Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
I got a private message saying this conflicted with Wikipedia's NPOV policy on pseudoscience. I'd like to clarify - it's right to mention that some people disbelieve a certain theory, and believe other ideas on how such a phenomenon exists. It's also good to include why people believes/believed such a theory.
Of course, because the other ideas are normally all wrong, it's not POV to include a criticism section in the article with references to scientific experiments demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
As an encyclopaedia which is intended to include 'all knowledge', I don't see any conflict between including pseudoscientific babble and explaining why it is babble. Including all knowledge doesn't conflict with Wikipedia accurately reflecting reality.
It's easy to get all philosophical about this (what is truth? what is reality? what is knowledge?), so please assume that I'm within the bounds of WP:NPOV with what I'm saying and that any deviations are due to me becoming philosophical :) ).
Chris