3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday November 26, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence (view source)
Revision as of 11:15, 19 September 2008
, 11:15, 19 September 2008→Criticism of FT2
The effect of all this, combined with the important position he holds on Wikipedia, and the reverential awe in which he is held by less knowledgeable and more impressionable administrators, is a malignant and pernicious influence on the project. He has driven off a number of excellent and well-qualified editors. Has gathered around him a group of administrators who hold him in high esteem for his supposed impartiality and neutrality.
The effect of all this, combined with the important position he holds on Wikipedia, and the reverential awe in which he is held by less knowledgeable and more impressionable administrators, is a malignant and pernicious influence on the project. He has driven off a number of excellent and well-qualified editors. Has gathered around him a group of administrators who hold him in high esteem for his supposed impartiality and neutrality.
* The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28798929]
* "I quickly reviewed FT2's truncated abstracts and citations and I offer the following observations: (a) at least some are not sourced from reputable, peer-reviewed journals; and (b) most of the summaries are replete with vague and imprecise quantificational language (eg. "most helpful", "positive correlation" (magnitude?), "partially positive effects", "strongly related", "marked improvement", "positive reduction", "deeper trance", "substantially", "very helpful", "enormous changes", "very many of the people" etc.). The use of such vague language is evidence of methodological defect. I have reviewed some of the cited literature and I too am of the view that NLP is largely -- if not entirely -- without substance, ineffective (beyond non-specific factors) and without any scientific basis. flavius 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28192488]
* Having [redacted] and [redacted] edit the article doesn't alarm me. In my experience both had some understanding and appreciation of the notion of evidence and were quite clear thinkers. I don't feel I can extend the same assessment to FT2. FT2 carries an idelogical stench whereever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169 Flavius Vanillus]).
== Blocks of Peter Damian ==
== Blocks of Peter Damian ==
