Hello With several prominent editors (Adam, Zero, and Viajero) declaring their intention to cut back their edits, quite a few thoughts spring to mind. I want to share them: 1. This is a great loss. In their own way, each of these people contributed significantly to Wikipedia, and really helped improve the quality of articles, especially in controversial areas. 2. I can understand their frustration. I myself have stopped editing most of the articles in which my professional expertise lies quite a long time ago. It can be annoying to argue with people who are not as invested in subject matter as we, who have devoted a large part of our professional and personal lives to, are. 3. In the end, no one is irreplaceable. People come and go. It is the nature of the Internet and of life. I say this with the deepest respect to the above contributors, and in the sincere hope that they will reconsider their decisions in some way or another. 4. The points they raise are real, and should be addressed. 5. It is inevitable that there will be controversy over the articles they write. There is such heated controversy over them in real life. I laud their efforts to dive into the fray (Zero and Viajero on the Middle East question; Adam on a broad range of topics) 6. One person's NPOV is another person's bias. 7. Many newcomers, who will shoot down the compromise materials and reopen old wounds, are totally unaware of the hours that went into forging an acceptable compromise. 8. Some people, unfortunately, are here for the sole purpose of pushing their POV, whether this is known to them or not. 9. The solutions that we developed to these kinds of problems when Wikipedia was smaller may not be effective at our current size. 10. Nevertheless, people have recognized that the problems they point to are inherent in the system from quite a while ago. 11. Resolving these issues is vital if we are to really grow--they are certainly questions that potential funders will ask. 12. Lots of creative suggestions have already been made. See for example, [[Article validation]] on meta for some ideas. All that said, I urge Adam, Zero, and Viajero to rethink their decisions. I also ask them to contribute more actively to the discussion about validation that is taking place on meta, so as to help us find a solution to their concerns that is both viable and in keeping with Wikipedia's renown for openness. Flagging peer-approved versions may be one such option, but there are certainly others. Until a method is reached, I urge you to continue contributing to your other areas of expertise: Adam--Australian and ancient history; Zero--mathematics; Viajero--opera. At the same time, I also urge you to participate in more intense discussion of validation options, reform of arbitration procedures, and creative handling of rogue users. These should help to reduce the issues you raise. I am posting this to Foundation as well, because I think that many of the issues you raise apply to other projects, and not just English. Danny