Unlike Wikipedia we do not strive to present a Neutral Point of View in pages. The value of diversity in a community based wiki helps to present many points of view and opinions that are all valuable and reflective of the community. Freedom of speech is tied to a certain expectation about responsibility of speech; you can't have one without the other.

When I first started here, the idea of editing the main text of a page was intimidating to me, because it was so far from just adding a comment. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes, piss anyone off, or break any norms. Now that I'm far more familiar with the wiki, though, I find that sense of gravity attached to the "main entry" to be somewhat disturbing. It severely undermines the whole idea of collaborative editing, and it reinforces the division between casual editors and the more frequent editors who are more familiar with the wiki. Whatever the name for it, different points of view belong in the "main entry." When the point(s) of view appearing on a page aren't representative of the ideas held by the community, those who feel differently will add their ideas. If no one (snicker) is taking issue with the POV presented, it's probably a sign that, at present, it covers community views on the issue reasonably well. Comments are great and have their place. They increase accessibility to those less computer savvy and/or less invested in the community. But their existence shouldn't be an excuse to steal the energy and vitality from the so-called "main entry" of a page. The two can coexist, happily, and I think it's a terrible idea to exclude something from the main text of a page simply because opinion is more densely packed elsewhere. —TomGarberson