h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is by far the best discussion of the scientific method I have seen written or published anywhere in a very long while.

Wikipedia, by way of contrast, seems to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. In particular, articles on pseudoscience are found there with no mention or identification other than a short section on "scientific consensus", and leave it for the reader to decide whether they are reading something about real science or not. On the other hand, would anyone expect inclusion of a section labeled "pseudoscientific consensus" section in an article that actually was based on real science?

An understanding of what pseudoscience is (and there are many flavors) requires a knowledge of what legitimate science is to be understood first. Evidently, many purveyors of pseudoscience have discovered that most people can be easily duped into thinking there is no difference, particularly when their papers have all the earmarks of peer-reviewed and experimentally verified science.