Well firstly, I don't think I'm suggesting we "subvert the whole point of wikipedia" or atleast, if that's what I'm suggesting, that the hierarchical moderation system of wikipedia has already done that.
What I'm saying is that if your goal is to have an accurate record, then you want to disincentivize drive-by edits, and incentivize high qualtiy content. This sort of rush of "is-was" replacement is the definition of low quality. It adds nothing of value to the article, but muddies up the history of the edits. It has real implications, by definition any first edit is going to have to source news articles that have a speed-to-publish bias, rather than a requirement for quality for example. There's nothing the speed gives you other than a fight over nothing of value. So why not just... not?
What I'm saying is that if your goal is to have an accurate record, then you want to disincentivize drive-by edits, and incentivize high qualtiy content. This sort of rush of "is-was" replacement is the definition of low quality. It adds nothing of value to the article, but muddies up the history of the edits. It has real implications, by definition any first edit is going to have to source news articles that have a speed-to-publish bias, rather than a requirement for quality for example. There's nothing the speed gives you other than a fight over nothing of value. So why not just... not?