The problem is not lack of expressive power, it's excess. JavaScript was unmaintainable until jQuery came around. I'll start trusting JavaScript code as soon as we get a checker that enforces some sane coding conventions based on jQeury or something equivalent (if it exists).

Nowadays, it takes more than five minutes to raise the quality of most articles I could, in principle, improve (and there are lots of them). It takes more thought and research. I can no longer indulge in drive-by editing as much as I used to. "Raising the bar", they called it on everything2.com, where the same thing has happened, with a rating system. I think the other things we're seeing, such as the diminishing number of active editors, are largely a side effect.

There is another argument for inclusionism: if you delete an article that doesn't satisfy someone's quality standards, countless others will replace it. Incremental improvement won't work if you don't allow it. The banners are a better method.

Who are "they"? Your remark doesn't make sense - Wikipedia is not a "they".

I do think Wikipedia is "complete" in the sense that most things most people can contribute are already in there. This alone can explain the slowdown, as the WSJ article mentioned.

Some people do get very protective of articles and/or principles. I definitely felt a barrier when I wanted to start to contribute. This is another impoprtant effect. But these people do not form a "they", they don't act as a collective.

Please look up the word "fascism". What you're describing is anarchy, not totalitarian all-encompassing control. I associate it with kindergarten, not with Mussolini. (YMMV.)

I don't find the WSJ story dumb at all. Perhaps you should try reading it with your prejudice filter disabled.

Is this a real number? If it is, where did you get it?

It's not willingness, but the guts and stamina to actually go in there and do it every day that distinguishes teachers, medical professionals, and these other professions from, let's say, Slashdot readers.

You're so wrong. Your comparison is flawed.

This issue is clearly relevant to many Slashdot readers. The reason to bring up is to solicit suggestions from interested readers, many of whom may have relevant experience that they may be willing to share. The legal question is very important so it must be stated. The OP did *not* ask Slashdot to *answer* that question. Not all useful information gathering related to a legal question is legal advice.

Imagine Stingdot, a forum for people with long-term medical conditions. On such a forum it would be perfectly appropriate for someone who has been diagnosed with diabetes to ask a question "Managing insulin injections" that really revolves around a concrete medical question, namely, how much insulin to inject and when. The goal of raising that subject would not be to obtain an answer to the question instead of asking a doctor, but rather, to seek comparisons with other people's cases, how they manage in practice, how critical to be of the doctor's orders, etcetera.

JavaScript is terrible. jQuery fixes it.

I think jQuery has resolved this issue magnificently. Not just datagrids, but bridging the content-presentation gap in general. HTML 5 seems a little late and you're always going to need something like jQuery on top of it anyway.

Trying to get HTML 5 adopted seems a little like trying to swim the Atlantic. I prefer sailing jQuery style, but maybe that's just me.

Only with equal temperament, of course.