a notable athlete was traded from one team to another... I think it was a famous basketball player, but can't remember who. On a whim I checked the article history page and saw the same pattern: a new user to Wikipedia would make the edit, and it was quickly reverted by one established editor.
When I looked at the talk page, the WP editor made it clear that it was Official Wikipedia Policy that even though both clubs had announced the trade, and news was being carried on multiple outlets, the trade wasn't official enough until the NBA released a daily transfer list with his name on it. All five new editors were threatened with WP:3RR and WP:yaddayadda instead of encouraged. But hey, when the list was officially released twenty-five minutes later the editor who got the page locked got to make the edit. Great job guys! Way to add value to the project!
This same behavior happens on every site where authority is meted out based on activity, not ability. I once tried to correct an elisp entry on a Stack Overflow answer: my edit was autorejected because it had less than five characters difference. So I added a fairly pointless comment to get past the automatic rejection, only to have someone reject it because the comment wasn't sufficiently useful (go figure). I was finally able to get someone to make a correction by going into the Stack Overflow chat and trying to explain things... except the user, who freely admitted to never using emacs before, messed up and made things worse. Whatever. My give-a-fucks were all out. It's probably still wrong!