That post is really doing severals huh?
I've talked a lot about my frustration with fandom wikis, and I want to state that I am not opposed to their existence and I'm not trivializing anyone's work, and especially given the amount of lost media it is important to catalogue information. (I am opposed to Fandom, the company, due to their involvement with the US Navy twitch recruitment)
I also believe that you need textual information to be able to back up your interpretation and having that information in an easily accessible place is incredibly valuable.
That said!
I think the main issue I have with fandom wikis is their style-guide, which is modeled after, I'm assuming, Wikipedia, which is modeled after encyclopedias, where you can only present hard facts about a work. So no matter how obvious the subtext is, unless there is a statement directly in the text, according to the style-guide, you must state that something is "implied." And due to this style-guide and the current fetishization of "cannonicity" it leads people to believe that something that is interpretation is not held to the same standards and value as 'cannon' information.
However, I don't know of any other way to construct a wiki.
I don't think you should be putting interpretations into wikis as hard facts either since it can lead to a large amount of misinformation where people assume something is true but there is no actual textual evidence for it. The term "fog world" is never used in Silent Hill and there is no textual evidence it is a different world than the real world, but people assume it to be true because of the wikis, even though it is merely a widely held interpretation.
This also gives weight to some people's interpretation over other's. Which is also a major issue because people are throwing around the term "poor media literary" when someone doesn't agree with their own personal interpretation. That's not to say some people's interpretation can't be wrong, but there is often more than one way to view an event or character especially since interpretation is heavily influenced by a person's life experience. Therefor cataloguing every interpretation, even if it is listed as an interpretation, is untenable as well.
This is all to say: Wikis are merely a tool that should help people's assessment of a piece of media. They are not the end all be all and need to be used in conjunction with critical thinking about the text.