I noted that occasional contributors are being discouraged by regular editors, who enforce guidelines they designed for "controlling" users.
Do not be fooled by "community consensus" claims. It actually denotes the views of a tiny fraction of the community: regular editors, who are the ruling class of wikipedia (the "500"). Good contribution can only be occasional, as articles require a high level of specialized expertise (this expertise is clearly not recognized by regular editors, as shown by their excessive reliance on WP:synth or WP:secondary to disrupt constructive contributions. Wikipedia seemed perfect for aggregating different sources. Wikipedia has the potential to outperform "prestigious" journals, which still rely on rudimentary peer-review protocols). Personally, I feel able to contribute substantially to 10 articles max.
However, occasional contributors can use their strength: their specialized knowledge. Always remember that the regular editor who is reverting your hard work does not even know what he is reverting about: he is just applying rules stupidly. How else can he monitor hundreds, if not thousands, of articles? Just game the system. On your (narrow) field of expertise, you are smarter than him.
However, this is only a short-term solution. In the long term, my hope is that some benevolent regular editors (as they certainly exist) will get aware of this class-division inside wikipedia (widely reported elsewhere), and will design and maintain rules that empower occasional contributors, who, due to their inherent status, cannot monitor wikipedia. All revolutions need defectors from the ruling class. Otherwise, brain-drain out of wikipedia will continue. Alternative wikis like scholarpedia look better.