In general, I am very happy with the policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia.
That is to say, I find that my personal views on how Wikipedia should function are close to the reality of how it is actually run. I am a moderate deletionist: whilst in an ideal world I would be happy to have Wikipedia catalogue everything and anything, in the real world I think it is reasonable to prioritise some articles over others, and simply not having articles on some subjects is the best way of achieving this. Wikipedia is run by volunteers with finite time and energy resources. It is impossible to maintain tens of millions of pages to any reasonable quality standard.
Wikipedia is not finished and will never be. This means that I will happily tolerate all kinds of "bad" articles if they can improved later, there is no cost in doing so (so no negative unsourced BLPs, for example) and the final result will be worth maintaining. Otherwise, my main concern is in making sure that editors carry on editing and are not held back by long-entanglements in process.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
