D. Amy and others, put any two or more people into one "room" even a cyber room such as this, and that is the reason for the advice and admonitions of Courtesy, for instance. To phrase it politely, it's Egos on Steroids.
We DO collaborate, per force, because once we add a profile, it becomes "common property" at WT just as it would at Ancestry for instance -- but with WT the profile is not behind a pay-wall. The IDEAL is that each PM contributes their efforts to the commonweal of WT .
There rules somewhere amid the plethora of Help: pages and I and any number of others could agree some editing might make an improvement in clarity in this section (Help:) I don't even want to discuss this matter. There have been complaints and compliments both about the content and clarity.
The statement has also been made, and frequently, that a Good Profile contains in == Sources == the addresses of the evidence used to support the assertions made in the creation of the profile; that those addresses are still functioning and that the evidence is still available be it image or a statement that the document in question is in the State archives etc
It is admitted by many that a number of profiles lack proper Sources.
The statement has also be made frequently that the Biography is either acceptable in Narrative format (as one would find in the Vanity biographies of some geographical area) or in Notes which explicate on some conflict in the data or an explanation why some data is still being sought, and any other information that might be helpful to future research.
Everything in the way of tools and policies that are needed for furthering the Good Work in hand at WT is in place.
IN MY OPINION What is needed is less evangelism for one school or another in preference to any other. Some people do not WANT to "ascend" to High Academic with inline footnotes. Some people do not WANT to be certified by BCG and prefer something more conclusive and definitive such as I was taught 50+ years ago. Some people could benefit by accepting that there is NO universal requirement that others agree; it would be helpful if not agreeing with some point of view were met with mature acceptance that not everyone WILL agree. (There's other ways to say this, but I'm being polite. Trying to be polite.)
IN MY OPINION accepting that someone else does not agree -- truly accepting this rather than doubling efforts to "convert" them -- would go a long way to spread the balm of Goodwill.