[WikiEN-l] Following up -

[Jimmy Wales]

Eileen  wrote:
> I was further dismayed to discover that your attempt at a
> democratic, co-operative project lends itself to a tyranny of the
> loudest voice; or the fastest editorial pen; or the most persistent
> objecter. Also disappointing is the fact that under the guise of a
> neutral viewpoint political jargon is being passed of as reliable
> and accurate information.

In general, this description of the outcome of articles is
surprisingly _not true_.  What wins over time is reasonableness and
broad acceptability, not the loudest voice, fastest pen, or most
persistent objector.

>  Your "free for all" approach does not appear to lend itself to
> editorial responsibility and overview, however.  There has to be a
> point where the buck ends and somebody (or perhaps group) takes
> responsibility for obviously false content by refusing to permit it
> to be printed.  This will, of course, require a good deal of
> intestinal fortitude on the part of such a person but without such
> responsibility to readers the result is an unreliable and
> unpalatable goulash.

And without a central planning board, there will be no shoes or bread!

> Unfortunately it does not appear that the presentation and
> preservation of accurate innformation would be possible under your
> present editorial policies.

Really?  I don't think that's true at all.  It's disappointing to see
you jump to false conclusions and give up so rapidly.

The most important thing you can do is *edit the page*.  And work on
the talk page to defend your edits _from the point of view of
neutrality_.  Be prepared to learn, be prepared to work to accomodate,
and you'll be just fine.

--Jimbo