It's nice to see that you've taken such an interest in the QE2 article and your assistance in getting our thoughts actioned is appreciated. I think that the Wiki rules will cause some barriers to the changes that the forum members have been discussing, but it's nice to see the lines of communication open.
As one of the members here who have written books on QE2 (The QE2 Story, ISBN: 978-0752450940), I suggest that anyone (including Wiki) who wants a correct account of QE2's life from conception to retirement, listen to any advice given by 'flagship' (Michael Gallagher). He has been instrumental in nearly all QE2 books written and is without a doubt one of the foremost authorities on QE2, and very very generous with sharing his knowledge.
That said, the Wiki rules won't allow for his (or any of our) words on the forum to be considered as fact - however, often we have references to backup our comments so in any case I'm sure there is a work around.
One query, to get the ball rolling, why would comments on a forum such as this, be treated differently to references from (say) a news website article where the reporters can (and often do) make errors given that they often are on deadline and may not be otherwise interested in the ship... some of the comments / facts on Wikipedia come directly from articles from news sources which often state incorrect / warped information.