This Dhamma Wheel site was founded upon a principle that its membership would be autonomous adults, and that they should be treated as such. This means respecting their rights to hold certain views, to manage their own spiritual lives, to manage their own learning, and to act in their own best interests.
This is in contrast to a site that preceded Dhamma Wheel called E-Sangha - you may have heard of it? At E-Sangha, the management enforced and mandated adherence to particular views, and sought to "protect" newcomers to Buddhism from what it often arbitrarily decided to be Wrong View or "adhamma" merely by virtue of it not conforming to their view of orthodoxy. This resulted in all manner of dedicated Buddhist practitioners, and just good decent people in general, being alienated, bullied, and often banned by the site administrators for little reason other than that their views were in conflict with what the management had deemed orthodox and acceptable.
We don't have any of that Dhamma policing here. The way we go about it is to have different sub-forums for different purposes - much like how in a house you have both a kitchen and a toilet and while each are used for their correct and intended purposes, things will more or less go well. Moderators moderate according to the Terms Of Service and the parameters for each forum. By that means, people can indeed pick and choose what "rooms they enter" based on what is of interest to them personally. When they enter a room, they know what it is about, and what is appropriate in the context of that room - the power to decide what suits their requirements lies with them. If they're a beginner they can go to the Discovering Theravada forum that was mentioned earlier and know that they will be shielded from heterodox views if that is what they feel they need. If they want to know only what the ancient Theravada commentators said the Dhamma, there are special places for that too.
When moderators and administrators challenge the views and perspectives of others in discussion at this forum they do so as fellow forum members only, and not in the capacity of forum staff. Once we step over that line and start to regard ourselves as "teachers", "experts" or "defenders of the Dhamma", problems invariably arise for the very reason that such positioning oversteps the line of respect for the autonomy of fellow members to do, say and believe what they think appropriate, within the bounds of the Terms of Service. We don't need to defend the Dhamma, because we respect the intelligence of members enough that they can sort out for themselves what is right and what is wrong - seriously, who are we to tell them? What makes us so special that we should take it upon ourselves to mandate certain views? This underlying principle of respect for our fellow membership is important as it underpins what makes the culture at this forum probably the most successful I have seen on any Buddhist forum on the Internet. If members aren't treated with respect by those who run the place - they'll sense it and will respond in kind. The respect and the egalitarian spiritual friendship that can naturally arise in the absence of forced respect and hierarchies is invaluable.
That might all sound rather hi-falutin, abstract and disconnected from what you're saying, but once we start taking it upon ourselves to formally define at this site what is and is not Dhamma, or what is and is not Right View, it opens up a veritable Pandora's Box of trouble... one that I strive to avoid at all cost. Speaking for myself, whilst I don't formally moderate or administer this site or Dharma Wheel (i.e. this site's Mahayana equivalent), I do take it upon myself to ensure that the forums continue to be managed in such a way that the founding principles that have made them successful are not compromised. I have seen enough to know that whilst your suggestions are well meaning, it is better to publish Dhamma information on sites dedicated to such a purpose (e.g. Access To Insight, Just Be Good, Buddhanet) and to keep forums focused on their primary function of allowing people to openly and respectfully discuss the Dhamma, without coersion and without the arbitrary censorship of views that are relevant in the forum in which they are spoken.
One site needn't be all things to all people - it just needs to know what its about, where it fits in the broader context, and fulfil its role in the best way it possibly can... and very often that involves giving people the freedom to debunk something traditionally established in the name of the Dhamma, because, who knows... the person challenging orthodoxy might actually be right. People should not grant an intellectual monopoly to anyone, let alone to a forum of netizens they have never met - if they do then more fool them.