Right now it goes in ordinary Q&A, and the answers should reflect reasonable scholarly consensus (when there are enough knowledgable people here).
But one can be more ambitious. When thinking about what a site like this could do, early on, one of the inspirations for me was not just stackexchange politics, but fixing the broken political system at Wikipedia. The peer-review process on a site such as this can vet for accuracy much more accurately than spot-citations and wiki-politics, because it is not delegating accuracy vetting to an external agent, we do our own physics and our own vetting.
Wikipedia will most likely not accept the consensus of this site to overturn arbcom decisions (in practice, it won't actually accept anything to overturn arbcom decisions). There is no way to insert new text in Wikipedia now, at least not on articles with Wikitrolls making sure that everything has spot-cites, and that their favored text is defended.
This means that the best way is to fork Wikipedia (on another site, not here, on your own time, not ours), take all the material, and start a site with a system such as this used to vet page submissions, as opposed to the arbcom/administrator political system there. They can't be fixed, and they need to die.
Once the site is established, perhaps one can use the code from here and the Wikipedia material until now to fork Wikipedia and this time, to do it right.