Is Wikipedia broken? 

Hi Piotrus,
After reading your morsels of wisdom, I have a couple of questions/comments/rants for you. I have seen several times editors leaving WP claiming WP is/was broken beyond repair or something. I think such a claim is fundamentally wrong.

The way I see it, Wikipedia is a complex dynamical system, with rather nontrivial internal interactions of a huge number of contributors and bureaucrats.  Moreover, it is probably governed by certain laws under certain assumptions. There is a microscale (individual contributors editing certain articles), a mesoscale (groups of editors pushing their agenda in a group of articles) and a macroscale, the whole project evolving over years. On a microscale nothing matters. You, me can join, can leave Wikipedia, very few would even notice. In a matter of days, may be months names and contributions would be forgotten, the project would however survive. 

What is interesting to me is that your morsels capture certain dynamics on a mesoscale quite well. And that made me wonder if you can share your thoughts over the future dynamics of the whole project here. Not just some subproject, not just over the next few days, but the whole Wikipedia over years.

That brings me to the next question. How can one claim the system of Wikipedia is broken? Do they understand the dynamics of Wikipedia better than me so that they see something that defies/breaks some natural laws? I understand that they joined the project to help it achieve a certain goal (whatever they set in their mind) and after a failure to do so, they leave frustrated. But to claim Wikipedia is broken? Why? What do they see that I do not? To me it is akin to claiming that the nature is broken after seeing that foxes eat rabbits. What do you think about that? (  )