The problem with this idea is that the truth lies somewhere in between two distorted extremes. (There's a similar problem with Common Law.) This is one of Chomsky's central points in Manufacturing Consent -- the two parties can argue over -- for example -- Obamacare, when in fact a clear majority of the US population would rather see something like the Canadian healthcare system which is both "more extreme" and off to the side of the "debate".

This is an excellent way to create false dilemmas. Often there are not two points of view but a multitude.

Yeah but each side will still try to edit the opposing sides point of view to ruin it.

Or they'll try and one-up each other, creating exaggeration.

Talking about Israel/Palestine in particular, a book of history was actually published based on that approach:

http://www.amazon.com/Side-Parallel-Histories-Israel-Palesti...

It is an interesting idea. You may find that book interesting.

You could pivot this into a dating start-up: help people bond with others who share their prejudices.

Indeed. If an article is an edit war, just split it into two articles or sections "Criticism" "Interpretation B". Admins put the hammer on editors who destroy instead of produce". Repeat as needed. We have the technology.