Any group with a consistent position should be in scope. For example, "Catholic teaching" is certainly in scope. "Catholic position" is not necessarily so since this can encourage answers from Catholics who hold a range of personal views on the subject, even though as a group they are nominally homogeneous.
Similarly with critical scholars1: there are many issues on which critical scholars are in broad agreement, because they are looking at the same data and generally using the same hermeneutic methods. As a clear example, there is no doubt that Markan priority is a view held more tightly among critical scholars than almost any doctrine is held among, for example, evangelical churches.
Subsets of critical scholars can be even more homogeneous in their views. Members of the Acts Seminar voted on a number of questions about Acts of the Apostles and, by their voting statistics, demonstrated an internal consistency of views.
Not all critical scholars will agree on all questions, but neither will all Baptist churches. On some issues - of which ordination is just one example - the Anglican Community is deeply divided, but no one would propose excluding Anglican/Episcopal views from the site. Even the Vatican sometimes provides ambiguous positions that some Catholic clergy will nuance one way, while other clergy will see things differently.
Christianity.SE is "
for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more." More than most, critical scholars are experts in Christianity.
In context, Critical Scholars are experts who undertake biblical criticism, which is defined by Wikipedia:
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".1 Viewing biblical texts as being ordinary pieces of literature, rather than set apart from other literature, as in the traditional view, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey.
Biblical criticism is not anti-Christian, in spite of frequent misunderstandings on this. Scholars simply attempt to understand the text, using linguistic tools, hermeneutic methods and even archaeology, where this is appropriate. It is a misuse of "biblical criticism" to attempt to undermine religion, and the inherent bias of such attempts will probably result in false conclusions.