Oh, and as a note, check the revert frequency on articles every now and then. WP said that reverts should not be done continually, yet they always are. This dilemma is escaladed by wiki hounds or wiki idiots just these two sects cause massive devastation to the wiki system. 

 The wiki hound will continually revert, ignoring any revisions even if they are appropriate. In some cases, the wiki hound will claim that since a single part of a large-scale edit is incorrect, the entire edit is incorrect. 

 The wiki idiot probably should be considered a vandal, but wikipedia makes it clear… vandals are people who ‘clearly’ vandalize articles. This person adds in info that is structured well enough to stay but often has little to anything to do with the article. Or randomly removes info on the basis that ‘it isn’t wiki quality’ (once again, against WP, you WORK with the info, unless it is bubcus) or other equally idiotic (but not vandalistic) edits.  

 I am not dismissing my behavior, I am merely saying that when searching for ‘vandalism’ you should be looking closer to home.  

 Rant: 
 I hate mergers, I mean, what is more idiotic then a person who takes two dissimilar articles, finds a point of commonality, puts up the ‘it has been suggested this article be merged to’ then ignores the votes and merges anyways? Idiots. Defiantly have never actually USED wikipedia because anyone can tell you that if you are looking up “sub routines” you don’t want to find a small paragraph smashed into “methods” (they are fundamentally two entirely different processes) (and that was a merge request from a long time ago… haven’t “re” checked). 

 I mean look at some of these articles. Like ‘The King and I’, it has a horrible synopsis, in fact, the person who wrote it clearly did not understand what the film was about. I started editing it once, and then got very frustrated at the number of changes I was going to have to do and posted a half rant on the main article (more of a disclaimer of the synopsis being highly inaccurate). Well, looking over the history, it appears they reverted it instead of removing the text. I mean you DO have a ‘what is changed’ screen, if you can’t even read all the changes then you shouldn’t be reverting them. 

 Add on to the fact, that many wikipedians are website noobs (or wiki noob). Like that childhood website you made plastered with your pictures, crazy fonts, wacky background, so are many wikipedians, the reason they edit articles is a way of expressing themselves. Now this can be good, and it can be bad, First-person_shooter is an example of the bad. This clearly SEVERLY violates WP: NPOV (and do not deny it) everyone repeatedly changes the page to suit ‘their’ version of what they want… The entire thing also is a merge fest, in fact, I would nominate it for deletion if I didn’t know the idiots maintaining the thing would just remove it no questions asked. 

 Or take ‘list of * that breaks the fourth wall’ I know that a large majority of those aren’t even true metareferences, as for there to actually be a metareference, the characters have to acknowledge their non-existence, or refer outside of their realm of existence. If you actually look at it, the ‘example’ on the metareference page involving Dionsyus and Xanthias, that isn’t metareference as they merly incorporated the exterior world in to their world. In this scene, the audience is not an audience, but the “perjured folk” of which Dionsyus spoke. 

 All in all, wikipedia is a failing concept, because they put faith in the wrong people. (And allow them to keep that power. I mean, wiki hounding is bad for wikipedia… it means that people will come to wikipedia, edit a few articles to the best of their intents, and… that’s it. Look at it from an buisness standpoint. You wouldn’t hire an aging employee to partially finish a project, and keep him around to bother all the new ones. If he isn’t doing anything, his power should be demoted. The way wikipedia works, however, is to grant greater power to it’s established, but idle, memebers…)