Flaws in Wikipedia? Let's talk about flaws; One person appoints something for deletion, and it is kept. The next time the result is no consensus, and the last and third time it's deleted. I would think that an article would be kept seeing as the first vote was keep, but no. In Wikipedias infinite wisdom, this is not the case. Because Wikipedia is a retarded and flawed. I have come to realize that all my edits have not been done to help people understand something, or enlighten them. It's been a stupid game where nobody wins all along.
If you want something gone from Wikipedia, you could just as well AfD it and continue to do so, regardless of how many time something is kept (well, we do have rules against how many times something can be AfDed). But the point stands, if the article is about something that is verifiable, but not that many people edit on it, it will be deleted. So there is actually a system that works contradictory to what the essence of this supposed encyclopedia is.
So yeah, a game, a stupid game where no rewards are given, where people argue and argue until someone gets their will. Nobody cares about being "told" about something or to learn from it, because they wouldn't be editing X article if they didn't think themselves that what they wrote is the absolute truth of the matter.
So, in my years on Wikipedia, what have I learned? That people are stupid, inconsiderate, idiots who are the same exact people that I would avoid like the plague in real life. The best thing that could happen at this point is the removal of Wikipedia. Close it down Jimbo, just put this experiment on human behavior down. Don't you know people are total ass hats on the internet?
Anyway, this is my last edit, I'm done with Wikipedia. It was a valid try, and I've had some fun times. But I could get just as much from reading a book, or playing a game as I do from this hell hole of a bugged game, I mean encyclopedia.
Good luck people.