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