[pavel_lishin]

I think you need a Benevolent Dictator, or a council thereof, who can delegate as well. Inevitably, you'll have edit-wars, differences of opinion, etc. You need someone to step in and authoritatively declare, "this is what Grok considers to be truth".

Articles might need a warning before editing to warn users that certain edits or information will be reverted/removed.

[tashmahalic]

I think that most disagreements will be resolvable via discussion in topic threads. The Topic Guidelines (https://grok.how/11) provide the criteria to judge.

For topics where the truth is a matter of opinion, the topic should probably just describe the different points of view, and qualify their use-cases and pros and cons, rather than arbitrarily picking one.

For the remainder, the side with the strongest references should win. I'll probably need to stratify the community a bit as Grok grows. Those with more influence should judge based on the site principles, similar to the US Supreme Court interpreting the law. I'm cautious to avoid fiefdoms, ulterior motives, and conflicts of interest.