I disagree that the articles would not be of higher
quality. It's not a
matter of quantity over quality. I think, if proponents of a particular
truth are allowed free control over their version of the truth, their
passion for their version of things, to make their case and convince
other people, will make for a better article. Articles that purport to
be neutral, or take all sides into account, tend to be mushy overviews.
Also, the multiple concurrent versions does allow for the creation of
articles that claim to be neutral.
Furthermore, wikipedia is not necessarily a collaborative project. It
seems to work best when people collaborate, but they don't always --
there are edit wars, trolling, grafitti, etc. The current wikipedia
loses out from non-collaboration -- there is wasted person-hours in
clean up, reversion, and the most damning of all, loss of public
confidence. My proposal is allows for both collaboration and
disagreement to enrich the project.
You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become a place to prove a
point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to
prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same
concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy
theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their
version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince
people that they are right" won't improve things at all.