Have you ever worked in a company where the lead project managers were mostly brilliant and hardworking\u2014but short on accountability and frequently elusive? Where, after formal business meetings, the insiders met informally to make the real decisions? Where the product inspired a cult-like devotion among many users\u2014but nonetheless left users or customers privately wondering if the product wasn't inspiring more than a little irrational exuberance in a sometimes shoddy, often mysterious product? If so, then you understand more than 2 million articles that hovers among the this one for the Pace Mannion page). True enough\u2014assuming it is sound long-range editorial policy to build an encyclopedia through a battle of wills, with the last edit winning\u2014but deletions are another story. Once a Wikipedia editor deletes a Wikipedia article, the history of that article's edits is gone forever. Even if the article is reinstated, the page author, if challenged, must again laboriously rebuild his case. Jason Perlow, cofounder of the food site Wikitruth watches for articles that are vulnerable for deletion, "especially when an article has lived for years and has dozens of edits and a sudden 'information fad' screams across Wikipedia and enough people are snowed across the voting period (about five days) to delete the article," said the respondent to a query to Wikitruth, who would not reveal his or her identity. According to this source, Wikitruth volunteers save articles to the Wikitruth site and then "put them back [on Wikipedia]." If U Cn Rd Ths...As Wikipedia ages, its editors increasingly write in a bureaucratic patois thick with internal jargon and acronyms, making it difficult to decipher the rationale for their decisions. The webpage discussing the WP:RfAr\u2014the ominous-sounding "Wikipedia: Requests for Arbitration," also described as "the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia." WP:RfAr turns out to be a misnomer, because articles can go on probation. When this happens, Wikipedia cautions that "[Editors] of such articles should be ESPECIALLY mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, etc. and interaction policies, like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" (respectively, Neutral Point of View, Civility, and [Personal] Attacks). Perhaps Carr had this acronym soup in mind when he said, "For the best management analogy to the current model [of management for Wikipedia], you'd probably have to go to Kafka."\n MORE ON WIKIPEDIA\n \n Five Things Wikipedia's Founder Has Learned About Online Collaboration\n\n \n New Tool Exposes Self-Edits in Wikipedia\n\n \n ABC: An Introduction to Blogs and Wikis in the Business World\n The power to edit has also led some editors to abuse that power through sockpuppetry\u2014assuming a second, clandestine identity\u2014which they then use to support their own point of view on a page. Wikipedia's FAQ claims, "We want Wikipedia to be around at least a hundred years from now, if it does not turn into something even more significant," and Wikipedia's fundraising page asks potential donors to "Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge." (They accept PayPal, all major credit cards and personal checks.)The significance of Wikipedia and its role as the encyclopedia was not lost on Turkish historian Taner Akcam, who according to news reports was detained at the Trudeau Airport in Montreal for more than three hours in February 2007 because security officers suspected him of terrorism based on a vandalized biographical page on Wikipedia, now "