A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
- Both those proposals would be inconsistent with the stated terms of your current license: CC + Wikipedia NPV. See my comments here.
Roadmap and license conflicts
The Creative Commons license is the license under which someone can re-use the content in the Wiki. The terms under which content is currently contributed are here. These terms don't restrict what Reuters can do with the content (and at the same time they don't restrict what the contributor can do with their contributions - the license is non-exclusive).
I don't believe that what I foresee as a possible editorial workflow alters the NPV unless you believe the people who will be doing the "approving" are systematically biased (compared to the people who are contributing the content). The workflow I described would not hide changes or queue them for approval. It would simply provide an option for users to see the most recent version of a page which had been checked by a trusted authority. It's not much more than a formalisation of what happens on Wikipedia where many pages are patrolled by people who correct errors which they see being introduced. The judgement of approvers should be consistent with NPV and factual accuracy. Also, there's no assumption that all the approvers will be from Reuters. I've tried to clarify this in the article.
Finally, the NPV should not preclude how-to information for any product being added as long as it is related to a term which belongs in the glossary and it is factual (ie what you might find in a product manual) rather than marketing. If users want to add information about how to find EBITDA in a Bloomberg terminal, why not? Just the way an analyst might provide both a RIC and a Bloomberg code in a report.