Has there ever been a truly independent, external review of the Pee-dia? (Except for the executive-search firm employed to find someone to run the Wikimedia Foundation which concluded that Wikipedia was "too immature" as an organization to hire a chief executive ... before they went ahead and handed Sue Gardner a $6,000,000 check to play with anyway AND allowed her on to the board's nominating committee, so she gets to pick her own bosses too).
Funnily enough, I am just an oft accused and banished troll but, personally, I would have employed a real life ombudsperson or conflict resolution expert, a consultant editor from the world of real encyclopedias and perhaps a public affairs consultant to review what was going on.
Pick some intelligent, educated and experienced individuals, drop them into the middle of the Wikipedia, see how they get on and then allow them to feed back.
It could have been fun. A bit like a special 'Librarian's edition' of Survivor ...
"and let's see how Manny Rothstein got on this week with his RfC and whether on not he is going to Arbcom for edit warring on the Balkan Wars again ... even if he is a Prof. Emeritus at Universität Leipzig we know that counts for nothing on ... Survivor Wikipedia".
Oh ... I can feel another 'toon coming on.
Being seen to pick "known offenders" from within "the community", despite their obvious good intentions, was always bound to be like pulling Klingons off butthole hairs in public ... the cause of pain and embarrassment all round.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: