I agree with the notion that wikipedia should profess the truth, but my problem in allowing us to label certain fields, beliefs, or whatever, as “quackery,” or “pseudoscience,” etc., is manifold: - It assumes that our readers need such labels because they can't make an informed judgment otherwise - this seems to me the opposite of what we are trying to do here - I don't know who among us is qualified to determine what is true or not - my personal experience is that those who most loudly invoke scientific jargon are also most prone to abuse it - and last but not least, what is unassailable science this year is archaic superstition the next year. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.