Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... claims Wikipedia.^[1] But Wikipedia relies fundamentally upon a bureaucracy, therefore the question we should ask is how to make it transparent and effective.

The obvious place to begin to investigate whether this is true or not is a definition of the word 'bureaucracy'. Let's give our thanks to the contributors of the bureaucracy article:

"Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control activity, usually in large organizations and government. As opposed to adhocracy, it is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes within the body, formal division of powers, hierarchy, and relationships. In practice the interpretation and execution of policy can lead to informal influence."

(Disclaimer: No, those links were not there in the original article!)

As of April 2016, Wikipedia has 358 policies and guidelines, as found by counting the pages in Category:Wikipedia policies and Category:Wikipedia guidelines, including subcategories. For a project which claims to not be a bureaucracy, there are an overwhelming number of codified norms present.

This is not proof that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy per the definition of bureaucracy above. Its use as proof is a logical fallacy since it has nothing to do with actually defining whether Wikipedia is a bureaucracy or not. It itself is, ironically, a moot statement in this context. You might as well state "Wikipedia is not a chinchilla and it isn't known for being very fluffy".

To clarify this point further a civil service does not exist for the purpose of being a bureaucracy. Its purpose in the British constitution is to assist the other branches of government and, by proxy, the country. However the British Civil Service is unequivocally a bureaucracy.^[2]

Simply because something is stated by a partisan entity does not make it true! Remember WP:NPOV?

Do you believe judges are peers to all men and women around them? They have the same rights as human beings, they come under the same laws but they have been appointed special powers to perform a role others cannot perform. Remind you of anyone? This gives one elevated status, whether intentional or otherwise.

You would refer to a British Member of Parliament as a typical person? No. They have a social status above other people because they are elected to have greater responsibility. Kinda like Stewards and ArbCom. In fact, Jimbo Wales has even likened ArbCom's status to that of the British parliament... with himself as the Queen! ^[3] What, what, don'tcha know? Would you like some tea?

To drive this point home a little further, a look here acquires the following quote:

The 'founder' group was created on the English Wikipedia by developer Tim Starling, as a unique group for Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. The group gives Wales full access to Special:UserRights and Special:Makesysop. As Wales is also a steward on Meta, he has the ability to change the user rights of any editor on any wikimedia wiki from meta:Special:UserRights, making the 'founder' group largely a status symbol.

Whenever I look at the term 'status symbol' I can't help but think of The Game of Life where you accrue points for owning status symbols cards such as 'Private Jet' and 'Rolls Royce'.

Maybe. There is differing consensus on whether the bureaucracy that Wikipedia has built actually helps. What this essay is about is not proving whether a bureaucracy is a good or a bad thing but whether Wikipedia is one. As we can see, it is. So stop kidding yourself.

The very purpose of the WP:Not a bureaucracy principle is to give editors the power to fight back against the creep of the bureaucrats and "editors" toward self-entrenchment at the expense of contributors and readers of the Encyclopedia. The principles and policies are not rules, and if they impede you from improving wikipedia, WP:Ignore all rules.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee