Wikipedia should be more like Github, such that topics can be forked ad hoc, and we can get a truly diverse set of viewpoints on everything. Then auto-generate a summary page that highlights the agreements and disagreements.

Or someone else should do it. If you build it I will come.

The average of a bunch of lies is not truth, and the median of things that people have made up is not worth one source.

In many ways Wikipedia is more like Reddit, in which taste making influence gets concentrated into cliquey power users.

Reading the Talk page for any contemporary culture war stuff makes it clear Wikipedia’s not really a place for diverse thinking.

I've heard this a number of times, but how do you imagine this working?

For every legitimate case of a "diverse set of viewpoints" on some hot-button political issue, you have hundreds of crackpots and trolls who want to talk about free energy, telekinesis, chemtrails, and so on. Do you really want to have 50 versions of the article on gravity to choose from, most of them abject nonsense? Who gets to choose which one is given more prominence? If they're given equal weight, then the crackpots win the numbers game because there might be only 1-2 articles representing mainstream scientific thought versus dozens of "here's what I came up with in the shower".

I don't disagree that Wikipedia has some regrettable biases, but the solution probably isn't "allow all viewpoints". Look at the thread you're commenting on and the amount of whataboutism from single-issue accounts who seem to argue that the US is no different from murderous dictatorships.

Organizations editing Wikipedia like this want to suppress any other viewpoints, not present their own as another one.

Wikipedia's license allows you to fork the articles and take them in any direction you like. They just wont host it for you.