Fiction vs. Non-Fiction

I think to be considered non-fiction a book has to be 100 percent accurate. To me that has always been the definition of non-fiction. The job of a non-fiction piece of work is to tell a story yes, but a true story. When I think of non-fiction I think of those children's books talking about birds or explaining the water cycle. Juvenile I know, but that is what I picture and anything far from that isn't really non-fiction in my book. I believe that it does not matter if you are writing a non-fiction piece and you are stretching the truth, as long as you change the genre of the book from non-fiction to fiction. If not, your writing is an outright lie and should be taken down from shelves until the print on the front cover reads non-fiction. In fact, it's not really fair to do that to other authors. They have worked hard crafting their thoughts ideas and experiences into a novel. They aren't lying when they say they are a fiction writer. So what gives you the right to call yourself something that you are not? David Shields was incorrect when he said that we do not need a distinction between non-fiction and fiction. Yes people can write both, but in my opinion when I pick up a book I want to know how true to reality it is or it isn't. I think not defining this will leave readers with more questions than answers. I think it is important to give readers a fair view of yourself and by taking away the definition of your work, you are not doing that.