I'll just address just one of your points for now: For as long as possible people held off any kind of voting, instead using a rough consensus system. This was

I'll just address just one of your points for now: For as long as possible people held off any kind of voting, instead using a rough consensus system. This was chosen because voting would lead to too much inaccuracy. I know about this because at one point I researched how and why the system was working, and helped write some of the documentation on it. My question to you is where, when, and/or why you think the system looks like reddit voting, as you claim? I would be rather sad if it has broken down of late. note 1: Ironically, the No Original Research [3] rule came about to counter claims of unreliability. I doagree with you that -while it does set a lower limit on reliability- it also sets an upper limit. Besides your objections, it also removes a channel for establishing priority [1], and makes it harder for experts to contribute from memory. [2]. note 2: Wikipedia actually incorporates the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica as the basis for a number of articles [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Ability_to_establish_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Improving_an_article_from_memory_or_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_E...