According to the site's mission statement:
So is this place anti-Wikipedia in ethos and wouldn't care if Wikipedia crashed tomorrow never to be heard from again or does it seek to improve Wikipedia?We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with the structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world's most frequently visited websites, the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
All are welcome to participate here. Be advised, however, that this site is strictly moderated; Posts which are off-topic or otherwise annoying will be moved or deleted at the discretion of our august team of moderators, all veterans of the Wikipedia Review during its better days.
What kind of moderation is implemented here? What kind of moderation does it aspire to? Is naming names frowned upon? One of the problems with Wikipedia is the **** it pulls with "assume good faith" and politeness perverting those concepts. Is this place serious or does it adopt the levity of Wikipedia? Off-topic digressions dilute effectiveness. From what I've seen some of the better content here is undermined by the scandal rag tone.
There is mention of Wikipedia Review in the mission statement. Not everyone knows what that is or what happened there.
Who are the people behind this site? I see some names from Wikipedia. Why have they chosen to associate themselves with this site? What are their stories? Why should I trust them not to be secretly feeding privileged information here to the folks there? I see some people who profess no connection to Wikipedia. Then why are they moderators and involved on this site?