:: 
 :: As Sir Humphrey would say, "to edit is one of those irregular verbs: I edit properly; you edit disruptively; he/she vandalises". Having different points of view is natural, and believing your own point of view to be the right one is just as natural, so we generally tolerate others' views on Wikipedia. The problem though is that in science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement (credit: User:Stephan Schulz), so what should we be doing when someone who believes in a particular pseudoscience edits that article based on their view? No matter how much we'd like to accommodate that editor, there's really no room for compromise on scientific fact. I don't think we should be running editors out of town, but the bottom line is that in some topics, there really is the right way and the wrong way, so what room do we have in finding a "consensus"?