The primary question is that who is deciding that what kind of information is curated and whether the arguments have been properly voted, and the process itself is transparent.
I guess nobody could disagree, that it benefits all if the site is useful and whether the content is factually correct and up-to-date and follows Q&A format.
> The primary question is that who is deciding that what kind of information is curated and whether the arguments have been properly voted, and the process itself is transparent.
You already seem aware of the existence of the meta site - which contains reams of useful information and prior discussion and explanation of policy - so I assume you are simply complaining about others disagreeing with you, rather than genuinely wondering.
I am not attacking you; I am questioning your bona fides. I didn't link you because you have already demonstrated awareness of the only reasonable links to give you in context.
I guess nobody could disagree, that it benefits all if the site is useful and whether the content is factually correct and up-to-date and follows Q&A format.
I admit, I haven't followed what happens closely for some time, but here is some older example post: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389834/statement-fr...