Having been an editor of a real encyclopedia for over 30 years, I have decided to limit my participation to updating my contributions. I question the reliability of a source where contributors in Idaho are experts on businesses in the Chicago area, youth in Pennsylvania are experts on Indiana highways, 9th graders are experts on Wikipedia policies, and used car salesmen are experts on proper images under the copyright law. Some "authority" can assess an article as Start Class, and then someone else assesses it as well-written and well-cited, or someone passes an article as well written, and then some other "expert in the field" adds a stub template without making any corrections himself or suggesting how the article is deficient. Bots or possibly humans decorate pages with templates without an understanding of the topics. Until someone cracks down on the vandalism, defamation, pejorative comments, copyright violations, unsourced statements, and threats about edit wars, I pass. Because others have decided to say that disputes have been resolved when they have not, I have also decided to remove many of my watchlist entries, including all highway group ones. Caveat user if you think this stuff is accurate.
Not having a misplaced ego, you won't see any userboxes here.
Obviously, the anonymous ip posters haven't learned from the Benoit Wikipedia vandalism controversy, as indicated by one who uses an ip address to hide from having posted libelous remarks. However, it isn't my concern if Wikipedia wants to risk a suit on that.
"Someone was going to publish a print encyclopedia based on Wikipedia, but I knew it wasn't true, because I read it on Wikipedia." ---Craig Ferguson.
"I'll change that Wikipedia."---Homer Simpson.
"Seems more like Wackypedia to me."--Satchel Pooch (Get Fuzzy, April 20, 2007).
"Half the stuff on Wikipedia is made up."--Garry Meier (October 15, 2009).