This can be dangerous. For instance, putting pet pseudo-scientific theories on Wikipedia gives them a certan credence that they would not get anywhere else.
We don't put our own pet ideas into Wikipedia. That is original research and prohibited. But we do include the sum of human knowledge, whether it's credible or not.
Otherwise by your line of reasoning, we should remove all the articles on Communism, slang, pornography, terrorists, dictators, morals, etc etc, just in case people get the "wrong" idea.
Let's take the prime example of pseudoscience "astrology", and its description on Encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html It is not labelled "pseudoscience", not is it even criticised. Encarta does what any decent encyclopedia should do, describe it. Neutrally.
By the same argument, EVERY single article describing a model, theory and hypothesis is given extra "credence" by its very mention on Wikipedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com