The "sceptical" movement try to controll wikipedia for their own purposes.

Let me restate it: the scientific consensus is based on skepticism. Wikipedia renders the scientific consensus, so it inherently has a skeptical bias. There is absolutely no problem with such bias. Such bias is required of any academic contribution: listen only to persuasive evidence, take heed from Ockham's razor and doubt everything you can reasonably doubt. This is how scholarship works, and Wikipedia is based upon scholarship.

This statement "Wikipedia renders the scientific consensus" seems confused, and certainly cannot be found in any of the policy pages. Wikipedia is supposed to offer information; and "scientific consensus" (or any of several scientific consensus-ses) is only part of that information.

This "Wikipedia renders the scientific consensus" is indistinguishable from "Wikipedia renders the Truth", which pretty explicitly belongs with "What Wikipedia is not". - Brya 18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You have argued that science has no place for "Truth", therefore you contradict yourself.

People can treat anything as the Truth, like the Bible, the Koran, a scientific consensus, etc. That does not mean it exists, except in that place and time, and to those people. No contradiction. - Brya 05:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to put it otherwise: Wikipedia renders the information provided by reliable sources. Reliable sources are produced by academics, which are professional skeptics. Or maybe by journalists, who always have to check their information in order to be convinced that it it true. Wikipedians cannot express their own opinions as encyclopedic knowledge, they may only render the research done by academics and journalists. This is a matter of several official policies, like WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia never was supposed to be made of scientific consensus. Therefore if some somebody is deleting/tagging no-scientific parts or whole articles following this narrow-minded practice then he is corrupting Wikipedia and he should be cast out from Wikipedia. Wikipedia it is not what most people think. Wikipedia it is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of exclusively scientific articles. That means every thing of historic/current notability can be and should be inside of Wikipedia. That is to say: fiction, music, poetry, painting, cinema, dance, theatre, TV, folklore, religion, myths, doctrines, magic, science (physics, medicine, mathematics, biology, psychology, history, …, etc.), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc… should be present in Wikipedia. None of these articles are expected to tell eternal truths but only supposed to be a display of historic and notable ideas/events, sometimes embodying truths or lies or both. Even scientific articles which today are current and accepted ideas, a true scientist knows that in the future those current theories can be changed. It is not clear yet? I will elucidate: Wikipedia it is about what has popular and unpopular notability. That is to say, Wikipedia it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA.

All the listed items can be studied scientifically (or academically: fiction, music, poetry, painting, cinema, theater, TV, folklore, religion, myths, doctrines, magic, science -- yes, even science can be studied scientifically!). When talking about science I also mean literary critique, film criticism, critical-historical method, psychology, sociology, religion studies and so on. If you do not like the term, replace scientific with academic: Wikipedia renders the academic consensus (or lack of it), since reliable sources express it (or its lack). This of course does not apply to news items, which are not studied academically, but reported by journalists.

Simply, reliable sources are either mainstream academic sources or mainstream newspapers. Therefore Wikipedia renders the viewpoints of either academic papers or news items.

Most things can be studied scientifically, usually by more than one science. Any science can have one or more consensuses, at any one time.

Your "Wikipedia renders the academic consensus (or lack of it)," is a lot closer to what the intent is than your earlier statement. It lacks the requirement of the proper context, and it does not take into account that there may be more than one consensus on a topic. - Brya 05:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)