Larry Sanger has the same diagnosis that i do I have more to offer in terms of how to solve the problem But not whilst being blocked by trolls and their pet admins for making the effort  Wikipedia has to its credit done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project   But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation let alone arbitration A few of the projects participants can be not to put a nice word on it pretty nasty And this is tolerated So for any person who can and wants to work politely with wellmeaning rational reasonably wellinformed peoplewhich is to say to be sure most people working on Wikipediathe constant fighting can be so offputting as to drive them away from the project This explains why I am gone it also explains why many others including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people have left the project   The root problem antielitism or lack of respect for expertise There is a deeper problemor I at least regard it as a problemwhich explains both of the aboveelaborated problems Namely as a community Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise As a community far from being elitist which would in this context mean excluding the unwashed masses it is antielitist which in this context means that expertise is not accorded any special respect and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated This is one of my failures a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedias first year but for which I did not muster adequate support was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts Those who were there will I hope remember that I tried very hard   I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died Ultimately it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the projectbeginning with Jimmy Wales who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimediawere decidedly antielitist in the abovedescribed sense   Consequently nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia because they willat least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversybe forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts This is not perhaps so bad in itself But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem he or she will be shouted down at worst or politely asked to work with persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable at best   This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia one that I think would not directly affect the way the main project is run But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation   This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project This is perhaps not obvious so let me explain To attact and retain the participation of experts there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedias mission or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge collectively probably the most disruptive group of all A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite welcoming and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent wellmeaning people on the Internet As it is there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project though there are some of course than there could and should be   It will probably be objected by some that since I am not  committed to the most radical sort of openness I do not understand why the project that I founded works it works I will be told precisely because it is radically openeven anarchical   I know of course that Wikipedia works because it is radically open I recognized that as soon as anyone indeed it was part of the original plan But I firmly disagree with the notion that that Wikipediafertilizing openness requires disrespect toward expertise The project can both prize and praise its most knowledgeable contributors and permit contribution by persons with no credentials whatsoever That in fact was my original conception of the project It is sad that the project did not go in that direction   One thing that Wikipedia could do now although I doubt that it is possible in the current atmosphere and with the current management is to adopt an official policy of respect of and deference to expertise Wikipedias key policies have not changed since I was associated with the project but if a policy of respect of and deference to expertise were adopted at that level and if it were enforced somehow perhaps the project would solve the problems described above   But dont hold your breath Unless there is the equivalent of a revolution in the ranks of Wikipedia the project will not adopt this sort of policy and make it a key policy or if it does the policy will probably be not be enforced I certainly do not expect Jimmy Wales to change his mind I have known him since  and he is a smart and thoughtful guy I am sure he has thought through his support of radical openness and his what I call antielitism I doubt he will change his mind about these things And unless he does change his mind the project itself will probably not change   It isnt the people per sey its the way  that they manage to interact the simple lack of Logic and the defensibility of ignorance in a vaccuum