What system of governance does Wikipedia actually have?

[oranges33]

Wikipedia denies being a democracy, denies being anarchism, and sometimes self-refers as a "clue-ochracy" ie rule by those who know what the rules are

My opinion is it's a combination of an oligarchy and rule by seniority

what is your opinion on what type of governance it actually has?

[DexterPointy]

In reality, there is no system of governance. There is a pattern to how the wheels churn, which is where governance could have been.

Wikipedia is all down to persistence of the individual wikipedians and mob-processing.

[Kokayne Smoke Rising]

Clearly defined rules mean that Wikipedia could be held to some standard of accountability or integrity. For some reason, Wikipedians, and much of the Anglophone world, have a near-fatal allargic reaction to this concept. Hence why Wikipedia sucks and the Western world is drowning like a bitch in the morass of stupidity, ignorance, drug overdose, car accidents, etc.

[ericbarbour]

In reality, there is no system of governance. There is a pattern to how the wheels churn, which is where governance could have been.
Wikipedia is all down to persistence of the individual wikipedians and mob-processing.

well put

Clearly defined rules mean that Wikipedia could be held to some standard of accountability or integrity. For some reason, Wikipedians, and much of the Anglophone world, have a near-fatal allargic reaction to this concept. Hence why Wikipedia sucks and the Western world is drowning like a bitch in the morass of stupidity, ignorance, drug overdose, car accidents, etc.

Does not imply causation, etc. WP is an accident of history, a near-religious cult, and a gathering place for trolls who want to "rewrite history". You can probably thank Ayn Rand, Jimbo Wales, and Section 230 for starting it badly, but the blame for bad governance goes directly to the kind of lunatics Jimbo promoted to adminship prior to 2006.

If the internet had gone public in the 1970s, any crowdsourced reference work started on it would have probably suffered from similar foolishness, everything else being equal. Although I suspect the old FCC "Fairness Doctrine" would probably have been applied to it. Thus Wales and his handpicked suckups would be forced to run a more egalitarian system. We will never know, and no one outside their "cult following" seems to give a damn anyway.

[Bbb23sucks]

It’s the worst of both worlds:
Without hierarchy you have the disadvantage of lack of leadership, but with the advantage of open and democratic collaboration without strict rules.
With more hierarchy you gain of having the best users at the top of leadership, but less collaboration and collectivization.

With Wikipedia there is a hierarchy, but it only lets the worst users go to the top and then allows them to enact totalitarian policies on everyone else, while having no accountability of their own. And it still has no central leadership, just a disorganized cabal that only organizes to fight progress.

Truly the worst of both worlds.