QUOTE
By allowing anonymous editing, Wikipedia is taking responsibility for content produced in such a way. It cannot be otherwise, because some edits simply cannot be traced.
That's what I've been trying say for months now. But Jimbo says that Wikipedia is immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because Wikipedia is an interactive service provider.
About the unsigned news articles: This woman is a reporter, not someone who officially editorializes for her employer. I see lots of places where her by-line is on her articles. Even with unsigned articles, if the subject of an interview has a complaint, he can talk to the editor, and the editor will -- you can be sure -- talk with the reporter to find out what's going on. The reporter knows that acceptable performance is a condition of continued employment. In other words, the reporter still feels accountable.
That's quite different from the culture that exists at Wikipedia. I'm not even going to talk about the teenage admins at Wikipedia, or loose cannons like SlimVirgin, because I get angry and start missing keys on the keyboard.