Appreciate the note of caution.
I have been at this about ten years now and have heard from about all of the Gardner families. Plus, I have run across many tales. To me, the mode ought to be to pull together all of these stories (and their books) into a site that covers the Gardner controversies, pro and con.
I have done several blog posts along that line. This is an example: Whence, again.
The benefit? Well, I had to work these things out on my own as I went along (several papers, in fact). All of the time, I run into more stuff or some re-iteration which perturbs matters further. So, the web? Yes, it's turned into crap, actually. Creating work is another way to look at it.
One solution? What I propose is to cover the basis so that people can go and see these types of things with some added commentary about the situation and, perhaps, motivation. Actually, it ought to be as complete as possible. And, I think that it's interesting seeing how attitudes and stories changed. Some of these go way back to the early 1800s. And, are now finding there way into the internet.
Case in point. One author wrote wrong. Did a correction. Then, he published, again. I just noticed that the earlier work is available on the internet now. I'll get the specifics, as this is a particular interest.
Note that Richardson (quoted above) and his peers have plenty of retractions and second-guessings going on. Actually, the work here on WikiTree, say the Magna Carta trail project, is a very good example of something being done, very well, with technology that was not available before.
So, I like the 'caution' approach as suppression would never work. And, then, flagging and comment.