Many of the most important subject matters are ones which people do not readily agree with. Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was widely discredited at the time, and even now is hardly accepted as fact, yet it has become a very important theory in discussing species, humanity and many other aspects of who people are. Sigmund Freud's various psychiatric theories were widely discredited, and continue to be widely discredited, yet he is perhaps the single most widely quoted philosopher in history, and his theories are used in many other more established theories elsewhere.
That there is no consensus to agree with it does not make something bad. In lower educational levels, everyone agrees with everything, but as time goes on it becomes more debatable. Fringe theories in any subject become prone to heated debate. In science, the theory of black holes (which is still just a theory, and will never be proven fact) has always been highly disputable, although nowadays it is considered to be okay to teach some elements of the theory to small children. The big bang theory is another highly debatable theory.
But the difference is that when people are discussing, for example, chaos theory, you know that the language is so complex that the only people who will be debating it are EXPERTS in the field, or at least SEMI-EXPERTS, such that all dialogue is meaningful, and you end up with, yes, disputes, but not ones that end up with anything particularly ridiculous being listed.
Whilst if you debate a similarly disputed issue in the humanities, the problem is that a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue what they are talking about jump in and insist that they know all about it. Look at people like Morton Devonshire and MONGO for example, who jump in to the whole "9/11 theories" when they actually have no clue about them, just like to delete the whole lot just out of ignorance. Experts are getting banned, expertise dismissed, and in the end the idiots are being pushed forward in the name of consensus and neutrality.
If you write in a way that any idiot can understand, any idiot will have an opinion. If you then go by consensus, then you have the consensus of those idiots.
What should be happening of course is that only experts should be writing on the topic, and it should then be dumbed down to a level that is acceptable to idiots, that they can understand.
Part of the problem with Wikipedia is that it insists on every version being written in a way that is already dumbed-down, thus encouraging people who don't have a clue what they are talking about to over-ride actual experts. This is fine when its about simplistic issues like which Pokemon character is best against fire-based attacks. But it is not good at all when you are talking about why the
Weapons of mass destruction lie was used to justify attacks on Iraq.
Ultimately, what Wikipedia should be doing is encouraging people to demonstrate their biases, so that people can account for them. They might not necessarily get the most expert people in the world writing about a given subject, but as expert as they can get.
What will be the warning signs of the coming collapse?
Unrepentant Vandal What will be the warning signs of the coming collapse? 
