I think that MEpedia's position as a patient driven resource could justify extra caution with the claims being made - some people are likely to be sceptical of it anyway, and any inaccuracies or exaggerated claims are likely to be viewed less generously than they would be elsewhere. Hopefully those involved in editing pages will be open to having others point out that the evidence is not as strong as they claim, or even contradicts some of their claims. Going through and discussing these things can be a lot of work (thanks to all those contributing) but that seems to be the way with these sorts of projects. For a lot of things I'm already finding MEpedia to be a really valuable collection of links and resources, but I'm sure that there are also going to be a lot of rough patches. All these wikis end up with some nonsense in them, and it's always worth checking the sources that they cite before assuming that anything is true.