I say this'll work fine so long as people exhibit common courtesy and don't decide wikipedia is a medium for proselytism. -- JoshuaGrosse
As an example, let's take a view which is just obviously wrong to all of us (although someone else might not agree), let's say the view that the earth is really flat. If flat-earthers descend on the site in hoards, then they will eventually win unless pre-flat-earth regulars band together to continually refactor the pages. It isn't necessarily about numbers, but also about how dedicated the numbers are.
On Usenet, the same people argue endlessly for years on end. I know of some newsgroups that I used to be addicted to, where I know that if I went back today, some of the same people would be there arguing the same things they were arguing 10 years ago.
The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy. A statement, for example, of the ScientologY issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such. It would probably be left alone. :-) --JimboWales