I totally agree that there are degrees of moderation and moderation quality, and ideally the wiki should evolve to continually improving moderation, with experts involved. It has to, for validity. Just playing devil's advocate now: there will always be a challenge for moderating disinformation and conflict. My point is not that we shouldn't moderate. I am highlighting the inevitabilities preemptively, so that we don't allow the observation of human fallibility stop improved moderation. Science has to be about minimising human foibles, bias and subjectivity. https://news.google.com/s/CAoiMkNCS...JwWVNCdGIyUmxjbUYwYjNJb0FBUAE?shl=en&r=11&oc= While I am at it, the initiative does deserve praise for it's existence. I really believe in does.