Changes

:'''Pros'''

:'''Pros'''

::Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog".  That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.

::Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog".  That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.

::If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated.  This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information.  This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki.

::Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint.  The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated.  This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information.  This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. '''If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?'''

:'''Cons'''

:'''Cons'''

::Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.

::Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.