On wikipedia, people write the initial articles and then watch them. Most authors are watching hundreds of articles that they "own" and usually swoop in to undo any bad changes. It has it's good sides but it also is like the feudal system where all of these writers are kings of their domain.

I added additional helpful information and photos to an article local to my area about a coal mine explosion that happened in the early 20th century. The original author came back and undid all of my changes because he was the "original author" which somehow gave him permission to do that. I had to appease his ego so that he would allow me to make the changes (that or I could have challenged him publicly, which I really didn't want to do.)

I can't speak for this author on Bitcoins... just my experience on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, unless an article has been locked in some way which changes things, anyone can watch an article, and anyone can revert any changes (and is encouraged to do so if the changes don't meet Wikipedia guidelines.) There is nothing special about being the original article creator. The original article creator is perhaps particularly likely to be especially interested in the subject and the article, but has no special authority or power.

Creating an article automatically puts it on your watch list.

That sucks. How does the hierarchy work exactly? What makes him more authoritarian to what goes into the article, technically speaking?

> What makes him more authoritarian to what goes into the article, technically speaking?

Nothing, in theory. In practice, if you edit, they revert, you edit again, and they revert again, that is then an "edit war" and they can have the page locked for a while. It takes effort to make a change that even one person really doesn't want you to make - if they keep it up, you eventually have to go through the bureaucracy.