Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all. Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki. With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game. Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ). Let me give you some examples. If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong factually
--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right. On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language. All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission. It's better that way simply because it's more efficient. This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger
(violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)
And who is the ultimate judge of what is overstated or biased...other than you...:-).
I guess, anyone who wants to change the page. Wiki being what it is, every person accessing can edit anything. --JimboWales
Have a look at NeutralPointOfView
and make a Talk page there if you like. To answer your question, each competent, honest, unimpaired, intelligent person is capable of making this judgment, and I expect there would be considerable agreement on many cases. -- LarrySanger
I hope we are not heading to TheReasonableMan?
in law, or any such norm...Ouch!