That is incorrect. The entire goal of this project is to create the largest, most widely-used, and best encyclopedia in the world and to give that to everybody on the planet. Everything else, and I mean *everything* (including our openness and the community itself), is a means to *that* end. Nothing more. True, Wikipedia is effectively an experiment in openness and radical democracy. But that has never been the goal or point of it. We have just found that experimenting in those areas have brought us great success (at least in terms of growth). But the experiment continues and we will need to adjust as events change. So we must change the way we do things if and/when any aspect of our experimental methods show a systematic problem that adversely impacts quality. Is the Seigenthaler incident a symptom of such a systematic problem? One can't use a single example to prove such a thing, but it still should serve as a wake up call. That call is this: We are big and popular now. Like it or not a great many people who never edit articles and never will, trust (or at least use) us as a source. So I think we have an obligation to question our methods when quality has slipped. Saying SoGoFixIt when reads outnumber writes by more than 200 to 1 is no longer a valid retort. However, I agree that killing the goose called Openness that laid the golden egg called Wikipedia would be a huge mistake. But I think we can and should continue to improve the ways we try to tame and monitor that beast (better RC patrol features, trust networks to filter RC and watchlists, article validation, etc). Openness has been a profitable gravy train for us. Let's not forget that the train is supposed to be going toward a certain direction. -- mav __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/