Useful thoughts

"It happens more and more that some loudmouth jackass causes enough trouble that it seems easier to accommodate him. This is short-sighted, and is why the fraction of jerks here is growing. What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, lose people who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community."

-- Tom Harrison

"Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification."

-- Durova

"Wikipedia was always intended to be a high quality free encyclopedia based on the neutral point of view. Reflecting the prejudices of the stupidest people, of whatever nation, has never been an aim of this project."

-- Tony Sidaway

"...the Internet is a homing beacon for nutjobs who reach orgasmic heights of pleasure from arguing with ignorance, force, and anonymity."

-- Moni3

Soapbox

Some things which I find less than helpful to the encyclopedia:

• Misuse of AGF AGF is not a suicide pact. We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction.
• Attacking the victim When an editor is stalked, harassed, and otherwise badgered, and they eventually respond with a snippy comment, that is regrettable; but let's be clear on who the aggressor is in this type situation. The snowball should be to jump on the aggressor, and offer support to the frazzled victim.
• Mistaking Wikipedia for something else Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While civility and friendliness make it a more pleasant working environment for the volunteers here, it is not primarily a social networking group that happens to be writing an encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia being written by volunteers, who may upon occasion engage in friendly chit-chat.
• Accusations of Censorship or Suppressing information I see these charges frequently, and I have never seen them to be true. Wikipedia is not censored, and every attempt to censor this encyclopedia has met with rapid and resounding failure. These two arguments are pointless and useless, and usually a failure to assume good faith as well, if not outright personal attacks. If you find information you feel should be included is being removed, valid and useful arguments for inclusion are that the information is verifiable, notable, and neutral. Argue with those arguments, and don't accuse your fellow editors of censorship.