David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. With this system, articles would not be of as high a quality. Your not considering quality over quantity. Why have 10 good articles to choose from when you can have one excellent one?
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.