>So who's the ultimate editorial authority on Wikipedia? Some people
>can delete the remarks of others - but who says?
As I understand it, the _ultimate_ editorial authority would be a five-member board of directors that includes the "benevolent dictator" founder and two of his business associates. But the thing is supposed to operate according to some internalized standard of civility. The problem is there is no baseline of accountability, short of "vandalism", that I can find. Until someone rules otherwise, an anonymous editor has as much authority as they are willing to exercise time and effort to usurp. If I wanted to, I could go in and completely revise an entry according to what I thought was appropriate. Two hours later someone else with an opinion that they deemed to be a "neutral point of view" could come in a revert to the previous content. LBO could make a project of going in every three days and completely revising the Doug Henwood entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Henwood) Or Lou Proyect's Marxmail list could make that _their_ project. ;-)
The Sandwichman