Well it's crowd review. Wikipedia itself is actually very accurate for science information. The concept would be the same but for new research instead of well established research. I think this could work well actually. It's basically what happens at scientific meetings.
I think it would fail pretty hard for new research. Frequency of updates in a fast changing environment are not conducive to reaching the best conclusion. This is because our brains latch on to a conclusion at a specific point in time, and it's very difficult to change our minds after more evidence comes in.
Not to mention that a lot of harm can be done during the time it takes to figure out the truth.
A lot of harm is done when waiting around forever. People don't hear of potential life saving drugs. We don't know what to do in a pandemic. etc. Of course caveats should be explained and risk/reward examined.
Here is the extreme case- an astroid is barreling towards the earth and we don't know if shooting a missile at it will save us. Do we do nothing because asteroid missile research has not yet been peer reviewed? Or do we take our best guess based on the science we do have?