Perhaps a "draft" or "proposed revision" page could be added where proposed changes could be seen and revised. When a change has acquired a defined threshold of approval then it automatically occurs.

If Helga's (or 24s or mirwin's or some other unpopulist) perspective cannot attain the threshold then they would automatically remain on the draft page until rewritten to a form acceptable to sufficient others.

The last thing we need is layers of goddamned bureaucracy. "24" was banned, when it comes right down to it, because Jimbo said so, and I frankly was happy about it because he did nothing but regurgitate megabytes of incoherent drivel and took up the valuable time of those who are trying to make something here. That's not a point of view, that's vandalism of the process, and subversion of the project. I don't know that there was ever any suggestion of banning you, or Ed Poor, or anyone else around here just because they're "unpopular". Give us credit for a little personal integrity. Anyone with any point of view is welcome here, and always has been, and always will be--it takes people with different points of view working together to produce some of the good work we've produced here. It is only those who actively subvert that process and get in the way of the work that we would consider taking action against. And when that happens, it should be done by those whom we have entrusted to make this process work, and we should stand up and take responsibility for it. If that makes us a cabal, then dammit we're a cabal, and should be. If someone doesn't like that, the database dump and the software are there for downloading--let him start his own, and see if that democratic nonsense will fly in the real world.