I have left wikipedia. These are my reflections on the experience of editing here. First, I am glad wikipedia exists. In human history the destruction of knowledge (as with the burning down of the great libraries at Alexandria and Nalanda) has heralded dark periods for civilization. Wikipedia makes a repetition of this much less likely, regardless of what calamity befalls the human race. I like to think that those articles I have worked to improve are linked by their value to a idealistic and hopeful future for our species on this planet. On a few occasions I have inserted some material referenced to books and articles I have published (very little of my editing on wikipedia has involved this). I know this contravenes wikipedia policy and I apologize. But frankly if some experts don't do this occasionally then wikipedia will be less excellent in quality and may be captured in key areas by paid trolls working to for the interests of large multinational corporations with a stake in ensuring wikipedia only promotes views conformable to their profits. Some editors have used the requirement to remove self-added material to delete important referenced material from articles that were not authored by me at Investor State Dispute Settlement, to remove any reference to an article about humanity's future as steward of the earth (Sustainocene) where environmental sustainability is the dominant theme and roll it into an article about developmental sustainability (with which it has little connection), to remove any reference to my work on globalising artificial photosynthesis from the Artificial Photosynthesis page (including references to my publications that were not put there by me but by others whom I sincerely thank) and to remove all such references from my personal page (including many references to my work that were not put there by me but, by anonymous others whom I also now wish to thank very sincerely). My experience with Wikipedia has generally been positive. I have been involved in conflicts, even edit wars. But I hope these are about things that matter, issues where getting the facts right will assist humanity and its environment. I do get frustrated by the process whereby disputes are decided initially by calling for a debate and then having an editor seemingly arrange a 'lynch mob' to agree without really debating the issues. Further, although not wishing to be misunderstood on this, I have come to the view that it is likely vested interests have 'hired' editors to check that the content of certain Wikipedia articles remains favorable to their private purposes. Yet , it also is important to me that Wikipedia editors are allowed distance from their private lives as they can become targets for vicious reprisals if disputes here get out of hand. Tom Faunce