I have show dead enabled here. There is a shocking amount of irrational negativity in that thread, even for HN.

It is well-known that people radicalize when they are excluded from political process.

Wikipedia is notorious for excluding ordinary contributors from the process. Anybody can revert your change and that takes precedence over what you did, and there is no obvious appeal process for you, but de facto there is for the well-connected long-time editors. They can always gather some cavalry and run you over.

So they should probably do what Stack Overflow tried to do, and explicitly say that new users / infrequent contributors have to receive more care, that needs to be provided by veterans / frequent contributors, as well as provide mechanisms to do so.

Otherwise it is not a wikipedia that everyone can edit, rather a wikipedia written by a cabal who is also contains a large number of biased people, often getting direct or indirect funding from maintaining that bias.

StackOverflow also raises the bar for becoming a contributor. You can't start commenting until you have some upvotes on answers or questions for instance.

I think these things turn out to be a bit important.

StackOverflow simply discourages contribution. Which saves me time that I might otherwise spend submitting thoughtful answers on StackOverflow.

StackOverflow's priorities shown through this gating make little sense to me, and they spectacularly fail at communicating to new users what the norms of the site are, which is one big reason why so many people have a story of a bad experience of it.