"JAY JG" .
I think a number of experienced editors here are telling you the exact opposite; that they "deal with it" by giving up.
Yes, but it only takes one who does take an interest. There is always plenty to do and edit on WP - let's not assume that that's a _failure_ of the project.
'A mass of overlapping articles' is indeed a probable consequence of two
or
more sides to an argument backing up their cases: this is intrisically a Good Thing, in that one can get behind strongly-held beliefs to some of
the
grounds. A case I was looking at today is [[loop quantum gravity]]; where WP is getting the benefit of some expert contributions, though not in the
most
finished or useable form. The merge options are a little tricky here
(and
are surely more so in other cases); but typicallly are mostly about skill as an editor.
It is intrinsically a Bad Thing if it persists; we get to the state where Wikipedia cannot be trusted because it simultaneously (and often vociferously) asserts all sorts of contradictory things, and no-one
actually
knows where to look for information, because the articles (as stated) all overlap. It also makes the maintenance effort grow exponentially.
OK, it can get to be a muddle. I don't spend much time on this kind of contention myself. I _have_ spent a great deal of time on listing and categorising areas, and that tends towards reducing duplication and improving navigation.
Finally, time consumption. Undeniable that responsible Wikipedians watching contentious areas do have to put in the hours. Perhaps creating new content would get more recognition. It is, though, rapid to revert; the bias is
in
favour of sustaining the status quo if that's the object.
Hmm. I've personally been criticized quite strongly and regularly for reverting to the status quo; maybe the bias in your mind is not that of others.
Well, sometimes it's the right thing to do. Not always.
Charles