Delirium-
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.
At least Wikipedia is biased in the right direction, then.
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.
Held by whom? Since when is the general public relevant when it comes to scientific claims? By that standard, we would have to preface every article on biology with creationist claims, because they are so widely held. Overall popularity is the worst possible standard to use when it comes to NPOV.
If there are distinct scientific traditions, then I agree with you that we should not favor one over the other.
Generally speaking, we should favor the views of the majority of the best thinkers in a particular belief system, and present primarily the views of thinkers within the belief system relevant to an article (so we don't have to have a huge section on atheist views within [[Christianity]], nor a huge section on creationist views within [[Ephemeroptera]]).
The current NPOV policy is incomplete in that it does not properly elaborate on the differences between different traditions of belief. This has led to many edit wars where belief systems intersect, with one group arguing that the other group's views don't matter. Sometimes that is correct, and the other group's views are more appropriately dealt with in a separate article.
Regards,
Erik