you or Jason Scott :
"Wikipedia is not, and never will be, an accurate encyclopedia. "
I agree , but that is not the point...
See, none of the contributions I've made to some articles over the years has been reverted. Sure, they've changed, others have added things , some has been rephrased, but this is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is like a living encyclopedia, its almost real-time. When you accept that, you can start contributing wihout worrying for anything else. If what you add to it is good, it will be kept, one way or another.
Wikipedia is akin to natural selection. Only the best will survive. And about the *realtime* *right now* nature of Wikipedia : Sure, you can read about all the species that ever existed on this earth in any good natural history book. But if what you need is a correct representation of the species alive today, right now, go to a zoo or take a walk outside. You'll get what's on earth TODAY. See. Wikipedia is not an history book, but is representing all about what is true right now. So it IS a zoo :) Pun intended.
Seriously, some specific subject must certainly be the stage for ego wars , but what you describe here seem like its Wiklipedia as viewed by an obsessive compulsive. I agree that it would look like a nightmare.
Oh, and you can cite me. thank you :)