First day online - first impressions

However you're right in that the word "encyclopedia" sort of has "fact" somewhere among the definition. Maybe a better term is needed? Maybe not, because it conveys the feel the owner wants to make the users feel? I dunno.

Pretty sure you've just given us the definition of "opinion". If it held out throughout time, it'd be a belief, i think. However, when speaking of clinically sane people (aka by far, most of the world), generally an opinion has the same, if not more, emotional value as a fact. You don't seek to improve your facts and make them as "right" as possible, because they are already "right" enough. After all, they are facts, are they not?

When speaking about opinions, you can debate and argue and defend yours with such ferocity and raw intellect that the verbal clash might discover new* facts. Or you can go the usual route and go all "critizing of wikipedia". Too many definitions, not nearly enough sources and the belief that common sense will always point towards facts. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. You're using a map instead of the territory. And that's not a threat when speaking about opinions. There is no "map of opinions of a person"**. At most, there's a map of sorts of opinions of a big group of people (sociology, statistics, polls, etc), but even then, they're black or white, made to resemble facts as much as possible.

In opinions, you can be wrong. You can be so clearly wrong as to be openly mocked about them (disregarding the ethics of it, which i must admit, are a heavy topic), and said mocking can lead you to revise, update and create better opinions. Because they're not striving towards truth, towards fact-dom, but towards utility and intelligence. And that's why, i believe, an encyclopaedia of opinions is not just an interesting social experiment, but the next big example for the rest of the internet to follow. After all, whenever one hears "opinions on the internet", the usual thought is more around "youtube comments" or "tumblr SJW'ing" or "4chan free rage-speech", than, say, educated guesses and actual efforts at saying things that are close to the target and can be accepted by others.

*or long forgotten by history, or taboo, or restricted to a different discipline than the one you're filtering your thoughts through at the moment, or a thing you can't quite remember.
**Well, there's stereotypes, but that's more focused in conduct, as in, the things you do, than conscience, as in, the things you think.