“All users are potential co-editors.” “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” There is no question about Web 2.0s capacity for enabling users to comment, suggest, even improve the content of sites like the Archive.  But as archivists have already begun to find out, while using Web 2.0 venues to welcome user input about everything from the accuracy and completeness of online finding aids to the identification of digital photographs, it can be time consuming to separate the gold from the dreck.  
And it is one thing to ask the site editors to spend the time accomplishing such separation, harvesting the gold and ignoring the tailings; it is another to assume that users can make similarly accurate judgments about the comments from other users that they encounter on such a site.  The <em>Archive</em>, following the lead of some archival sites, can post a disclaimer that comments from outside the site are not endorsed by the site editors, but while this keeps the site largely above the fray it does nothing to assist users in interpreting the growing number of outside comments attached to the site. 
None of which is to say the editors shouldn’t pursue Ed’s advice, but if they do it should be done with as much consideration as possible for the pros and cons.