I still don't really like that idea, because
it's strongly taking one
side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a
[[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his
wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get
[[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.) This sort of
derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling
that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast,
doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read
as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately
simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.
I would not object to classifying Pauling's ideas on
nutrition (vast amounts of vitamin C etc.) as pseudo-science.
The label is no more derisive than the topics under discussion
deserve. We call vandalism vandalism. We don't call it
"alternative editing". We call the trolls trolls. We don't
call them "complementary editors". The labels are only
derisive insofar as they are accurate. Such is the case
with pseudoscience and quackery.
Regards,
Haukur