> This seems like a very reasonable definition of the term 'alternative medicine'. Let's try from a couple angles. First, just the accuracy. Are there any al

> This seems like a very reasonable definition of the term 'alternative medicine'. Let's try from a couple angles. First, just the accuracy. Are there any alternative medicines that are effective? I'm fairly prejudiced against many alternative medical approaches (especially homeopathy) but within the wider field seems likely that at least one alternative approach somewhere actually works for some patients. I don't see how it can "actually work" while being "biologically implausible", which makes this a poor defining characteristic. Second, there are many people who describe themselves as practitioners of or believers in alternative medicine. Would any of them come up with or even recognize this definition? Doubtful, which means that at best this is a biased definition believed only by people with a particular preconceived view. I'm mostly OK with this excerpt, because in this case I'm on the side that shares this bias. But even if it's "right", one should recognize that this still makes it a biased article. There's nothing inherently wrong with propagating this bias, and I prefer it to an uncritical acceptance of alternative medicine, but it's hypocritical to call it a "neutral point of view". The bigger question is whether it's possible or desirable for Wikipedia to actually have a "neutral point of view" while remaining useful, or whether it should adopt an "experts' point of view" and strive for accuracy. I'm unsure --- I think there is probably room for both approaches, but probably impossible for a single resource to serve both roles. If Wikipedia wants to claim neutrality, it needs to write articles that all sides agree offer accurate summaries. But it can be very difficult for people who are certain they are right to neutrally present things they feel are wrong, which means that to achieve this goal Wikipedia may need to increase the ideological breadth of its base. Or it can give up on its claims of neutrality. Or it can continue to be criticized by people who correctly point out the hypocrisy of claiming to be neutral while producing ideologically slanted articles.