biggest problem? 

the only problem with all of this is that Wikipedia IS evil.
With all of the rules and all of the noise, what it still comes
down to is a mob of people doing whatever they want as a mob, against reason, against fairness, against logic, and against truth.
Theres no way to deal with abuse and no recourse for the abused. The place runs on ad hominems and pack psychology. It panders to the lowest common denominator, and in the end its articles are well neutered of any actual depth content or meaning. "Neutrality" as a buzzword is used to emascualte a topic so that it has no political
implications or consequences. The same standing is given to a pov warrior and a pet admin as is given to a knowledgable expert. Opinion rules here, not wisdom, and not even any real form of neutrality. Wikipedia IS factually evil. The question here, is how
to go about fixing that problem. Denial won't help.

Well, enough bothering with pearls and swine for today, my "contributions" file should speak for itself. I have been involved in 3 vfds since showing up, each one of which was run on ad hominems and straw man attacks. I have been blocked on trumped up charges by a pov warrior and his pet rogue admin. I have sought from every corner of Wikipedia some sort of actual problem solving process to adress patent abuses, all to no avail. Wikipedia is in fact evil, and it deserves to fail as an encylopedia unless it can
solve its problems. Unless wikipedia can figure out how to not be a mob groupthink social experiment where any idiot, fool, con artist,
or propagandist can assume equal footing with knowledge and fact,
Wikipedia is just a big fat doomed social experiment, which will die
because enough people will recognize that it is in fact evil, and go
do better and more important things with their time, like start A REAL online Encylopedia that includes logic and knowledge and truth and basic criteria for defining abuse and basic methodlogies for dealing with it.