I've been a Wikipedia user for a long time, but very infrequently dive in to contribute (and rarely remember log-in first).

I have been an even longer user of discussion groups, and have seen my fair share of flames. In general, I like to try to get to the bottom of a disagreement, and find a positive way of moving forward.

One thing that upsets me is dogmatism. In Wikipedia, this tends to take the form of editors sticking blindly to the wording of policies, and being harsh on contributors who may be approaching Wikipedia from a different direction (and quite possibly unaware of the months of discussion that went into policy).

I'd love to see a Wikipedia policy that says: 'if you are spending time arguing about policy, you are not contributing to articles'. However, I'm cynically enough to realise that it'd only backfire.

One common line used in debates is 'Wikipedia is not meant to be such-and-such'. This gambit needs to be played carefully, if it is used to stomp on suggestions that are intended to improve the user-experience of Wikipedia. eg. 'Wikipedia is not a link-farm' can occasionally be used to suppress links that would help a user discover a lot more about a subject - but I'm aware that it is often a fine line.

For me (and, I assume, many other people), whatever Wikipedia is meant to be, I use it as a convenient starting point to learn about a subject. Anything that gets in the way of this reduces Wikipedia's worth, as far as I'm concerned.

That's all for now!