brotherbock

How would you respond to someone who says that they don't trust the site because of

1) Ryan Jordan

2) Overstock.com/Patrick Byrne/Naked Short Sales

3) SlimVirgin/Linda Mack/Lockerbie bombing

all of which seem to point not to the 'anyone can edit' issue as being the real problem, but instead point to a lack of oversight of the 'people in charge'.

If strongly biased people who lie about their credentials to strongarm people can reach senior positions of power, how can we view WP as at all neutral?

Ever seen Freak and Geeks, the TV show? There was a fantastic episode about a stoner character who starts falling for a girl, to have her confide in him that she "could have been either" when she was born, and her parents chose. (Pretty vague about the specifics in the show.) Fantastic episode, including the stoner (Seth Rogan, btw) sitting down and listening to 'gay' music to see if he's okay with being gay, because he thinks for a while that he might have to be, because he likes her.

Missoula? Maybe the college has an acting department that could get you some leads.

Honestly, one of the more fascinating AMAs I have read in a while. You certainly sound like someone who has her head on her shoulders, despite more issues than most people have to deal with.

Good on ya, and keep on keeping on. :)

So there's no way to prevent it? For example, not handing out any kind of senior status until someone has provided credentials?

Look, this is the issue: I don't trust the site beyond "Hey, I wonder when that guy was born" sort of questions, not because there might be added content that has not been caught yet, but because I don't know who the editors are, and what they might be actively preventing me from having access to simply because they do not agree with the position.

When I read professional journals, I know who the editors are, I can research them, their views and biases. This is necessary for properly interpreting the information they present. This is essentially impossible for the average WP user.