Thanks to Brion, who pointed out the matter of readabilty to me. Accordingly, please allow me another, nicely formatted and more to the point, posting: It has been said that Wikipedia is „work in progress“ and will probably continue to do so. On the other hand it ails from the fact that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a simultaneously 1. consistent (with respect to various articles on a similar topic) 2. unvandalized and 3. correct (with respect to a single article) throughout Wikipedia From my point of view, compared to those three points the shortcoming of the non-completeness of WP dwindles to almost nothing. Let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for roads to stability – or at least local optima – have long been laid out by physics. Heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes to take place as time passes. Simulated annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world. The rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have matured over time are - statistically speaking - less likely to improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones. Some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. What I think reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line. There is too much unproven and partially unprovable information in the WP. That could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information. Besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put established statements upside down. Whereas scientific journals have peer review to prevent superfluous or erroneous contributions, WP only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages (for everyone) and reverts (mostly by admins, who can't always claim erudition in all the domains they are watching, I guess). So why not confer a little bit more of responsibility to the authors!? He/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref.type, etc.). Asking a little more information from authors could be a substantial part of the rising editing threshold necessary for "cooling down" WP a bit. I find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their work – partly due to the ease of use WP offers for non-serious edits, too, and I can‘t help feeling that a larger and larger part of WP keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the existing standard. We mustn't be sure of still finding enthusiatic acclaim in the years to come when WP becomes a battlefield in a fight against distracting, redundant or plain wrong infobits. Comments from both the user/admin and developer side welcome. Best, kai (kku)