g1smd - 7:33 am on Sep 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I assume that by "balance of opinion" you mean "get two or three editors to review each listing"?

I trust other editors to do a good job adding sites. Any editor can check the logs for any other editor or category at any time. Anyone new is monitored for a while to make sure they "get it". Most categories will have seen at least several editors contributing to the category, so many problems are quickly noticed by someone else passing through. There is plenty of internal discussion about specific sites or categories when potential or real problems arise. Some of those problems lead to a change on the way editors as a whole work.

Simply requiring that two editors review every action would instantly cut productivity in half. Editors want to do their own work. Not many would volunteer to simply check the work of someone else. In any case if corruption is so rampant, two editors could merely co-operate and work as a pair approving sites that should not be listed.

So, you would still have inappropriate listings getting in, and productivity would have halfed not stopping them get in? That isn't progress. Once a site is listed, it is open to re-review by ANY editor, and every member of the public.