Larry Sanger

And so there hasn't been any really radical change to Wikipedia apart from

this sort of redefinition of words like neutrality or reconceptualization of the policies about reliable sources, that sort of thing.

But if you wanted to allow multiple competing articles, for example, there really isn't any

good way to have that discussion and to adopt it.

There is such a zeal about sticking to the current system, whatever it is, that anybody who disagrees with it

is sort of shoved out or leaves in disgust.

And having a legislative process would then allow a lot more creativity.

We could start considering important new policies

So I put it last, but in some ways it actually comes first.

If a legislative process were installed, if there were a Wikipedia editorial assembly or whatever it would be called.

Then it would be really interesting to watch.

And I can imagine, you know, these sort of legislators from around the world coming together, meeting face to face and, you know, debating.

in the way that politicians do various policies, and presumably they would represent the editors very well.

One thing that would make such a thing much more legitimate than at present is that, again, we don't know

How many people are standing behind the active accounts, right?

Might be just one entity that is controlling multiple accounts.

And there's really no way of knowing.

I see.

The beauty of neutrality is precisely that such reservations and even strong pushback can be expressed sympathetically right alongside the views that are so offensive.

Thank you for having me.