Looking for feedback: how would you present open-ended rankings without losing clarity?

I’m building a small experiment called Rankiwiki, a site where every input becomes a ranking item.
The core rule is intentionally simple:
Anyone can type any word
That word instantly joins the ranking
No predefined options, no forms, no signup

This has been interesting, but it created a UX issue I didn’t fully anticipate.
As more people participate, long-tail entries (one-off words, spelling variants, synonyms) slowly dilute the percentages.Nothing is wrong with the data, but the top ranks start to feel weaker than they actually are.

I don’t want to delete or ignore minority inputs, openness is kind of the point,but I also want the rankings to feel meaningful at a glance.

Right now I’m considering a few approaches:

• Show Top N, group the rest as “Others” (expandable)
• Hide ultra-small entries by default (never delete, just collapse)
• Normalize obvious duplicates (plural/singular, spacing, common synonyms)
• Show vote count + %, not just percentages

Before I implement anything, I’d really appreciate outside perspective:
If you were a user, what would make an open, free-text ranking feel clear and trustworthy, without killing the “anyone can say anything” spirit?
Happy to share more details if helpful. Thanks!