I have, and it’s not. (I steer clear of politics.) I have been involved in pointless edit wars, but that’s just human nature: give them a comment thread and they’ll argue to death (plenty of case studies on this site, the older wikis where people essentially talk to/past each other on the same page were like that as well), give them a text box they can all edit and they’ll fight to death. “Federated” wiki isn’t going to solve shit in that regard.

If you think “fediverse” isn’t “toxic” when it comes to controversial issues, you haven’t really checked it out.

I've edited on Wikipedia for several years and everyone I've interacted with has been nothing more than helpful. Sure, they don't shy away from pointing out the flaws in something I wrote. But I appreciate that level of honesty and transparency. Could you share what area you've experienced editing in that caused you to have this viewpoint?

I think they're referring to AN/I interactions, more than content in articles. ANI is the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents page, where people come to complain about more or less urgent problems they have with other users' behavior.

It's a lot of interpersonal conflict, so it has a bit of a reputation (redirects to WP:ANI include gems like "Wikipedia:CESSPOOL" and "Wikipedia:Dramaboard")

Specifically, it was a now-banned editor called BrownHairedGirl caused me to be permanently banned. The community is extraordinarily toxic and her supporters were unbelievable toxic.

I don't care. As a consumer, I don't care how they do it, what I care is they have an infinite amount of high quality information.

These things are not unrelated.

If the editing being toxic and the quality to the end user being great are not unrelated, then I want the editing to be toxic.

Yes. They only encourage me more and more to create sockpuppets. I already have a dynamic IP.