We can summarize most comments here as either: -I agree with how articles are written, so Wikipedia isn't that bad - maybe still a little rough around the edge

We can summarize most comments here as either: -I agree with how articles are written, so Wikipedia isn't that bad - maybe still a little rough around the edges, but all things considered I trust it. -I disagree with how articles are written, and the problems are unsolvable within Wikipedia. Allowing different editors to one article has not resolved this difference. Given that we are approaching 20 years of Wikipedia being widely popular on the 'Net and this problem has persisted, a solution likely requires something on the technical level of the site, itself, (or, more likely, a new site outside of the Wikimedia Foundation) that changes fundamentally how it operates. To the extent that competition exists for encyclopedic wikis, the ones I have discovered use some version of a preferred view on what articles should be published and what sources are acceptable, so they are essentially using a nearly identical process as Wikipedia, thus suffer from the same problems. Imagine if GitHub maintained editable standards through a "volunteer" bureaucracy for what software could be published to the site; what a software can do; what language is used for a given software; deciding which libraries are permitted for use in a project; not permitting "duplicate" software, even when they share the same name (users and projects still maintain unique names). To summarize, this version of GitHub would suck and nobody would use it, but this is analogous to how Wikipedia is managed. Since the problem revolves around how a single article is to be created, edited, and sourced, and given the difficulty just in this concept, the rather obvious solution is to have multiple articles for a given topic where each is created, edited, and sourced however the maintainers of such articles desire. The next problem of course is this generating an incredible number of articles, each predictably with its maintainer-guard dog. The way to make this usable could be through implementing "universes" of articles. Some universes could operate on some revision of the current Wikipedia and its bureaucracy, others may be purely top-down, hand-curated lists, or could include multiple universes. This is one sort of way to deal with what is effectively fundamental problems with observing the Universe combined with aspects of the human experience.