Apologies for the cross-posted comment from Tech Crunch, but I have to say it:

It is astounding to me how a #6 worldwide website (Wikipedia, et al) can be so misunderstood by reporters, bloggers, and mere readers of the site. Likewise, it is astounding to me how Tech Crunch reporters and commenters can be so easily gulled by the spin doctoring of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's as if it is impossible to understand the difference between "Founder" level system rights and "Administrator" level system rights; impossible to understand the difference between a Board "Chairman" and a phony "Chairman Emeritus" and (even more ridiculously) an "owner" of a website (David1984, please stop using the Internet); and impossible to understand the difference between YouPorn or RedTube and a 501-c-3 tax-exempt organization pushing a product into schools that contains smotherboxes, scrotum sacks bulging with saline solution, and blindfolded cum shots.

Despite Seth Finkelstein's best effort to iron this all out, I'm more convinced that the general public, the Wikimedia Foundation board and staff, and American journalism are all too stupid to understand any of this.

I agree that "chaos" is probably too strong a term to characterize the lunatic political drama that frequently arises in Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Educational materials suitable for school children include both articles of an encyclopedic nature and stories. Often a well-crafted children's story works better than a classroom lecture.

The never-ending political dramas in Wikipedia may someday be boiled down to an allegorical educational story suitable for the participants embroiled in those recurring lunatic dramas.

My preference would be for it to be presented either as a musical comedy or as a comic opera.