Because of this sort of thing.
Some notes,
"I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own peer-reviewed articles. One of the people who had assumed the role of keeper of this bit of history for Wikipedia quoted the Web site's "undue weight" policy, which states that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." He then scolded me. "You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view."
The "undue weight" policy posed a problem. Scholars have been publishing the same ideas about the Haymarket case for more than a century. The last published bibliography of titles on the subject has 1,530 entries. "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. ... Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: "Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.""
What I'd like to create
Is a site that allows all points of view, and somehow filters up the few that are the most supported. I know that's a fuzzy definition, and it's because of a few difficult details that I haven't created it yet. Anyway, I'd love it if any of you have thoughts on something like this.
Here are a couple of examples:
The fossil record of evolution, this would surface the best cases for and against it, in one place, without a bunch of noise.
Did the Council of Nicaea get the bible right, again it would surface the best cases for all sides.
I get what you're saying and it sounds good. I think some combination of voting and tracking how many people have visited might work. What I'm curious about is how would you either eliminate theories/merge theories that are sufficiently similar that they shouldn't be counted as separate. There are definitely times when I've said something and you came along and said the same thing just phrased slightly better.