An old saying, but frequently applies to the difficult people in your life.
Related, I remember when wikipedia first started up, and teachers everywhere were up-in-arms about it, asking their students not to use it as a reference. But most people have accepted it as "good enough", and now that viewpoint is non-controversial. (some wikipedia entries are still carefully curated - makes you wonder)
Admins do not, in fact, have the power to hide tensions on an article, as even the act of deletion produces public logs. Certainly if you don't know to look for them, you won't see them, though.
The main page should become a disjointed piece of both sides writing areas of the article. Right now, admins pick the side and moderate the other away into the history.
Re wikipedia, I think it's most interesting how you choose which pages are trustworthy and which ones are not, without doing a detailed analysis on all the sources listed.
Yet I still am suspicious about wikipedia and only use it for pretty superficial research.
I've never read a wikipedia article and took it at face value. You might say we should treat all texts the same, and you might be right. But let's not pretend it's some beacon of truth ?
Related, I remember when wikipedia first started up, and teachers everywhere were up-in-arms about it, asking their students not to use it as a reference. But most people have accepted it as "good enough", and now that viewpoint is non-controversial. (some wikipedia entries are still carefully curated - makes you wonder)