You have an interesting case, but one which, I think is misguided. Any collection of evidence and presentation of it, is never as objective as you imply. People set out to prove or disprove hypotheses (even if only subconsciously). If you ask for evidence that the SH is true, there is no absolute evidence 'out there' for it or against it, the evidence is merely what the protagonist or antagonist of the argument chooses to collect and to present.  

 In addition, as I said earlier, the use of OR in any argument of this nature is always subjective; one person's simplicity is another person's complexity. How do you decide whether Creation is 'simpler' than Evolution - you can't, otherwise there would not be loads of Creationists cluttering up the place. I may disagree with them vehemently, and part of the reason I do is that I think OR tells me that Evolution is simpler, has fewer assumptions and is a cleaner explanation. On the other hand, I have been involved with arguers who have argued that the hypothesis that God created everything is simpler, based on fewer assumptions, and is a cleaner explanation. They might not be citing OR explicitly, but are using the principles behind it to guide their choice of hypothesis. I think the parallel with the God hypothesis and the SH is crucial; I think we should learn from the debate with creationists. Once belief of whatever nature infects a topic, it is very difficult to conduct a rational, dispassionate debate on it. 

 I go back to my original point. This Wiki should be not be concerned with arguing a case one way or the other, it should be concerned with documenting what people think, and not judging whether they are right. For example, the section on OR might well say that 'OR has been used by A, B & C to attempt to refute/support the SH arguing that ... ; however this is hotly debated by X and Y who state ...     Z has pointed out that any use of OR is irrelevant in this context'. That feels to me more like an academically credible piece of work. The reader gets a summary and can go and read the original arguments if they wish. Given what I have said in my opening paragraph, that aim is incredibly difficult to achieve for a single writer working alone; however, I continue to think (this is my personal belief) that the entire Wiki-isation of knowledge is our best hope of achieving this in some measure. 

 I would really like to get this article on a firm footing.