How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People?

I spent some time watching this and I kinda recommend it for anyone to identify people in real life with some caveats

I've been off and on; engaged in opensource projects and the reality is that much of what's discussed is not accurate. Alot of open source projects is based on the premise of ideals that's written and detailed but in practice it's just not realistic. The greatest example of that I can give is wikipedia.com. It's not exactly "open source" but I will give my diatribe. The premise of wikipedia.com is that of community involvement but ultimately the problem is it's implementation. Wikipedia has extensive information that is generic in nature with very few scientific or intellectual information which is fine because most individuals will possess alot more trivia than real scientific knowledge. For example did you know a majority of the population believe in adam and eve?

So the problem really is in the academics of the information contributed and who is contributing. Now most contributions are done by pubescent teens (some are wikipedian admins) and overjealous college students with an axe to grind. Than there is the status quo. That's the main issue because all successful projects is dependent on the Founders and than the status quo. If the Founders don't actively involve themself to insure the ideals is written than it comes to the status quo in charge. However the status quo is the problem because it slowly gets infilitrated by "poisonous people" which is preocuppied with the status quo and less on the ideals of the project. You probably won't know this if you are not actively engaged in the editing but you only need to read the arbitration pages and the droves of professionals leaving wikipedia and replaced with facists.

That however doesn't make it any less successful... or useful... so now I don't know what I am getting at...