Re:It's not about the encyclopedia (Score 1)

I agree that the best thing is the collaborative approach, and that same collaberation needs to be applied toward the evaluation of contributions to articles. Concretely, I believe that people or groups should be able to "validate" or give their seal of approval to articles as a whole or specific contributions to them. Who controls them? Everyone. You let individuals (and groups) evaluation contributions, and you then let them evaluate the evaluators. Do you simply take a majority vote? No. First, the metric shouldn't just be a scale of 1-5, but should be more 3 dimensional (sort of like with slashdot's descriptive mods: troll, insightful, etc.--could have one's like troll, poor grammar, decent but doesn't factcheck enough, etc.) [you could even have a fluid/democratic evaluation system]. Second, you let each individual choose what's presented to them (but encourage them to look at things they disagree with--while giving the choice to filter out the trolls completely, or if they choose to filter out the negative evaluations of X groups). That's it.