Moderator note: This thread has been split off from the introductory MEpedia thread here. @JenB My reading of @JaimeS's 'objective truth' is pretty much the same as your 'accuracy'. The point seems to be that people should aim not to give a biased (subjective) view. So for the page on non-cytolytic enterovirus my thought would be that right at the start it should be mentioned that the biomedical research community as a whole do not think that the concept of non-cytolytic enterovirus infection is of any clinical significance to anything much. We have a big problem that has developed in the last twenty years which is that the great majority of review articles in biomedical science are essentially marketing tools for grant sourcing. It is only too easy to find statements that are strictly speaking true or accurate in some sense but which are wildly misleading. The crux of the matter is both the 'quality' of the sources as you put it and how justified extrapolation is. If MEpedia pages are left to enthusiastic individuals to create I think you are going to end up with something very like the review journals in science now - wall to wall advertising of speculative ideas. I think it is worth thinking hard about whether that is really a useful project.