User:FuriouslySerene/sandbox

Other sandboxes

 * User:FuriouslySerene/Tercon Construction Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways)
 * User:FuriouslySerene/Geoffrey Morawetz
 * User:FuriouslySerene/Shooting of Wieslaw Duda
 * User:FuriouslySerene/Scott Disick

Bad editing
While this article may be unduly harsh, I think much of it's criticism is fair:. As Wikipedia turns to procedure to protects itself from bad faith editing, it also means that those who are schooled in its intricacies are better protected when they make unproductive edits and decisions themselves. I'm not really sure how to fix this issue. I worry that the readers of Wikipedia do not fully understand how easily it is to manipulate information on this site. This article is a sad reminder of both the successes and failures of those policies: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.

Deletion policy
The point, which I think may be lost on some editors, of the WP:GNG are to ensure that an article's subject has sufficient coverage so that the article has enough WP:RS. That view is consistent with Wikipedia's five pillars. I do think editors need to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and pages that can be reliably sourced should not be deleted because of an ineffable quality of simply not being sufficiently "notable."

Feedback Loops
But perhaps the most insidious danger present on Wikipedia is those of feedback loops, as detailed here:. Another sad example is this.