Is it really? This is one of the main things I'm concerned about, and I've done a poor job of articulating my concern. It's quite easy to make edits which seem legitimate, accurate, and NPOV, but are actually nothing of the sort. Cite sources which don't exist, or don't say what you claim they do, or simply cite a source which turns out to be someone making things up out of whole cloth. I've dealt with all of these things from editors who aren't even Nazis and I have no doubt that the Nazis won't hesitate to employ such methods. For some reason, I found it nearly impossible to find editors to help combat this sort of stuff in an article about a Nobel Prize winner; how many editors are willing to wade through obscure footnotes in the life of Eustace Mullins or William Pierce to fight a persistent POV warrior? I can't imagine a more stubborn and intractible POV warrior than a person whose entire worldview revolves around fighting the Elders of Zion.

Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com But my response to this particular argument is that *at least in this particular case*, the odds of him doing anything which is 'unnoticed and uncorrected' is close to zero *in this account*.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com