3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday May 05, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Flavius Vanillus (view source)
Revision as of 17:04, 25 September 2008
, 17:04, 25 September 2008→Memorable quotes
=== Abuse of NPOV ===
=== Abuse of NPOV ===
A crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article. Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is. It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has much to say on this. But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors. For example, FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'. Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat. "That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view". FT2 replies "There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless". Flavius wittily retorts "That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread." This did not endear him to such an important person.
Another editor tries to make the same point, arguing (wrongly) that Wikipedia should not suggest that only one side is 'correct'. "Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. [13]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". (User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon). Flavius replies, correctly, that the neutrality policy requires that weight to be given to authoritative, and particularly properly peer-reviewed sources. He mentions MEDLINE, which indexes journals as they carry weight or not, as determined by a specially-employed panel of experts. He points out
:There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) and the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in Anchor Point and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum.
An administrator argues that Flavius is not being constructive. "I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here. Flavius correctly replies that this is nonsense.
:Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [80]
Flavius' position perfectly reflects Wikipedia's neutrality policy. He argues that
#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.
#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.
#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.
#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.
#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.
#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.
He correctly identifies the source of the conflict as the unwillingness of pro-NLP editors to have NLP represented as a minority view, or to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.
:The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these positions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]
:The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these positions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application WP:UNDUE, NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand?
Flavius is entirely correct, but the problem with Wikipedia is that administrators are merely policemen, not lawyers or judges, and have no understanding whatever of the content disputes. They require only a limited concept of 'civility', which Flavius could not understand.
=== The ban ===
=== The ban ===
:Who will be the arbiter of whether I "belong here"? I've been complying with your blocks without any fuss. There is no way to keep a determined person off Wikipedia and I haven't resorted to any of these means (which are entirely legal, easy and unstoppable) so I don't understand why you are antagonising and threatening me. flavius 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
:Who will be the arbiter of whether I "belong here"? I've been complying with your blocks without any fuss. There is no way to keep a determined person off Wikipedia and I haven't resorted to any of these means (which are entirely legal, easy and unstoppable) so I don't understand why you are antagonising and threatening me. flavius 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
=== Memorable quotes ===
* "Whenever I encounter a modern textbook, dictionary or encyclopedia on linguistics, psycohlinguistics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or neurology I always look up 'Neurolinguistic Programming' and I am yet to find an entry. "
* "That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. "
* "You are pretending that no research scientist is aware of the literature cited by FT2 and that new ground will potentially be broken on Wikipedia. This won't happen for at least two reasons: literature reviews have already been conducted and their conclusions are that NLP is unsupported scientificlly; and Wikipedia is not the place for original research (even if it is doomed to be still-born). Expanding the citations is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. My point in expanding what I could was to show that the journals cited are marginal, not credible, not reputable and hence unreliable. It says much about the marginality of the citations that I couldn't expand some of them ''at all''. FT2 has collected what is largely a bunch of junk research."
==References and links==
==References and links==
''You have been blocked for 2 weeks For this. This is your 6th block, Flavius. Any further disruption is going to lead to an indefinite block. Last chance''. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=46452261]
''You have been blocked for 2 weeks For this. This is your 6th block, Flavius. Any further disruption is going to lead to an indefinite block. Last chance''. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=46452261]
What is wrong with that edit? How is it disruptive? flavius 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Flavius''': What is wrong with that edit? How is it disruptive? flavius 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a personal attack from start to finish. I had to remove the entire thing because I couldn't even refactor it to something keepable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Admin''': It is a personal attack from start to finish. I had to remove the entire thing because I couldn't even refactor it to something keepable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing? Even the bit where I refer to Wikipedia policy? The third point could be construed as a personal attack but the first two aren't. Can you at least reinstate the first two points? flavius 13:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Flavius''': The whole thing? Even the bit where I refer to Wikipedia policy? The third point could be construed as a personal attack but the first two aren't. Can you at least reinstate the first two points? flavius 13:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
== In which Flavius gets banned ==
== In which Flavius gets banned ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus '''FLAVIUS IS BANNED''']
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus '''FLAVIUS IS BANNED''']
== Reincarnations ==
I'm the person that once posted as Flavius Vanillus. I haven't looked at the NLP article in many months let alone edited it. Contrary to the unsubstantiated view being self-righteously promoted by FT2 I and Headley Down are two distinct people. I actually "met" Headley Down when (s)he introduced him/herself on My Page when I opened the Flavius Vanillus account. Furthermore, I do not and did not belong to any sceptics forum or society. There was/is no anti-NLP cabal. I've ''never'' posted to Wikipedia using two co-existent online identities. Certainly, Headley Down used many sock puppets -- and I discovered this only just before the "authorities" did so via my own stylistic comparisons (you can find my early discussion page posts where I raise my suspicion about Headley Down). I did correspond with Headley Down just as I corresponded with Comaze (to validate my identity I'll remind Scott (Comaze) that in a private email I directed him to an error in the 'Contact Us' mark-up on his business site). We exchanged references and discussed our frustrations but there was no conspiracy. I feel compelled to post because FT2 is indulging in conspiratorial fantasy and is negating the value of mine and Headley Down's contributions to the article. My editing style was conservative in that I didn't commit anything to the article unless I could substantiate it. I was also ready to discard those edits when I could see that some of them comprised OR. For the record I'm a male IT professional based in Australia, Headley Down is/was a PhD student from Hong Kong. An IP address check would have shown that I am not Headley Down. Although I am posting through a private proxy at the moment I never did so when I was editing the article. A mod. can verify that as Flavius I consistently edited from an well-known Australian ISP address block. Instead of due dilligence FT2 merely assumed that there was only one person presenting an NLP-critical view. Excluding Headley Downes socks there were at least four people at one point presenting an NLP-critical view. I've noticed also that FT2 is automatically accusing ''everyone'' that offers a critical view of being Headley Down. I've no intention of editing the NLP article (even though I could easily do so with the abundance of closed/private HTTP proxy servers around the world) and I ask only that this post remain in the discussion page to offset the self-righteous propaganda that FT2 has been spreading.
On reflection it was a case of "too many cooks" and this did not serve the interests of producing a good article. The problem now is that in the absence of any critical opinion (or its relgation to the sidelines) the article risks becoming a promotional "puff piece" for the NLP industry. I'm not offering myself as the antidote nor am I campaigning for the return of Headley Down. That notwithstanding both I and Headley and his/her many personas helped to "keep the bastards honest" (to quote the late Don Chipp). In my view Comaze and GregA were the best of the pro-NLP editors even though I feel that their commercial interests in NLP are skewing some of their views (but this is normal, we all have biases). Having Comaze and GregA 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.
This is statement of the obvious (I know) but you'll only achieve stability in the article if it succeeds in carefully treading the tight-rope of neutrality. I can now see we did push too hard on some issues (eg. NLP and magick) and this was counter-productive and wasteful of time and energy. However, the pro-NLP editors were no less culpable in different ways. There was (and remains) a tendency to present disguised forms of the ''argument from ignorance'', i.e. there is no scientific evidence against hypothesis ''H'' so we'll act as if there evidence for ''H'' else we'll argue that the conventional concept of evidence is irrelevant. This brings me to the other persistent problem about "epistemology". Grinder's idiosyncratic conception of "epistemology" should be presented as just that, namely Grinders view. Also if Grinder has an an argument to support his take on "epistemology" then it should be referenced. If he has no such argument in defence of his "epistemology" then that too should be stated. The notion that a hypothesis can be epistemologically "promoted" by arguing that it originated from a proto-science, that it is a "model", that it is a "pragmatic model" that can't be wrong or right or that is based on a pardigm shift is mere sophistry.
[[User:64.46.47.242|64.46.47.242]] 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) The editor formerly known an Flavius ;-)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169]
<br><br><br>
<br><br><br>
