David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
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.
I disagree -- I think all articles should have a point.
First off, who gets to say what is a conspiracy theory and what is fact? I say let all sides of the story be presented, and let the rating system show what theories are most popular. You're showing your bias right here. Wikipedia is kind of a tyranny of the majority right now.
This idea will improve things. Look at it this way -- it's sort of like a honey trap. If there isn't a place for conspiracy theorists to go, they will disrupt wikipedia and we will waste time and energy cleaning up after trolls and grafitti, waging edit wars, etc. Currently, having your version of the truth fall under an article is a zero-sum game. Only one text can win. If your truth conflicts with the current article, you have to erase someone else's text, or else have conflicting text fall under the same title. It's destructive process at worst, with edit wars, and at best, it just makes wikipedia a place with contradictory articles.
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.