You invested a fair amount of time and emotions in writing this, but you won't even say which article you are talking about? It's usually just one word.

I would never argue that Wikipedia has problems. But in this special case the problem lies probably elsewhere.

I think the case is highly unusual - not only the 12 people who were sabotaged by this one troll. Perhaps Tom has forgotten to tell some crucial details.

How can I distract from any problem by asking for a link? I'd like to understand the problems involved.

...but that is no answer to my question. Yes, there were many questionable decisions in Wikipedia, but not every single one is related to every other incident.

...which article you are talking about? It sounds pretty unusual that a dozen contributors lose interest in one article at the same time. Perhaps you can provide a link to the delete discussion?

The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore. interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.

Jon Steward has something to say about the problem

If you don't trust the Parliamentary System at all - how would you know that the "actual bills" are compiled correctly?

I've always thought, rather than have revision-upon-revision-upon-revision, so that you have to dig through 20 different bills to arrive at the final document, they should just republish the whole U.S. Code with the changes made. That way you only need to look at one document - the final one. It's not as if we're running out of electrons or paper.

I don't know about the U.S. Code but lawmakers all around the world do this already. Representatives vote for the "patch", but citizens only have to read the final document.

Let's look at an example, shall we? I picked a bill from govtrack.us: Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.

The bill would change the United States Code. You would not have to know the "Respect for Marriage Act" at all, you just have to know the United States Code.

My point: law makers use a kind of revisioning system already. The Respect for Marriage Act is like a proposed patch for the United States Code.

If this was the issue, how could one of the crime capitals of the world get the Olympics? Rio is not known for its secure environment.

You have to learn the difference between "a bill" ang "the law". If you are not an healthcare professional 99 percent of the bill will never concern you, nor can any criminal court use the health care bill to put you in jail.

I guess the kernel source code and 100 pages bills are the same in this aspect. You don't need to know every little regulation in every field and in every part of the process. You have elected representatives who have to deal with complex legal issues. The 1000 pages are simply not relevant to you, but you should if you get health coverage and who has to pay for it. It is relevant for you that there is no "death panel". It is relevant for you if you can go to a doctor of your choice.

I'm not a citizen in the US, but in many countries bills ake allready like patches.

If you want to change the law "Everybody must pay one dollar" to "Everybody must pay two dollars" you will not pass the whole law again, you will pass another bill that says that "one dollar" is replaces by "two dollars".

This way, the bills get huge - but the actual law is far less voluminous.

So instead what winds up happening is the men and women voting for the law don't understand the law themselves.

That is an issue: Law makers habe to understand the decisions they are making. Of course not everybody has the knowledge to evaluate evry single consequence of every law, but the representatives have to keep the control.

A few thousand people in the whole world can really understand the source code of the linux kernel. Why would Linus make it so complicated? Is this "openness" just another prank? No, some things are complex. To make laws is a highly complex issue, Of course, there are many problems with the processes of law making - but just simplyfying the language would not do any good.