Steven-
I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote. We all come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people know a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, and so on. We also all come here to learn things we do not know. I do not really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I should vote on whether content is accurate or not? I do not know the physics literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a given source?
You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on whether this or that study result should be included in an article about it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am strictly in favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides *must* be properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so that anyone who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly get an overview of what the arguments are.
Furthermore, in many disputes, there will be two or more sides from different fields of knowledge. For example, a debate might rage about whether [[quantum physics]] should include a link to [[postmodernism]]. Should that debate be limited strictly to physicists? Should a debate about the Sokal affair be limited to postmodernists?
Wikipedia has always been based on the idea that you can trust reasonable people to do the right thing, and that the unreasonable ones will be a minority that we can deal with. I think that principle should be applied here as well.
Erik