#Wikimedia and the "official point of view"

One of the pillars of #Wikipedia is its Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The point is that we should not take sides in an argument but should present arguments from both ends and thereby remain neutral. The problem is what to do when arguments are manifestly wrong. When science repeatedly shows that there is no merit in a point of view.

What to do when it is even worse, when science is manipulated to show what is of benefit to some. When the Wikimedia Foundation had its collaboration with Cochrane, it was onto something important. Cochrane is big on debunking bad science.

The new government of the USA has a reputation that precedes its actions. It already states that science is bad. It will state its point of view. They will argue that it is good for all but how will they substantiate this? In the mean time much of what science said so far will remain standing. The snake oil salesmen will try to sell you their product and I wonder how it will find its way in Wikipedia. Will we look at science and will we resist the snake oil?
Thanks,
      GerardM