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

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)