User:Last Contrarian

(I have been a Wikipedia editor since 8 May 2008. My interests are topics such as films, television, books, politics, philosophy and India.)

Some thoughts:

• Wikipedia policies heavily favor editors who spend hours on the encyclopedia every day over casual editors who drop in once every few weeks/days.
• Editors who are academics/students from Western/first-world/second-world countries can use their ability to freely access esoteric publications via university libraries to make use of such sources to support statements that cannot be easily verified by those who don't have access to such facilities.
• The byzantine rules and regulations that make up the bulk of Wikipedia policies favor
  WP:LAWYER
  types who have a lot of time on their hands.
• Some Wikipedia rules, such as
  Wikipedia:Wikicourt
  regardless of intent.
• Neutral points of view are extremely rare when it comes to contentious topics.
• Articles always present the version of editors who emerge "victorious" at the end of an edit-war and any associated drama and thus come to own the article in question.
• Wikipedia is not a reliable or neutral source on any single topic. That said, Wikipedia has its uses as long as it is not used as a primary source and is not considered to be neutral or comprehensive. Don't assume that all sides of a dispute are covered.
  WP:FRINGE
  will be used to kill sources that don't support the current owner's bias.
• Wikipedia policies allow for many ways to either eliminate information that doesn't support the political inclinations of the present owners of the article, or add dubious knowledge to the encyclopedia by way of synthesis of disparate statements from multiple sources into statements of "fact" which cannot be attributed to any single source.
• Some of these methods include threatening casual editors with bans or prospective bans if any such editor dares to change an article in a manner not agreeable to the current owner. The article owner might use every trick in the book including baiting (
  WP:GANG
  ) to initiate edit-wars which can then be converted into a ban. Multiple independent victims can then be held as proof of the impregnability of their position, sidestepping all questions regarding the quality of the article.
• When it comes to trusting Wikipedia articles, apply the following principle: Never trust, always verify.