Wikias can anyone truly edit them?

So i happen to notice that some of the larger wikis out there don't let just anyone edit the wiki. I realize that there are trolls, and vandals out there wanting to trash the wiki and all that it stands for but there is something worse than the trolls. And that is the moderators in some cases. I recently got banned on the Family Guy wikia for 1 year. And all i did was create a category for Brians, Quagmires, and Chris relationships. The wikia policy is:

A proposal for a new category should ensure that sufficient pages exist to justify it's existence and there should be no confusion if a page should qualify for inclusion. Currently, a minimum of 8 pages are considered the threshold for a proposed category.

On my page he said:

You may not create new categories. We do not permit unnecessary clutter and some of your entries were full of #. --Buckimion (talk) 17:40, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

edit on 22-5-2014 by Stevemagegod because: (no reason given)

Now my wording in the category description could've used a little work but the categories met the wikia policy.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Buckimion.
The reason given is this:
Failure to read policy
You may contact Buckimion or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
You may still edit your talk page to discuss the block or e-mail an administrator. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences.

Now this is just a small example of what happened on this wikia, but i noticed if a noob trys to edit a entry even if it is correct information it will get changed back by someone. After trying to contribute to some of these other wikis out there and basically the same thing happen to each one i basically gave up on wikia entry editing. I would like to hear some of your guys opinion on this. Sorry if i sound like i am bitching but i needed to provide a good description.

That's what they say. a reply to: Stevemagegod

So Stevemagegod , make a thread for us to read and put the link in here of what you sent them, maybe we can help, plus I am interested in the relations of Family Guy characters, sounds like a good read.

Same thing has happened to me whenever I've tried to contribute on a wiki. I didn't even do anything and was banned for 'vandalism.' All I had done was set up an account, no edits, nothing done before or after. Yup.

It's pretty common on 'wiki' sites for their to be over zealous moderators and members, likely due to the endless amount of man children that think it's hilarious to edit stupid things onto articles. Wikipedia itself is notorious for toxic behavior, with there even being a cabal that was going around policing articles relating to a certain ethnicity years ago (or maybe even presently), reverting all edits, harassing the editor, then blocking them.

It's pretty obvious Wikipedia in general is just another tool for the victors. Honestly at the speed some wiki pages get made/updated one has to wonder.

Also, since Wikipedia arrived it changed the course of how we accept data/events.

I remember 15 years ago or so when I had an assignment on school and I used wikipedia as a source it didn't count. How things have changed.

Encarta FTW.

a reply to: MessageforAll

I remember 15 years ago or so when I had an assignment on school and I used wikipedia as a source it didn't count. How things have changed.

Well of course it didn't count, and it still wouldn't. Nobody should accept Wikipedia as a source, because it isn't one. What it is, however, is a useful way of FINDING sources.

If you want to use Wikipedia as a source, you have to go to the original source and cite that. Citing Wikipedia is never going to fly in a serious work eg for school.

So you find the part you want in Wiki, then check the footnote on that part and then go to the original source material and cite that (after checking, of course, that it does actually say what Wiki says it does!).

a reply to: Stevemagegod

You may want to bring your article, which sounds like satire, to Uncyclopedia.co (there are two uncyclopedias, the Wikia one is harder on new users, the .co one will cover you in ants and set you on fire just to attract moths, which they will then write on and release back into the wild).

As for Wikipedia, I find most pages there quite accurate, with the major ones well looked-after by knowledgeable people. Except for the religious articles, which, ironically, tend to be protected by zealots.

There are certain pages on Wikipedia that you can not edit as well. For example the page on Bruce Lee can not be edited because people keep making crazy claims about him being the best martial artist ever or how he could perform super human feats of strength etc.