Erik Moeller wrote:
There's also an odd strong pro-science-establishment bias, as evidence by the fact that most of our psychology articles are basically the (controversial) "party line" from American Psychiatry Association's _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual_.
Established mainstream scientists whose views are favored by the majority are given more space than minority views. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Pseudoscience
That is completely irrelevant to my comment. The American Psychiatry Association represents a particular faction within psychology, with a particularly extremist viewpoint that there is no such thing as mental illness, but only physical illness, and all mental illnesses are actually "brain diseases" that they will begrudgingly call "mental disorders" for historical reasons, with the understanding that they are wholly the result of physiological medical conditions. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that psychiatrists are MDs.
As you might expect, this view is not universally held within psychology; indeed, the majority of PhDs in the field are members of the rival American Psychological Association, which holds rather contrary viewpoints.
So Wikipedia siding with MDs over PhDs has nothing to do with mainstream vs. pseudoscience, but with one faction of science vs. another faction of science.
Furthermore, it's inherently POV to favor "mainstream scientists". Mainstream scientists who also have mainstream public acceptance, perhaps, but simply giving experts in a field undue credence, even if their viewpoints are not generally held, is taking an explicit position on the matter. I'm quite alright with statements appropriately attributed, of course, like "the latest APA conference said [blah], although this remains controversial." But if you take a look at [[schizophrenia]], [[bipolar disorder]], etc., it's just straight pro-psychiatry partisanship.
-Mark