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

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.