The formatting is not that weird, but it does follow mediawiki syntax rather than dokuwiki syntax. There are quite a few shorthand abbreviations though that people use.
Syntax and layout
- Ensure you always sign comments, even if you don't have an account. The correct way to do this is with four tildes at the end of your comment: "A point to make ~~~~"
- Bullet points are made by an asterisk at the start. There is no requirement for a double space!
- !votes - a weird term, read as "not vote". The closer of the discussion is meant to weigh up the arguments and not just count the voting. However, the number of votes is usually taken into consideration but since it's not a poll they are "not votes".
- To embolden text use three apostrophes at the start and at the end: '''Keep''' for instance
- In MW a template is akin to a snippet in DW. They are used quite freely and cam be spotted by the "{{...}}" syntax. Just read them as they are and don't bother trying to emulate them at first. Failure to use a template to refer to another user is not a crime!
Shorthands
There are a lot of references to policies, procedures and essays. As with DW these are given by links, typically "[[MOS:...]]" and "[[WP:...]]". MOS is the manual of style and can be largely ignored in discussions, but is highly important in writing articles themselves. WP is the Wikipedia namespace and holds two types of information: policies and essays. Essays can be challenged, they are "best practice" rather than hard and fast rules. Policies would require a major effort to change, effectively they are WP's constitution.
Notability
WP is an encyclopedia and as such is an introduction to a subject, not a scholarly exposition. Facts must be supported by published (not necessarily printed) work of reasonable standard. Web pages are acceptable as published support. Some webpages and books are regarded as inferior, specifically those which are self-published, not reviewed or regarded as biased. For example, if I were to write a book on cat behaviour based upon the observations of Tiddles at home and publish it myself (because noone else would) then it would rightly be regarded as not very authoritative whereas Francis Pryor's "Britain AD" published by Harper would be regarded as a good source.
Web pages are more problematic. If I publish a blog about myself then that's low (or no) grade. If I find a local history project done by a teacher that's much better. citing NOAA about sea conditions is first rate.
Sorry if this is a bit long-winded, after 20 years WP has accumulated a lot of nooks and crannies. WP editors can be a bit protective and driven! There is also an ongoing slo-mo fight between the deletionists (who want to ensure that all articles are notable and not cruft) and the inclusionists (who want to document everything). Most are somewhere in the middle.