In general, speculative, anecdotal, or unreferanced material included on wikipedia should not cause any more harm than merely incomplete information. However, we are not allowed to write a long opinion piece. The time I find myself most concerned with the tone of an article is when misperception or misrepresentation of it's subject matter may cause unsafe action to be pursued by the layman-reader. Specifically when articles on "research chemicals" and substituited, synthetic, or nontraditional psychoactives, cannabimimetrics, etc.................. have too inviting a tone and downplay the danger potential of a new or unfamiliar substance.

In the aforementioned instance, such speculative or deceptive information can be quite harmful to those who take the type of language used in this wiki as the Voice of God, informed and authoritative. We really owe it to be inclusive of people who have direct perception or experience with a particular substance, especially if one considers wikipedia as a primary or seondary source for information for laypersons on the internet, as long as it can be appropriately referenced thusly and does not dominate the article.

Wikipedia hosts a lot of content that might be considered humorous. If you think you've found something funny on wikipedia, you may have been browsing too long. Much of the humor is in the disambiguation pages and see also sections. It is this editor's humble opinion that if the humor has no malicious or deceptive intent or direction, humor can make particularly dry or dense subject matter slightly more accessible or sometimes easier to read.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). In lieu of the sometimes distracting and potentially maliciousintentional humor I find the unintentionally humorous inclusions to be the most enjoyable.

Many articles can benefiet from streamlining, improved grammar, and modern English.

Why is this relevant?

like pudding or roughcut diamonds

more to come soon