Why is this my favourite Wikipedia-related article? Simple. I know that there is no shortage of Wikipedia rules and regulations. I personally have zero respect for people who just tag pages but don't fix anything. I further have zero respect for completely anonymous people. Stand up for what you say, I figure. I have zero respect for people who whitewash to protect a status quo and use Wikipedia rules and regulations to decimate content to the point of utter uselessness. Make real contributors prove that the Pope is Catholic. You can cite back-up but then the back-up is not read or it is ignored. People of that nature band together and back each other up on Wikipedia. There are always more of them, deletionists and taggers than those who actually provide good content, in my personal experience. They give each other awards and barnstars etc. This diminishes the value of Wikipedia and relies on acquiescence and apathy. Here, in the Huffington Post article, journalist Ashley Feinberg exposes one of these individuals, who has managed to profit from it. My assessment of such editors cannot contain enough expletives. Expletives in the English language do not suffice (and would invite more anonymous Wikipedia-internal attacks) to convey the disregard in which I hold such deletionists and taggers, so I shall refer to Voragh's Notes on Klingon Cursing for a more thorough treatise on the subject.