It makes sense to me. Going with the majority opinion is the only way to have stable content. Trying to resolve controversy on Wikipedia is what would actually

It makes sense to me. Going with the majority opinion is the only way to have stable content. Trying to resolve controversy on Wikipedia is what would actually destroy it. Democracy can cause horrible injustice, but we've learned from history that it's the only irrefutable way to decide things, unless the evidence is even simpler than counting ballots. It doesn't mean Wikipedia is a failure, it just means Wikipedia is not the oracle of truth that some people expect it to be. It's a repository of majority views, which is usually pretty valuable, even if it's sometimes wrong. We have other venues for challenging popular fallacies.