Doc_glasgow, #wikipedia-en-admins:
    The more I do OTRS, the more I'm beging to have a moral problem with including marginal bios and
    schools - we are not able to protect these peopel and institutions against horrible malicious
    attacks - perhaps then we should not have the articvles, if we can't offer reasonable protection
    for the subjects.  I'm seriously wondering whether I want to continue with a project that hurts
    people so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worldtraveller
    There are well over a million articles but perhaps only 1,000 currently active dedicated
    editors. With more than 1000 articles per dedicated editor, clearly only a tiny fraction will
    ever be a) brought to a high standard and b) kept at a high standard.  The aim of being as
    authoritative as Britannica is impossible when large numbers of editors want to create 'trivia'
    articles or sections, endless lists of 'X in popular fiction', enormously detailed articles on
    ephemeral pop stars, etc, or who write from such a narrow perspective that their work is not of
    interest to the vast majority of readers. Very few editors are actually working on fundamentally
    important articles, many of which remain of very poor quality.