Hi marioxcc, I fully understand your frustration that derives from rejected changes.
However, there is a difficult - and I would even say: paradoxical - relation between freedom and knowledge. On the one hand, everybody should have access to and should be able to contribute to a base of knowledge. On the other hand, 'knowledge' is something that needs a kind of 'neutral validity'. In the early days of Wikipedia, there existed many articles full of half-truths and mistakes and, yes, biased information. Adding Wikimedia to Wikipedia was result of a process of quality management; Wikimedia naturally has to govern Wikipedia instead of the other way around - otherwise it wouldn't make sense. It may frustrate contributors every then and when - but its removal would transform many articles into useless political battlefields again.
Wikimedia is a compromise between governing the output of Wikipedia, and sustaining democratic influence. Democracy is not always simple and straight-forward.
Btw, open source works the same way: many people can contribute, but in the end it's the package maintainer who decides what to implement and what to reject. It requires responsibility. Dissatisfied contributors may found a fork - like you may from wikipedia, but it may be more fruitful to start a frank and qualified debate with other contributors and the maintainer.
