Ray Saintonge wrote:
People find it very difficult to accept that a problem may have no solution or that a question may have no answer.
It doesn't apply to all the disputes, but I might go further and say that some of the content disputes are an extention spilling over into our encyclopedia of real-world disputes, often between well-credentialed experts.
To take just one example, the mess of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy of mind, and associated fields isn't resolved in the real world, so it would be unreasonable to suppose it will be nicely resolved in Wikipedia. Things like, does mental illness exist; if so, what is it; should it be treated with therapy or drugs or both or neither; etc.; are questions that have settled answers in some fields, unsettled ones in others, and often conflicting settled answers between fields. So you end up with people arguing "this article should say [x], because psychiatry experts agree", and others arguing "no, it should say [x] is false, because philosophers agree [x] is a prima facie illogical position", and all sides can produce volumes of peer-reviewed literature to support their position.
The only real solution I see is to simply document these viewpoints. Wikipedia isn't the place to settle whether psychiatrists are pill-pushing pseudo-scientists, or psychologists are out-of-touch scientists who don't understand medicine, or philosophers should just butt out entirely, but we can document what they all say.
-Mark