I dislike sloppy evidence. I sometimes will see bad evidence and correct it in a discussion that I simply don't care about the outcome of.
Sometimes I'll say that a previously presented statement is false, but I try to assume good faith. I view a lie as the intentional making of a false statement, so my calling a statement false should not be interpreted to mean that the person that made it lied unless I also say they did so intentionally.
Sloppy evidence is even more important in articles than discussions. We need to be more stringent in deleting poorly sourced material. Wikipedia would be a lot better if we all tried to work to the highest standards of verification.
I believe that we should focus at least as much on quality as we do on quantity. Quality of Wikipedia can be improved by removing content of below average quality. Material of low enough quality or on worthless topics should be jettisoned in its entirety. New articles should be either given a boost or the boot.
.svg){kind=small}
