but when they write nonsense, brazen political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth

But very often one person's "brazen political propaganda" is another person's "neutral point of view". I don't see any way around this problem.

some lines that just can't be crossed without the community taking a forthright stand against it.

Who defines who the "community" is? If one person comes who the "community" sees as a crank, that doesn't make them a crank. If twenty people come who the "community" sees as cranks, that still doesn't make them cranks. And if enough cranks come that they become the majority, does that make the old-timers the new "cranks"?

Wikipedia strives to neutrally present all points of view, but that really is impossible since there is no "gold standard" of neutrality.

It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.

If there is a difference of opinion where one wikipedia member is in opposition to five hundred wikipedia members, then it could just as well be said that the five hundred are failing to bow to "peer pressure" or to be "educated" by the one. Might does not make right, and the so-called "community" is dangerously close to mob rule.

If Wikipedia is to have long-term standards, then I don't see any way to maintain them other than to simply state that they exist, state that they will be enforced, and stop trying to justify them behind higher principles.

Of course, all of this is IMHO.

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2