I don't think a Wikipedia page on Chris, which only summarizes like the most basic elements of him, is needed when you have an entire wiki on him that goes into great detail of every single part of his life, and at least two documentaries that act as the CliffsNotes version of that.
But yeah, a Wikipedia page on Chris would likely be very hard to manage, given what kinds of people follow him and/or get into his orbit, so I don't blame the staff over there for not allowing it. Keeping shit on track on the CWCki is already hard enough, and we specifically do account registration by request, so not just anyone can edit.
The other part is that its quite apocryphal. Chris chan is best talked about in the way we talk about crypids-
What I mean by that is, that theres always going to be conflicting views, opinions, a lot of the lore surrounding him almost becomes myth and documenting that is hard.
Id imagine Chris-Chan as a phenomena of collective story telling, more than anything else- because thats originally what it was.
There are some objective sagas and objective facts around the guy and that should be cleared up, but so much surrounding the guy is shrouded in gayops, heresy, exaggeration, etc. Hes like the internets 'big fish' story.
Id put a disclaimer here in saying that hes guilty of most of the stuff people attribute to him, doesnt really deserve sympathy, and deserves probably much worse (would be helpful if people stopped fellating his dick online and younger weens stopped praising him).
But wikipedia is too objective, to boring, too academic. Would you tell the story of the big fish you caught on wikipedia, or would you embelish it in a video series, around a campfire, etc?
The other problem is you do get people with clear agendas, as you said, trying to insert themselves into the narrative, to change it to suit their own purposes and ambitions. You do have different factions vying for the soul of the dude, watchmen, praetor, meangirls, the chessclub, etc. Youre going to have different tidbits of information and narratives forming throughout the process.
What can you do as a good job? Try to stick to the generally agreed upon things, and tell the story for the interesting parts. It is a story, its actually a very interesting one. Trying to make it academic, let alone academic enough for wikipedia and taking that approach kind of kills what it should be. Fun, and something to talk about