That's how organizations get stuck with a status quo. The key is to understand they're quite sincere; when they think it through, they have this massively succ

That's how organizations get stuck with a status quo. The key is to understand they're quite sincere; when they think it through, they have this massively successful encyclopedia as evidence that solidly justifies their conviction that their current way of doing business works. And people who don't like it tend to leave and their voice goes unheard; as the piece correctly indicates, this is pretty normal. This is a common problem. For an institution or organization to work, the members of it have to build up and disseminate institutional knowledge, often by trial and error, and much of it can't be fully explained. That then leads to inertia: you can't formulate a convicing challenge to the way things are done unless you understand them, but at that point you're selected by the other members of the institution to accept their way of doing things. Generally, for a given organization, it takes an outside shock to really force them to reevaluate how they operate. If Wikipedia started losing patrons or saw their readership decline, they'd probably reconsider, but it's hard to imagine how much they'd collectively have to screw up for that to happen.