A bit confusing. Presumably you mean “after giving an upvote”. In other words, to disincentivize upvotes.

Sounds like exactly the opposite of what would encourage friendly civil discourse: disincentivizing downvotes.

Slashdot got this right decades ago. No upvotes, no downvotes, just tags. Such as “informative”, “insightful”, “funny”, and a couple of more negative ones like (IIRC) “provocative” or “controversial”, which at least force you to say why you’re promoting or hating on someone’s good-faith contribution. But apparently that was all just too complex for the simpletons we really are.

Did it come installed or did you need to complete a 27-step process involving cables and obscure commands and fiddly key combinations and the risk of bricking the thing?

Interesting anecdote. Though to judge by your username, it seems you may have an agenda yourself.

So you end up having situations where companies hire agencies to improve their image by changing the wikipedia article about them and their products, same thing for celebrities

This is a major problem that takes up a lot of time for the editors. It explains some of their trigger-happiness.

That said, you have a valid point. I once tried to water down what I considered to be excessively POV language in an article about diet. This earned me an official warning for “extremism” or “conspiracism” or whatever. My impressive account pedigree also counted for nothing. So there’s definitely a bit of the political bias, the power-tripping and gatekeeping that you see in any online community. But it’s a bit of a conundrum too, because they are fighting an uphill battle against people with strong incentives and sometimes money too.

There’s an obvious reason for that. Wikipedia is owned by a nonprofit foundation and does not accept advertising.