“wouldn’t it be even more beneficial to recognize the disagreement and allow both to co-exist?”

It may be tempting at times to ‘balance’ a perceivedly biased article by creating an additional article on the same subject but biased the other way. Such articles are often referred to as “POV forks”. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.

“One has to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a non-biased entry.”

Wikipedia has realised this - you may find reading through our description of the Neutral Point of View interesting. It states that articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

“The trick then is to figure out which understandings are worthwhile and which ones are not. *That’s* the extremely difficult part.”

True. Our NPOV policy doesn’t assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.