:: Hmm, Thinking about it, getting involved in a more elaborate argument around the question the question of rigor or lack-there-of is fairly useless. To me, the SI's dismissal of Black Mask seems like a ideal example of rigor but I suspect we'd disagree about a lot. I'll boil the general argument down to the point that the intended mission of wikipedia is producing a neuteral summary of generally agreed facts about historically significant actors, in this case the SI. The question of Debord's dictatorial control is clearly a partisan position, therefore it should hardly be presented prominently (though it's certainly a fact the many have claimed this). The split with the Nashists was *A* significant event during period of development of the Situationists. But to call it *THE* significant event is to make earlier development of group more important than the latter development. Debord and Sanguinetti's book "The Real Split In The International" could just as well be called the "fundamental split" if you took later Situationist developments as more important. Naturally, a neuteral account would take neither position - it could still mention one or both. 
Your claims that my lack of interest in the Nashists represent anti-Scandinavians racism might perhaps be considered another instance of your humor, perhaps? In anycase, the studies of the SI that come to mind are Sadie Plant or Len Bracken. Even Greil Marcus has some useful stuff. Indeed, in the clearly partisan Bob Black essay the introductory paragraphs still winds-up with a somewhat more balanced view of the group than the current entry here (though clearly there's still a "revive the honor of forgotten Second Situationist Internation" thing going on). 
In anycase, I reviewed the history of text and it seem that the first or two paragraphs are essentially tacked-on afterwards. This explains the disjointed quality of the text as a whole - it clearly needs rewriting. 
As far as links go, certainly inclusive links are another option - it is simply that the entry would have to be vastly MORE inclusive than the present entry if you wanted to include all links to comments and critiques on the Situationists.