More Wikipedia

I've been browsing Wikipedia articles for several hours, and before I fall asleep I wish to offer some more observations on the topic. The "many-voice" phenomenon is annoyingly clear, especially in such controversial topics as Cold Fusion. The article is quite enlightening about the subject, but it is nevertheless awkward to read a document in which the very paragraphs seem to be at war with each other.

To be more specific, "the author" devotes a great deal of attention to the reality or at least demonstrated plausibility of a cold-fusion effect. It is noted that there are thousands of published papers on the subject of cold fusion, that the claimed measurements are quite significant (far above background levels), and that some experiments have proven to be repeatable. "The author" then notes that "It is not difficult to be convinced that such phenomenon is impossible."

I would propose two adjustments to the Wikipedia process: (1) A good peer-review process for proposed edits; (2) A more complete and direct identification of the contributors, their biographies and qualifications; and (3) Where there are opposing views on a topic, clearly label them as such and divide them into separate documents or sections. One voice at a time, please.