It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors.

Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.

Why would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?

Maybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.

I don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.

Superior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it.

For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for").

If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat.

Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.

If that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.

Do you mean like other media organizations. For example [1] or [2]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...