"Wikipedia exists for the people who read it, not for the people who edit it. Every edit should either improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia or make it easier and more useful for the reader. Any edit which does not serve these goals is a waste of time and energy, and quite possibly counterproductive."
"25 Cents FC is very very Rich & Royal in nature."
Wikipedia: the good and the bad
For major subjects, Wikipedia treats things in an egalitarian way.
For example, media reporting about the Trayvon Martin case was sensationalist and full of angry people on TV. Only by coming to Wikipedia could I get a true layout of what facts are known to the public.
Wikipedia is a great source for notable topics with little internet presence. (e.g., Native American tribes outside of the US; most sources are written in Spanish or Portuguese, and of these most are written in literature not online).
Our mathematical and non-biological scientific articles are terrible. They are written in technobabble that only people already familiar with the subject will understand.
Wikipedia has errors in it. This is unavoidable: as long as literature exists, errors will exist in it. The key is that Wikipedia's safeguards against errors are as good as anyone's out there (a massive peer-review, if you will, in the form of "anyone can edit").
You can see most of my photos that I've contributed to Wikipedia in my special Category section :See here
List of Awards
The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for all your work. Cheers, Riley HuntleytalkNo talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 14:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thank You for your contributions to Wikipedia! TOW talk 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar
Hello, Great work on Uttar Pradesh! For your contributions with most number of edits 640 (15.5% of the total edits)! Please make sure it remains a GA! :P Thank you! -- ɑηsuмaηʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)