| prec | This editor is a precisionist. |
Opinion follows .....
I believe a significant flaw with Wikipedia is that the roles "identify possible flaw" and "decide what to do" are very often the same driven individual or 'mental' group. This leads to multiple biases.
This is compounded at all the meta levels above that by the roles that "decide what a flaw is" and "decide how to process a flaw" are also opaquely intertwined.
This has lead to a vast and untrusted bureacracy at war with itself.
I propose a simple and brutal solution.
Anyone can propose a change at any level.
Random volunteer editors are asked to evaluate and rule on the change using a simple majority quorum. The bigger the change the bigger the quorum required with a minimum of at least 3.
Editors can excuse themselves from some decisions for practical reasons but need to do some work or be considered inactive.
Wikipedia was certainly not initially advertised as "The very strict compilation of topics that happen to have multiple reputable secondary sources". It was advertised as "The encyclopdia that anyone can edit".
For many "public anyones", 'encyclopdia' is not so narrowly concieved a concept.
It is rather, "as big as possible" and "as reliable as possible".
Listen to the users, give them the wikipdia they want, not an Ivory Tower to marvel at but never enter. JohnMacNamara (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)