I don't see what's wrong with that, though. For the most parts, relentless consensus (by Wikipedians, who usually are smart folks) is reasonable information.
In a field with some form of rigorous proof underlying it* converging towards consensus is good, though I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli).
But imagine if you're trying to converge towards consensus about a historical event. Every historian has their own interpretation and different emphasis. The facts should be the same for all, but the reading of the event and its meaning isn't. And for that reason, support for tracking diverging views would be very useful.
I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli).
(emphasis added)
Yes. If everything operated on a pure consensus basis, progress would come to an end.
This doesn't even have to be at the fringe; for decades, just about every textbook claimed that normal human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes. The correct number (or maybe I should say the currently-accepted number) is 23. This was even stated in textbooks that had accompanying photographs that clearly showed 23.
Consensus is a useful tool, but it's not infallible, and sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong.
Well, everyone can agree on the facts, and opinions are just facts about what people have said. So consensus can still be reached on what the opinions are.
