Eileen wrote:
I was further dismayed to discover that your attempt at a democratic, co-operative project lends itself to a tyranny of the loudest voice; or the fastest editorial pen; or the most persistent objecter. Also disappointing is the fact that under the guise of a neutral viewpoint political jargon is being passed of as reliable and accurate information.
In general, this description of the outcome of articles is surprisingly _not true_. What wins over time is reasonableness and broad acceptability, not the loudest voice, fastest pen, or most persistent objector.
Your "free for all" approach does not appear to lend itself to editorial responsibility and overview, however. There has to be a point where the buck ends and somebody (or perhaps group) takes responsibility for obviously false content by refusing to permit it to be printed. This will, of course, require a good deal of intestinal fortitude on the part of such a person but without such responsibility to readers the result is an unreliable and unpalatable goulash.
And without a central planning board, there will be no shoes or bread!
Unfortunately it does not appear that the presentation and preservation of accurate innformation would be possible under your present editorial policies.
Really? I don't think that's true at all. It's disappointing to see you jump to false conclusions and give up so rapidly.
The most important thing you can do is *edit the page*. And work on the talk page to defend your edits _from the point of view of neutrality_. Be prepared to learn, be prepared to work to accomodate, and you'll be just fine.
--Jimbo