UGC- To Moderate or Not to Moderate

No one can discount the benefits that most user generated content provides to the greater good of any given cause however where do we want to draw the line between content providers, editors and what is allowed to be published? Many argue that having content with less than perfect grammar is far better than having an empty page and often times poor quality content will be revised by the more passionate users of any particular site. But who is qualifying content for appropriateness, relevance and in some cases vulgarity or offensiveness?

It has become common place for site 'editors' to just be glorified users- but how much authority do they have to revise or even take down another's content? What should we do on occasions where inaccurate, ill-advised content is being furnished? In most instances most argue that more provocative content should always be left unchanged to give others the opportunity to respond with their own knowledge. While the debate continues as to how much editing should be allowed and who has the right to do so, the fact that will never change is we ultimately have to take personal responsibility in what we read online versus what we believe and, in turn, how we react to others thoughts and ideas.