Death Phoenix said:
The other option for a protected/moderated article is to have admins edit the article (which, AFAIK, is the current system for protected pages). I just think having moderators takes some work of editing protected pages away from the potentially overworked admins.
Thanks. I don't really have a reasoned objection, or at least not a categorical one, to this. On admins editing protected articles, I think the consensus is that they're not really supposed to but I'm not familiar with the details of consensus on this--just that it proved controversial when an admin altered the content of [[clitoris]] while it was protected. I do feel uneasy about the idea of having "trusted" content editors. When editors have a limited number of collaborators they will inevitably learn one another's blind spots and edit for consensus within the group. Without new editors coming along and entering new material out of the blue, the dynamics of editing would be very different. I'm not against this at all in principle, but I'd hate to see Wikipedia abandon a winning formula just because of a few racist nuts. Readers are cleverer than we think.