All my editing is done in good faith, and I only cite what others have already published in reliable sources like newspapers, journals and books. As an editor, I simply relay content and let the sources speak for themselves. I obviously do not necessarily agree with what the sources say, but I cannot rewrite their content; I have to summarize it. This is not a blog; it is an encyclopedia!
I am only here to build an encyclopedia, and I mostly edit in an attempt to make sense of the world around me. I also edit for escapism. I often edit about historic buildings for aesthetics and notable individuals for inspiration. I love local history.
I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, and I don't work for any government: I am a complete nobody. I edit so much because I have been underemployed since the Great Recession. I would probably stop editing if I had a well-paid, secure, full time job in real life.
I am not really "on strike": it is internet humor, just for the Lulz (and a misguided sense of agency). Anything written on a talkpage or in an e-mail is satirical praxis. In real life, I often act like a Shakespearean fool and I specialize in exposing bigotry in people who think they are better than my fellow "complete nobodies" (although I can be obsequious in the workplace, just to pay the rent).
Everything on Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress. Feel free to edit/trim/expand the content I've added over the years. In my experience, the best way to improve content is not to redact it, but to recontextualize it with more sources. Sometimes the sources are nowhere to be found in the public domain, so our articles are not perfect and we need to wait until journalists/authors publish more sources we can cite.