There are other definitions of 'false' than 'not true'.  For example: "Deliberately untrue", "Arising from mistaken ideas" and "Intentionally deceptive".   The 'false' in 'false skeptic' is more likely one of these, describing people behaving as if skeptical even tho they're not (whether deliberately or not).  Pointing out that some people behave like this (backed up with reliable reports of such behavour) seems to be a valid part of this article, even if the label 'false skeptic' is confusing.  (edits) 

1.In your view and others yes. But there are others who view false as the opposite of truth as it is meant to be. Granted " Nothing can be so completly itself that it does not contain something of its opposite." -Lao Tzu For the sake of argument false is not true. You are all opinion, though ultimately we all are. Either way, the majority opinion of "false" is "not true"; pseudo. Therefore, to claim someone is a false skeptic is impossible since you can't prove if your view, let alone theres, is 100% and knows what "true" skepticism is.= The logicians call this quite often the "TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY". 2. We could all form websites, talk bs, and then use it or our friends as "sources". The trouble is not in the getting of the source, but in the quality therein. Your view and sources lack quality and are not worthy of Wiki...particularly when applied to such a grand and ancient pylosophical view as Skepticism. For example; "I know more than the average man in that I know that I know nothing."-Socrates . I believe he is saying that one can't know anything for certain and that this truth is the only real knowledge he has thus giving him an advantage that may not be there; a lovely paradox. Most view this statement to be that there is too much knowledge for one to know and that knowing this paradoxilly makes him wiser in his lack of wisdom. HOWEVER, you don't see me going to the page on Socrates, finding bs sources that support my rare view, and forcing hundreds of viewers in the future to be subject to my minority and severly lacking of analysis viewpoint, do you? I deleted it because it is unsalvageable. If you all persist in bringing it back after I delete it again then to hell with it. You can have this page. Whine to whoever, wiki is a democracy where the citizens are the whiners who work the system with the moderators who are unworthy and with no life and the wiki owners who are too poor to fund such a site properly. And you wonder why donations are so tricky? -Wiggalama ````