Should pseudoscientists be admitted to editorship?

[analytikone]

[I replaced the sentence which constituted the subject and moved it to the beginning of the post because it didn't make it clear that I was raising an issue of general nature]

Would a well-known "psychic surgeon" qualify as a healing arts editor?

And what about an astrology workgroup among "Natural disciplines"?

I chose psychic surgery ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_surgery ) because it is clearly an example of bad faith quackery. I think (or at least I hope) that most Citizendium editors would be against admitting a "psychic surgeon" among their ranks, but since the healing arts workgroup "is open to editors who are expert in non-scientific means of therapy" (quote from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Healing_Arts_Workgroup ) I think that a criterion should be worked out  to sort out the "acceptable" non-scientific "arts" (if there should be any) from the "unacceptable" in a principled way.

Besides, since experts of non-scientific disciplines are admitted as editors in the health field, a more general criterion should be devised to justify the fact that , say, professional astrologers and pseudoscientists of other fields (experts of disciplines regarded as pseudoscientific by most scientists and philosophers of science) wouldn't qualify as editors (if this is the policy to be adopted by Citizendium, as I hope).

Two possible candidates for a criterion concerning the health field (the first could serve as the more general criterion too):
Expertise of a "healing art" might entitle a CZ user to editorship if this "art"...

1) ...is taught (by teachers who endorse it) at at least some university which is legally recognized in at least the university's country (this criterion could be made stricter at various degrees, by requiring, for example, that the discipline be taught at at least some university among the top 20 (or some other figure) of, say, the THES or Jiao Tong university rankings).

2) ...is shown to be more efficacious than the placebo by some scientific study, even if most health scientists wouldn't subscribe to the explanation of its efficacy provided by its practitioners.

[Sally]

There's room for abuse without going to that extreme.  An article on podiatry might make some claims that they are the foot doctors and not the orthopedic surgeons.  Podiatrist go to podiatry school, not medical school. 

Optometrist go to optometry school, not medical school.  Optometrists often don't do residencies and start practice right out of school, unlike ophthalmologists who have more training and also go to medical school.  Yet in some US states, optometrists call themselves "optometric physicians" probably to make people think they are just like medical doctors.  In England, optometrist are not called doctors.

How about anesthetists?  In the US, CRNA's or nurses with extra training might claim to be an expert and say that they practice the same thing as anesthesiologists.  The CRNA may claim to be the supreme expert for the anesthesiology article.