What is the bigger priority on Wikipedia: article fact-checking, or sockpuppet investigations?

Since article fact-checking isn't a priority at all, at least for the site in general, I'd have to say "sockpuppet investigations." Deletion discussions are often contentious, but not all that significant unless the users are responding to external political or social pressure to delete something.

However, none of these things are actually a *high* priority, compared to recruitment, gladhanding, logrolling (i.e., users congratulating each other on their "stellar work"), attempting to mitigate the social effects of various scandals and dramafests, and general whining.

The bigger of the two priorities is undoubtedly sockpuppet investigations. Article fact-checking is not a priority at all on Wikipedia. Think about it: how much effort does it take to check an article for factual accuracy? Now consider how much effort it takes to falsely accuse others of sockpuppetry and manufacture the evidence.

The sockpuppet investigations are not confidential. It's open to the public to discuss about their contributions and how somehow it can be abusive to the community. It's rare that other editors would be interested. And the only ones interested are those who hunt sockpuppets. It would be nice if the community took an active role in hunting down sockpuppets. The purpose of Wikipedia is about building consensus and creating quality articles. If we aren't encouraging consensus on everything, then there really is no purpose of Wikipedia.

Sockpuppet investigations are part of Wikipedia. Embrace sockpuppetry. It's good for Wikipedia to debate on who is abusing multiple accounts.

Sockpuppet investigations are definitely the bigger priority. Article fact-checking is hardly a priority, if at all.

To insure that your pet articles don't get deleted, or to ensure the deletion of articles you don't like, you often need sockpuppets to make sure your will is enforced in the matter. Of course your enemies are aware that you might be using sockpuppets, especially because they were using sockpuppets long before you got the idea.

It's all part of a larger pattern: Wikipedia's six rotten pillars ensure that instead of collegial cooperation to create the best-written, most informative articles, there is drama, lots of drama. As you can imagine, drama hardly helps article accuracy or style.

Fact-checking is definetely more important. Facts being true is more important than having editors who are misusing accounts, since the whole point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia.

AfD mostly happens because the topic may not be notable enough for the encyclopedia.

Dealing with sockpuppets is a very minor activity compared to the actual work of editing. Only a few trusted people do it, and then only when the vandal's disruption affects the resource. Anyone can participate in discussions about deleting, or keeping, articles. Quite a few people do.

Dealing with sockpuppets is tightly restricted because we need to ensure that our privacy policies are not violated. That is why there is little open discussion about individual cases.