Interesting. How do you plan to keep coverage unbiased? A lot of bias manages to sneak into Wikipedia articles on current events in spite of their community guidelines and moderation.
The reason Wikipedia articles are often biased is that people in authority in the community simply do not respect the neutrality policy. Even if most Wikipedians and most readers would prefer things to be more balanced, those in de facto control of an article determine the article's degree of bias. If the wording and order of facts is determined by open public vote, my hypothesis is that there will be more of a moderating effect.
I can imagine this to be much harder in a community with a vague, biased crowd not identifiable due to the hight amount of uncoordinated accounts participating.
I'd love to hear more thoughts on this bias-problem.