I had been a Wikipedia administrator in a similar timeframe (--2007), albeit in a different language edition. While some items show the "community" norm that is not necessarily backed by concrete evidences (that's why some got annoyed by the first statement), the entire list is generally an excellent description for any kind of community moderation and matches my personal experience. The problem here is, of course, that most people is not an administrator and it would be difficult to justify the very difficulty of moderation to them. And it cannot be eliminated at all; I've seen the namuwiki, the biggest Korean encyclopedic wiki [1] besides from Wikipedia, falling into this trap and turning itself into a slew of toxic contents.

I had been long against a single big wiki model like Wikipedia. It unbelievably works, and it seems that it will thrive even with the insurmountable amount of cracks, but we need alternatives (plural)---fully accountable, easy-to-fork and community-free. And we don't yet have a single alternative taking off (for example I really wanted Infinithree/Thunkpedia to thrive [2]). Every time I ponder about this, I come back to the circle and find myself searching for the Shii's great piece [3]. I don't exactly agree to the suggestion to simply make a personal "wiki", for the lack of forking mechanism, but the entire essay is still surpringly true, and possibly the only viable alternative to Wikipedia because it clearly lacks the community. I'm still waiting for others.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namuwiki (I reluctantly describe it as encyclopedic, but it only became encyclopedic after it became popular and has tons of issues as a true encyclopedia.)

[2] http://en.thunkpedia.org/ (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597881)

[3] http://shii.bibanon.org/shii.org/knows/Shii%27s_Solution_to_...