> Even with sources and pushback from other moderators, it’s hard to compete with people with an agenda and a lot of time. Exactly! This, writ large, is why a

> Even with sources and pushback from other moderators, it’s hard to compete with people with an agenda and a lot of time. Exactly! This, writ large, is why a small disciplined group can take over a bureaucracy that allows open participation in decision making processes. You see this, for example, in everything from city council meetings to the state department. Which explains why bureaucracies always end up with some ideological litmus test of us vs them applied to screen out who is allowed to participate, whether because the bureaucracy doesn't want to be taken over by an ideological group, or whether it has already been taken over by an ideological group, the ends result is the same -- every bureaucracy develops an ideology that it defends. Taking this back to wikipedia, we see why no project like wikipedia can actually be "neutral". At best you can have a variety of ideological biases for different topics, with the most fanatical group's ideology dominating any given topic. /rant