With voting systems you end up walking the tightrope between making your system susceptible to Sybil attacks and sockpuppetry on one end, and giving well-established users undue voting rights on another.
Then if you don't know any subject-matter experts, will your individual view of the wiki be devoid of subject-matter expertise?
That arguably reflects reality better, but also isn't terribly useful.
Edit: I guess the situation of an expert correcting an article written by laypeople is similar to an expert replying to a layperson's toot or whatever. So maybe you could solve this by letting people see new edits made by other people on top of their own edits, and giving them the option to block or accept the change, or even follow the user in question.
The nice part is that it would work the other way around as well – from article/subject back to people who endorse or object it – in case you want to follow (attract/repel their pov).
In reality who to follow should be easy as it would be recursive – if you follow MIT and MIT follows ie. Noam Chomsky – you wouldn't have to directly follow Noam as your trust would already exist as transitive one from MIT etc.
If you tried to do a neutral wiki anyone can edit, it would be full of ads and porn.
It can be created yes, just like any web page can be created, but won't surface for anybody because nobody will endorse it.
If it's endorsed by sybil accounts – it'll be visible to sybils and their followers – ie. nobody real.
To rephrase it – following somebody means it alters your view and nothing else – it's uni-directional (but recursive).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...
It was deprecated to "essay" status a while ago, because it was quite controversial, but not because it was inaccurate.
Wikipedia is not involved in the business of publishing Truth. Wikipedia's articles are based on Verifiability, which means that the assertions can be backed up and traced to the reliable sources that are provided alongside them.
If there is a dichotomy or controversy about the "truth" of a fact, well, then, Wikipedia documents that controversy, according to the reliably-published information about it.
Wikipedia projects work within the languages they're published in, for better or worse. That means, a Vietnamese wiki will generally be run by and for people who speak Vietnamese, and will generally rely on sources published in that language. So if there is a consensus about a fact or assertion in Vietnamese-language sources, and it's agreed by people who speak Vietnamese, then it wouldn't be easy to break through that consensus, even if you had a sincerely held belief.
Which brings us to another Wikipedian axiom: WP:RGW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#...
People who edit Wikipedia shouldn't be concerned about "Righting Great Wrongs" through editing or discussion. If there is injustice in the world, it will likely be reflected in Wikipedia, despite striving to be a collegial utopia, it is not usually possible to change the world from activism there, and activist editors are eventually blocked and banned for being non-neutral.
Science kind of works this way, you have papers to support, and lack of rebuttal is sort of understood as general acceptance, new evidence updates our beliefs about old information. I think it should be feasible to encode this general agreement into something that can be put into a database. No one has succeeded I guess, and it seems a bit harder since "flatearther-12345" is initially the same as "actual_scientist" since it's hard to have verified identity and offer anonymity at the same time.
(Or the related / more in depth "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_s...)