No, its credibility is damaged by the presence of an echo chamber that can impose its viewpoint unchallenged. An article that "objectively" lays out the claims

No, its credibility is damaged by the presence of an echo chamber that can impose its viewpoint unchallenged. An article that "objectively" lays out the claims and though processes of homeopathy and then simply states that there is zero supporting evidence and no experimental setup has ever been able to establish any effect above placebo, gives much more credibility to Wikipedia because it suggests to the reader that the wording has been challenged by proponents of homeopathy, but the factual statements about the lack of evidence could not be removed on objective grounds.