Thanks for the reply.  I perceive that I am the anachronism.  If something is described in a way that is inaccurate, or even substantially unhelpful in terms of communication of the knowledge of the article, I believe that any encyclopedia that will be useful, broadly and in the longterm, must have an established way of discarding/correcting/replacing such content. Now, if one carte balance removes absolutely awful incorrect, incomplete, misleading, etc.) content, you are perceived as the scofflaw—even if you made essentially the same required, professional correction to a 2nd year's university or 1st year graduate trainee's paper a week earlier. Hence, I have finished fighting about this (see my User page).  I will work to get it right before submitting, and engage in a month of replies to discussion. If, in that time, the content issue cannot be resolved without entering into any current (or currently debated replacement) dispute resolution arena—I will punt, and do the rest I describe at my User page. ( Life is simply too short, knowledgable users too little empowered, and system to titanic in nature.)  That said, note/realize, I am a scientist, and understand that as one moves from the sciences to other areas of intellectual endeavor, the process of arriving at what is an accurate reflection on a subject would need to be modified, perhaps substantially. My view is that one needs real, senior editors, with editorial control. But you can guess how far that proposal will fare.