Larry wrote: <snip>

Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?

Well for one thing, in policy of openness (to experts and dilletantes alike), we might avoid stating whether other edits are "crappy," though they may well be. :-)

Aside from that, I don't have any exceptionally good ideas. We're all occasionally vexed when someone who knows less than they think they do starts editing an article clumsily. Typically people recognize when they're out of their field. When they don't, I suppose a gentle reminder that there are experts on certain topics would be in order, as well as preferred approaches to topics. e.g. I would be very surprised to arrive at an article on [[capitalism]] and see that it's been written from an anarchist point of view--though I may agree with much of what the anarchists say.

I for one, reading the [[reality]] article, recognize that I'm out of my field. It's not user friendly, especially to non-philosophers (even patient ones). Currently it needs to be explained more thoroughly--yes, even to the point of defining "real" and "tautology", and explaining the context in which "domain" is being used.

Fred Bauder's part, which you've so conveniently labeled, has the same problems: not defining "sui generis", as well as leaving the definitions unintegrated. Having said that, I think Fred's part is clearly less informed, as well as approaching from a technojunkie's point of view.

Both parts assume we know more than we do. If I didn't know what reality was before reading the article, I wouldn't know what it was after reading it.

Have you tried talking to Fred about it, without mentioning whether you think his edits are crappy? Perhaps he senses a certain antagonism and/or condescension.

kq