GoodSamaritan

I dislike sloppy evidence. I sometimes will see bad evidence and correct it in a discussion that I simply don't care about the outcome of. Sometimes I'll say that a previously presented statement is false, but I try to assume good faith. I view a lie as the intentional making of a false statement, so my calling a statement false should not be interpreted to mean that the person that made it lied unless I also say they did so intentionally.

Sloppy evidence is even more important in articles than discussions. We need to be more stringent in deleting poorly sourced material. Wikipedia would be a lot better if we all tried to work to the highest standards of verification.

I believe that we should focus at least as much on quality as we do on quantity. Quality of Wikipedia can be improved by removing content of below average quality. Material of low enough quality or on worthless topics should be jettisoned in its entirety. New articles should be either given a boost or the boot.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user is a Christian.

This user realizes that people from the Middle Ages already thought that the Earth was spherical.

This user is in a great mood.

This user is interested in Criminology.

This user is interested in politics.

This user enjoys writing.

This user has no understanding of time and does everything at the last minute.

This user is a hunter.

DETThis user is a fan of the
Detroit Pistons

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

There are no statements of belief or opinion on this page. This editor is here as an encyclopedist.

This user's ethnicity is
African American.

This user is a Republican.