When you find yourself with opposing views to a page, it's natural to reply to it in ThreadMode. Signatures are necessary to such dialogs for reasons of DramaticIdentity more often than ego. A dialog proceeds that either converges on one view, in which case the page is easy for a WikiMaster to clean, or diverges, almost always breaking on just a single point.
So rather than editing to reflect one or another view, split the page into three parts: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis, none of which are signed. Most of the threads can be summarized in Thesis and Antithesis. A few may fall into Synthesis. As time goes by, maybe Synthesis grows until thesis and antithesis fall away. Or maybe not; still it'll look clean, and more thread mode discussion can be appended if necessary, then swept up into one of the three piles when viewpoints meet/polarize.
If the viewpoint in Thesis or Antithesis bifurcate again, create a new page for the bifurcation and replace the Thesis or Antithesis text with a link to that page. Socrates would be proud.
Don't worry too much if the Synthesis part is currently empty.
I wrote that Synthesis, and of course since it's not signed you're free to change it. Because this comment is signed you're free to edit it into one of the above sections, minus signature, or delete it if it's redundant. Hmm; since thesis and antithesis can be taken to describe forces, perhaps this is a way of forcing dialog into a pattern-like form? --PeterMerel
Perhaps it is too ambitious to hope for Synthesis. It will help to have a way to tolerate Thesis and Antithesis on the same page. I added a sentence to that effect.
Are signatures necessary for DramaticIdentity? Another approach would be to put the Thesis in normal text and the Antithesis in italic. This would allow them to be mixed more on the page, and keep the dialogue style and the ConstructiveInterference. The supposition here is that 2 Identities are enough. See DialecticMode for more discussion.
Sometimes what happens is more like analysis then synthesis. The page states with an OpeningStatement and the following comments break down its pros and cons. Insofar as consensus is reached, the OpeningStatement is updated to reflect it. The OpeningStatement could be seen as the Thesis, but it could also be seen as the Synthesis.
Someone has to be arrogant enough to write the Synthesis. Someone has to be arrogant enough to delete the material with no value. People fear to make such judgements, or make them and get them wrong.
If we really want to read such stuff, there is always http://groups.google.com, which will soon have a five year archive of ill-informed ranting for us to enjoy.
On the other hand, all three of the above subjects are of interest to most of us. It's the ranting that gets in the way.
One way to avoid ranting is to attempt to unify these pairs of concepts In other words, look for ways to view them as aspects of the same thing - relatives on a family tree. This leads to a more intelligent, useful understanding of the differences. It helps to avoid a them/us, good/evil viewpoint.
The concept of Unification of ideas which differ in some aspects but have some common ground was most memorably advocated by Dr. Lee in "Explaining Unification Thought". The late Dr. Lee was the premier philosopher of the Unification Church in the Twentieth Century. -- EdPoor
Oh, please. Please, please, please do not bring up a totally divisive heresy like the Unification "Church" when discussing actual unification. Please.