I agree. As I said upthread, that's a problem.

However, I'm saying, the alternative, where treating every viewpoint that exists as worthy of inclusion, is worse.

but those are not two mutually exclusive options. There is a difference between suppressing a minority voice (perspective) away from editing an article as opposed to INCLUDING a minority reference or fact in the article itself.

My argument is that many minority views (for example "vaccines cause autism") should be actively removed ("suppressed" in your words) from Wikipedia in favor of reality-based opinions. The only mechanism wikipedia has for choosing which minority opinions to remove is majority opinion (hopefully expert majority opinion). Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism to include minority opinions without also including crazies.

Majority opinion isn't always right, but Wikipedia isn't well suited for solving that problem. This isn't speculation: it wasn't always this way, but the rules were made because people were flooding Wikipedia with all the insane things people believe. I've never been an active wikipedia contributor, but I've used the site long enough to remember this.