I like the Wikipedia policy trifecta.
The less rules the better.
That being said I completely agree that "As explained in October of 2013, we believe that undisclosed paid advocacy editing is a black hat practice that can threaten the trust of Wikimedia’s volunteers and readers".
I currently find the amount of NPOV disputes and factual disputes irritating, not because they exist but because they are easy to add and I believe there should be some onus on those who tag a page to provide specific examples on WHAT and WHERE the bias and false info is rather than leave an article with the talk note of "the WHOLE article is biased". The whole article MAY be biased, but a big old stop sign will just sit unmoving unless someone can offer a direction to travel to.
I also like the The Wikipedia Signpost.
Here's to hoping nobody should feel the need to post Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace to my user page or talk page, but if so, better posted and warned than remain blissfully ignorant.