That's also a good point. But remember that Wikipedia, despite it's principle of "anyone can edit", also has some sort of a moderating system in place - otherwise you will indeed have no way to defend yourself against the hordes of conspiracy thinkers, new-age fuzzybrains, quacks, "Einstein got it wrong! It's E = MC^3" theorists and the like - who share an above-average zeal in wanting to advertise their ideas.Roman wrote: Yes, some of the problems with Wikipedia come from that (for example, at one point the German article on energy was flooded by esoterics who insisted that their views were just as good and overwhelmed the physicists by sheer numbers), but I don't like the concept of an 'approval team' at all, as it tends to lead to the formation of cliques who gang up against any outsiders. For this reason, we actually have rotary moderators on this forum, each half a year, and every user can volunteer.
I would like to see something along the lines of a forum, i.e. being able to register and make changes right away, but with a possibility to be banned if vandalism is committed. But maybe the others should also say what they think.
The point is that an ultimate democracy has no built-in concept of quality, and cannot distinguish on that grounds. The majority always rules. There is no place for true authority, based on knowledge, skill and experience.
And yet, what you say about the "possibility to be banned *if* ... " also implies some sort of moderator: someone has got to decide on that banning.
In short, I don't think that you can ultimately do without any form of editorial team / person. The problem is, IMO, to find the right balance between at one hand (what you say too) the tendency to form cliques, and at the other hand, the tendency of pure democracy to give the lowest common denominator the decisive voice: the fish-market democracy.
I am worried most about the latter problem, and maybe the first problem can be dealt with by having some form of rotary editor-ship, like you mention exists on this forum. That editor-ship could then be open to anyone who has demonstrated to have a certain level of scholarly knowledge and skill; and of course s/he must be willing to do this. I think that there are definitely a couple of people in here who could do this.
I would in an case never consider it, because I lack the proper methodological aptitude. I'm fine using Sindarin, but only as a user indeed.