> It means that editors don't have to worry about legal, sysadmin, PR, etc.; and conversely WMF is not directly responsible for Wikipedia content. What's so un

> It means that editors don't have to worry about legal, sysadmin, PR, etc.; and conversely WMF is not directly responsible for Wikipedia content. What's so unimaginable about having separate editorial and legal deparments within the WMF? > Believe me, it would be silly for WMF to be involved in all editorial disputes about what should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, how things should be formatted, etc., in all languages. Having months-long discussions over how to spell the title of a Star Trek film is what I would call silly. Having long-winded, vague and haphazardly enforced policies regarding accuracy, scope and style is what I would call not just silly, but outright tragic. At the end of the day these decisions have to be made somehow, and I'd rather have them made by some entity which can do so with some consistency and vision, and is willing to enforce those decisions, instead of having them made by the ever-changing whims of an amorphous mob throwing around thought-terminating clichés like 'consensus can change' and 'ignore all rules'. (Though I'm not confident that the WMF, as it is, is actually capable of being one.)