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

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:May 2011 Update

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.

Realpedia22:40, 19 May 2011

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.

Tgeorgescu21:37, 21 May 2011

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)

Brya05:23, 22 May 2011