Changes

== Neurolinguistic programming in Wikipedia ==

== Neurolinguistic programming in Wikipedia ==

Pretty much any subject you search Google for – let's say 'Neurolinguistic programming', the article about it in Wikipedia comes first in the ranking.  That makes Wikipedia an attractive target for determined groups of individuals who want to present their idea or product in a global market, free of charge.  Join the encylopedia that anyone can edit, write an article about, let's say, 'Neurolinguistic programming', and you have as much free advertising as you want. 

Authorship of Wikipedia articles is governed by the [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neutral Point of View Neutral Point of View]] policy.  This is a well-designed policy, and in theory it will work, so long as all those who understand it and can be bothered to put hard work into the article (experts, academics, researchers, professional scientists).  But it clearly has not worked in certain areas. Consider the NLP article as it was in Wikipedia on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 31 December 2005], with the version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=182254945  as of 17 December 2007].  The 2005 version says that "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials.", and that "NLP has been criticized in reviews of research by scientists such as Heap (1988), Sharpley (1987), Lilienfeld (2003), and (Singer & Lalich 1999), which have found that Neuro-linguistic programming is scientifically unsupported and largely ineffective. "  You will not find this in the introduction to the 2007 version.

 

Wikipedia has a 'Neutral Point of View' policy, and the theory is that any overtly biased article on NLP, crystal healing, or whatever, will be overwritten by someone else who will come along and edit the article to a more 'neutral point of view'.  The great weapon in the neutralist's arsenal is the NPOV policy itself.  This tells you it is not what you believe to be true that is important – not even if you know it to be true, in the philosopher's justified true belief sense.  What is important is that what you say is verifiable.  He, or she who can cite reputable, authoritative peer-reviewed research against what

 

NPOV is a well-designed policy, and in theory it will work, so long as all those who understand it and can be bothered to put hard work into the article (experts, academics, researchers, professional scientists).  But it clearly has not worked in certain areas. Consider the NLP article as it was in Wikipedia on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 31 December 2005], with the version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=182254945  as of 17 December 2007].  The 2005 version says that "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials.", and that "NLP has been criticized in reviews of research by scientists such as Heap (1988), Sharpley (1987), Lilienfeld (2003), and (Singer & Lalich 1999), which have found that Neuro-linguistic programming is scientifically unsupported and largely ineffective. "  You will not find this in the introduction to the 2007 version.