On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The illustration still fosters the notion of some overseeing
gatekeeper on an article expressing editorial control— which is not
the expected behaviour of the system, nor a desired behaviour, nor
something we would even have the resources to do if it were desirable.
In particular there is no per-revision analysis mandated by our
system: Many edits will happen, then someone with the right
permissions will look at a delta from then-to-now and decide that
nothing is terrible in the current version and make it the displayed
version. It's possible that there were terrible intermediate
versions, but it's not relevant.
^that
--
~Keegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan