Hoi!
There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia *ever* written in the language. I can hypothetically imagine such a Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles, Britannica-style.
This is our case and many other small communities'. Anyway, allowing original content is a *very* risky move. Small cultures are often (at least in some of their dwellers) close to political radicalism and such politically oriented minorities MAY perceive that they need to rewrite history from scratch...
I can name a number of such examples in post-soviet wikies, but my own is pretty close to the same situation. The history of Italian unity is usually told according to official proto-fascist (Italian unionist) opinions and only a few historians move away from those grounds to quote (for example) the number of southern Italians slain by means of the Pica Law (I believe Del Boca says it could have been up to a million) or the number of loyalist Neapolitan officers killed by our piedmontese army in the Fenestrelle Fortress and whose bodies have been destroyed Auschwitz style, the bombing of the civilian population in Genoa, the massacre of the Turinese population when the capital was moved to Florence, etc etc.
Dealing with such events is in itself VERY dangerous. Italian schools keep growing up kids telling them only the fascist version, so chances are that just even mentioning these subjects would be intended as separatism by many Italian wikeers (does such an expression exist?). How do you cope with this?
Opening wikipedia to planet-wide participation means that our "consensus about what truth is" will often be conflicting with local visions/versions. What happens with small European and post-soviet wikies is but the pale dawn of a big upcoming tide. When I say that small cultures need to speak to each other is because history is written by the winners, so chances are that most of such problems originate in our small villages. It's no point in going delirious, but maybe we can associate and produce a way to deliver "verified content" and at that point impose the presence of our version at trans-wiki level (not as a monopolistic way, obviously).
We can decide that we simply "don't give a damn" or we can ask ourselves questions. I ask myself whether having such an incredibly wide access to sources cannot be used to confront versions and at least start to catalog these very conflicts. What about an international template marking that "conflicting versions exist"?
We cannot simply repress. Many times people get nervous because when they speak in a normal tone they only get laughed at. If we don't want people to get mad we must give them a channel for them to speak plainly and be heard (if and when they have real things to say).
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html