Has anyone tried this. You have seen an article "owned" by one editor or a group of editors close to the article subject matter? You try to edit the article but get hit but the "consensus" line and they throw up all sorts of Wikipedia rules and procedures to block your way. Go any further no matter how valid your argument is and you will get reported to the administrators noticeboard. If reported the Admins (most) when called in, usually take the lazy line and blame the dissenting editor for trouble making and you will get a black mark. What do you do? You need allies, there are a few well meaning Wikipedia admins here. So you post the article here illustrating its faults. I've done it a few times, and by doing so I've had the article deleted as I've alerted an Administrator who seemed to have the Wikipedia influence to override and make change.
You could just edit a scarcely viewed page of scarce importance (depending on who you ask) and then you would notice how it remains unchanged in time, with all the correct or incorrect data entered.
Either way, the players on the site, whichever side they are on, tend to enjoy the fights. But the outside reader doesn't even know what is going on, and he may read incorrect data, which may or may not be of consequence to them.
Idiots seem to think Wikipedia is edited by experts, or at least checked properly. Fact is, admins don't always have loads of free time and of course are not experts themselves in more than one or two areas. So they have neither the time nor knowledge to sort out who's the good guy and who's the fuckwit. They make a quick guess; sometimes they're right but - surprise, surprise - often they're wrong.