Why doesn't Wikipedia have a "you're full of shit" review button?

Okay, so I'm looking up an article - on Wikipedia, mind you - regarding family coats of arms. Suffice it to say, there are some REAL geniuses on Wikipedia.

Let me start at the beginning.

A good number of people online have no idea what my real name might happen to be, and I'd very much prefer to keep it that way; however, curiosity often gets the better of me, and I have to delve more into the science of etymology (that is, the derivation of names) to find out how and where my name came into existence. It is through this curiosity that I found my first name linked to a number of royal presences, and also became curious as to the origins of my last name. Interestingly enough, this last name ALSO ties directly to quite a bit of royalty; though it's not quite so surprising once I explain that this is my mother's surname, not my own, and that she is directly related to that particular Irish clan.

Now here's where I start my journey down the rabbit hole, so to speak. I dove into my family's history feet-first, and managed to find their original coat-of-arms. This got me thinking, and I naturally followed the links between certain design elements and elements commonly ascribed to royalty. Surprising as it was to me, the revelation arrived that there is a certain link to the Royal Family that can't be denied. When I decided to explore that link further, more similarities began to surface at an alarming rate. Whatever I found was either what some circles posit as "string theory", or one hell of a coincidence.

Now that being said, I decided to trace back the connections to my own family... and that's where my journey reached an abrupt halt. Not for a lack of trying to find further information, mind you, but more from a sudden, blazing hatred of idiocy the world over. I found one of my distant relatives being accused of *gasp shock horror* ANTI-SEMITISM! Now I'm not one to push the Klan ideology, or the whole "Jewish owned media conspiracy" bullshit prevalent on certain parts of the Internet. Hell, I believe that people practice anti-semitism to this date, and that they need to be denounced at the earliest convenient opportunity. Mindless idiocy only begets more mindless idiocy. No, that's not what bothered me at all. What bothered me was this: the "evidence" being used to smear this odd fellow's personal history. IT FLAT-OUT DIDN'T EXIST! The primary supporting evidence of this allegation? HIS DAUGHTER EDITED HIS BIOGRAPHY! That wasn't enough, apparently, because one author saw fit to state that "it doesn't matter what [his statements] are", but that they were nevertheless "part of his life and another record to his already large predisposition toward antisemitism".

HOLY HELL, DID I READ THAT RIGHT?

Let me explain a little bit about my problem with logical fallacies. They're a pet peeve of mine, and straw-man attacks as flagrant as the one above? That kind of ignorance just downright pisses me off. It's a little like somebody taking a post about... let's say Pokemon as it's a convenient target of opportunity... and doing this to it:

Commenter 1: "Pikachu is clearly modeled after a vibrator. His head kinda looks like a penis, and his tail is the AC cord. Even the sound he makes is styled after a sex toy! Somebody protect our kids from this freakishly monstrous sex-toy-achu!"

Commenter 2: "Dude, Pikachu was designed by an older fellow who may have been in an altered state of mind, but he's supposed to be a cross between a rabbit and some kind of rodent. If a sex-toy exists in his design, it's only in your own warped mind."

Commenter 1: "Well, it doesn't really matter what Pikachu looks like. The fact that these claims are leveled against him in the first place are proof enough of what he's supposed to be."

That popping sound you just heard? That was the aneurysm in Commenter 2's mind.

All things being considered, this is a rather effective tactic to completely invalidate an intelligent counterargument. Too bad it's COMPLETELY BOGUS. The best way to counteract it is to request proof, then attempt to enjoy the part where the other party either dismisses any evidence to the contrary outright and/or attempts to paint you as the aggressor. The real tragedy here is not that anecdotal evidence is worse than no evidence at all - at least a profound lack of evidence can't masquerade as significant evidence - it's that so many seem so willing to accept it at face value.

At least we can take some degree of solace in the knowledge that people don't post anything like that to Wikipedia anymore, right?

*browses site quickly*

...ohgodddammit...