As I'm sure many of you have surmised, there is something going on behind the scenes to which most editors of Wikipedia are not privy. My purpose here today is to expose it. In doing so, you may be tempted to minimize the problem by vilifying David Gerard or Carbonite, but their actions are only part of the surface manifestation, and penalizing them will only accentuate the dilemma. Finding fall-guys to punish will not fix the problem because the underlying problem is the system of punishment.

Systems of punishment
On Jpgordon's talk page, we see Carbonite punish the administrator with a forced "time out." In response, Jpgordon leaves a message on Carbonite's talk page saying, "Good call." Jpgordon's subservience to the system of punishment is directly evident in this example. Methods of indirectly empowering systems of punishment also exist.

We can disagree with Carbonite's methods while enabling them at the same time by acknowledging Carbonite's ability to control our will. But, does Carbonite have the innate ability to control our will, or do we grant him that power? Obviously, Carbonite cannot coerce us without our agreeing to allow him that authority. Our mind is our own, and our will is based purely on the systems we acknowledge.

When we buy into a system of punishment, as many of us have at Wikipedia, we are purchasing the whole package. It come complete with vandals, disrespect, flame wars, and content ultimately controlled by a very few individuals with little or no prescriptive editing experience.

Prescription
Language requires prescription. This is evident with a little thought-experiment involving two extremes. If you could only communicate with words that remained the same indefinitely after they are coined, communication would be entirely possible. However, in the opposite extreme, where official definitions instantly amended whatever meaning every disparate context assumed, propaganda and "misuse" would soon render that language ineffectual.

Within the intended construct of Wikipedia, we don't have to understand how strong singular definitions empower a civilization. The Darwinism of thousands of disparate editors and competing ideas will naturally lead to a prescriptive definition. In areas of Wikipedia where we don't have top-down control of content, this is exactly what happens. Unfortunately, systems of punishment have become the rule at Wikipedia instead of the exception. Our love for this project creates expectations for its potential, but the fear of not reaching these expectations allows others to control us, closes our eyes to corruption and content control, and ultimately destroys the thing we love.  

More after I take a few more runs.