Wikipedia Editing Frustrations

Wikipedia should have a "controversial" warning for heavy editing

Wikipedia can and does vaporize edits.

A Wikipedia article, edited or altered!? Say it isn't so.

Wikipedia's notability requirements are enforced very haphazardly. Broadly, editors and admins can be split into two camps: inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything. The life of your new article entirely depends on who happens to stumble upon it.I've had success appealing notability deletions in the past, but it was a pain in the ass, especially after I just spent hours researching, sourcing, writing, referencing, and proofing the arti

Nope. Been burned by Wikipedia editors being territorial and deletionist way too many times.

The wikipedia edit was not an accident.

You might feel that way, and certainly there are others who take issue with the general tone of Wikipedia. My advice is simple: try to fix it if you think it's a problem. Wikipedia is generally democratic, but not entirely. it's not majority rules. Come up with convincing arguments and get yourself taken seriously.

I remember reading a wikipedia article that was really one sided and sounded like it was written by a total fanboy/fangirl of a thing.I tried to change a part in the introduction, to remove unsubstantiated claims, and my changes were immediately reverted. I tried making a different change, again an immediate revert.Then I looked at the history, and I saw that my changes weren't the only ones being reverted. Apparently one user watched the page and immediately reverted all changes

maybe they just don't like you, I've had no problems with wikipedia. contributed many pages (mostly on art)

Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...Re: "Has it become that bad?&qu