When I upgraded from an old Mac iBook to a MacBook Pro, I mistyped the username in the Migration Assistant application. Without really thinking it through, I deleted that new user account in my new MacBook, which left thousands of orphaned files on my new machine. A few minutes of Google searching provided a single command which changed the ownership of every file owned by the deleted user over to the correct owner. Problem solved in 15 minutes. I wouldn't even want to think about how to fix a problem like that through a GUI.

John Maynard Keynes commented on speculators, back in 1936, after speculation wrecked the economy in the previous Great Depression.

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes a bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done."

Basically, when speculation takes place as a part of normal economic activity (such as purchasing contracts for fuel or commodities at a fixed price in order to plan your future business spending) it's part of the general flow of the economy, and does no more harm than bubbles on a stream. But when speculation becomes a business itself, the entire economy can get sucked down the whirlpool. The most recent economic boom definitely seems to have been casino-based.

The Admins are definitely a problem. There needs to be some kind Admin Review process, or a time limit on their terms as Admins. In my experience, it's possible for a small group of editors and Admins to effectively push a point of view.

I edited a statement in an article, pertaining to the historical beliefs of a religious organization, in order to bring it inline with what is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists in the field. I soon found my edits getting reverted by a group of editors and Admins, all with profiles mentioning an affiliation with the religion in the article. They would use the rules of Wikipedia, and insist on verifiable citations of every basic fact, while at the same time, providing no evidence for their POV other than their religious texts. I found myself arguing on the side of science, trying to verify statements which no scientist disputes (essentially trying to prove a negative), while the other side argued their interpretation of evidence, citing religious scripture and folklore. The problem with Wikipedia can be summed up by this quote from one of those editors:

"differing views should be presented and not just eliminated because one thinks they are not true. The truth doesn't matter - what matters is the verifiability."

I eventually gave up any effort to work on these articles. Two weaknesses of the Wikipedia model were clear: Any statement that can be found in print, whether it be a scientific journal article or a purely speculative interpretation of a verse from scripture, can be used to meet the standard of Verifiability; and, a small group of editors who manage to get a few members of their ranks promoted to Admins can effectively keep a point of view in place across a range of articles.

It was the bookmark sync that led me to switch to Chrome. Firefox has Firefox Sync, which functioned perfectly for months after I first installed it. I was able to sync my passwords across my 3 machines, and sync bookmarks on my personal machines while keeping a separate set of bookmarks at work. After an update, Firefox Sync developers removed the option to keep separate preferences on separate synced machines. You had to sync and merge everything on every machine you used.

Chrome's sync doesn't do everything I want, but I'm not spending time trying to repair or prevent an unwanted massive merge of my home and work bookmarks on a daily basis. I switched to Chrome after a few weeks of fighting Firefox Sync. Haven't regretted it yet.

Interesting. I have to say you have a very soylent point there.