Wikipedia is heavily biased towards petty zealotry. Zealots who spend the most time driving away competing editors, threatening them on their user pages, instareverting edits, recruiting other zealots and studying the arcane WP guideline structure & misrepresenting it... win.
It's not enough to have an NPOV viewpoint and fit in with WP policy. It's not even enough to be able to spend a lot of time justifying your edits. You also need to have enough people agreeing with you to get the zealots to back down. Mindjuicer ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I have proven that it is possible, with 1 or 2 other NPOV editors to move an article in that direction. But having been banned from such topics on the basis of 4 of the zealots' opinions, three of whom are probably socks, I have also proven you may not survive the process. ;) -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is heavily biased towards petty zealotry. Zealots who spend the most time driving away competing editors, threatening them on their user pages, instareverting edits, recruiting other zealots and studying the arcane WP guideline structure & misrepresenting it... win.
It's not enough to have an NPOV viewpoint and fit in with WP policy. It's not even enough to be able to spend a lot of time justifying your edits. You also need to have enough people agreeing with you to get the zealots to back down. Mindjuicer ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I have proven that it is possible, with 1 or 2 other NPOV editors to move an article in that direction. But having been banned from such topics on the basis of 4 of the zealots' opinions, three of whom are probably socks, I have also proven you may not survive the process. ;) -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)