And I'm sure there's a good reason that it does. It must have something to do with what readers want or need to get to the point: the author's point. But on Wiki, unlike a book, every reader is an author. The important point then is that the reader see not just the current best point, but the points of authors willing to write about a subject. There is only so much material sufficiently related to the subject of a page to be included on the same page. But the page can hold or link to whatever the reader needs in order to quickly understand as many points as they feel like reading. The page gravitates toward consensus, but that does not exclude it from diversity. The more popular views of the authors will naturally tend to be the more accessible views, as more authors are willing to work to make them accessible.
But this is very different... We're writing without being sure what the point is, with the exception that it's shared somehow among each one of us. This writing is more like talking, more like a dialog, more like rambling, more like a conversation with loose ends left unsaid or just linked too.
The great thing, really, is that you're reading it. By writing this way, we can stretch the conversation over time and space so that you can be included. Because the important thing is not your argument, it's 'the' argument
The loose ends are hyperlinks. You've got to follow a lot of them to pick up the story, such as it is. Your browser probably shows links in blue. Purple means you've been there before. Whole phrases should be colored. If only a question mark shows up, that means there is nothing at the other end of the link (yet). Touch the question mark when you are ready to start authoring.