> This has nothing to do with the financials of the foundation and is completely a community issue. I don't agree. Choices in how the foundation spends it's mo

> This has nothing to do with the financials of the foundation and is completely a community issue. I don't agree. Choices in how the foundation spends it's money can amplify or diminish these concerns. E.g. WMF has spent extensively to try to bring in a wider space of borderline editors rather than investing as much in infrastructure to soften the learning curve to retain and boost the participation of middle-tier editors, which exacerbates us vs them seige mentality... and the overuse of blunt tools to stem a rising tide of low quality edits at the cost of a poor experience for new contributors. E.g. An example I'd cite for this is the extreme investment in "visual editing"-- which only barely manages to not mangle pages when its used-- over things like syntax highlighting. Not all the blame in these areas falls on the WMF for sure. As an example, enwiki community factionlization around deletion blocked the deployment of revision flagging (basically supporting having 'release' versions of articles so that non-contributors are not constantly subjected to the very latest unreviewed revision of an article) which would have allowed radically less aggressive edit patrolling.