Organic in the first instance, yes, but the eventual editing will need to be rigorous and clear, so that the (ongoing) "fair copy" is properly organised and concise ("elegant" indeed, if you like). The various mythic "explanations" of the origins of the Cutty Wren, for example, can be condensed into one short paragraph: none are provable, so no discussion of that aspect need be retained.

With due respect to Joe, we certainly don't want to end up with something like the FAQ thread, which is large, unwieldy and possibly intimidating for beginners, and might better be organised as a series of static pages with the permathread retained for contributions.

I certainly agree with Ian that, if this new approach is to succeed, the editor(s) must have no compunction about condensing where necessary, and removing all irrelevant or misleading material once it has been discussed.

Many DT files are transcriptions from commercial recordings, made by ear, and often contain errors of transcription; thus, "incorrect", as they are not what they purport to be. Equally, if a revival singer has substantively altered the tune or text which they received from tradition (directly or, more often, at several removes), this needs to be noted as it is, in effect, no longer a traditional version: this is not to say (as people persist in misunderstanding when I point it out) that the revival form is less valid in its own way; simply that it is a different animal, and in order properly to appreciate what is going on, we need to know what the source was; that way comparison can be made and the new form placed in its proper context. This is completely different from asserting a single "correct" form of a traditional song, which nobody is proposing.