Diminishing ability to contribute
I think the major problem is a need for a reality check. You need new peoples (and existing editors) feedback. Wikipedia states things like new people and experienced editors (esp. with administrative level privileges) are on a equal footing when that does not seem to be the case[1][2][3][4]. Tell that to someone struggling to keep their article viable in a Wikipedia that seems full articles and complexities that might not have existed in the early days of Wikipedia. What new people see is someone who holds the keys to their article going in for the delete tag. There clearly is not a equal footing and contradicts the kind words of equality offered up by Wikipedia. This results in trust issues!
Wikipedia has also seemingly in the past (and now) gone for monetization and the lesser known shrinking of articles to fit the mobile phone market (possibly a temporary technical problem). New users are getting bombarded with all sorts of stuff and probably come to Wikipedia with preconceived ideas also. Politics such as monetization have a habit of making new users very confused.
I think you should carefully consider the negative things that can happen to users (and some existing articles & users) because of social interaction with editors; Wikipedia policy that might get out of touch with new people (and existing people); and perceived social changes and expectations that are happening withing the internet community that will change how they expect Wikipedia to behave and the type of information they might be looking to find. An interface that prevents bad interaction before it happens for example would be helpful--This is part of the secret of Twitter, which is so unlike communicating on ICQ chat channels for example.
People today are experiencing exponential growth in technology in some areas, especially in the internet, so you might expect that will change their views of what a Wikipedia should be in a much more rapid way then in the past. The fact is there is vast creative energies out there in the community that people have access to. People are looking to make sense of it and track their favorites. People are looking to expand their once small interest groups to a global scale. Without any flexible feedback systems you will miss that message and be unable to improve Wikipedia. New things are becoming "NOTABLE" and critical today for new users. New channels of communications have opened up new ways to spread the message around the world to make things significant. "New People" can see the old establishment isn't liking that and is resisting it. To them--"the old guard"--the economy and the way of doing things of the old world is under threat.
A feedback-loop would provide a possible solution to that. You might not have to read every feed back form, but if there is a rapid escalation of negative feedback (or positive feedback) you might get the urge to take a look at the situation causing it.
Your only problem is to make the feedback forms as fun as possible while making people feel their privacy is not being invaded and bombarded by all sorts of information that has nothing to do with their task at hand (such as writing an article for Wikipedia). The information I am talking about is an unlimited number of disruptive advertising techniques that expects you to wait around until they are finished. People might just be irritated enough to dismiss a form in such cases if it was done in the wrong way or presented incorrectly.--(Gharr 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC))