Changes

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday May 04, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics (view source)

Revision as of 21:57, 26 July 2008

824 bytes added ,  21:57, 26 July 2008
m
Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Sceptics moved to Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics: The most common spelling is "Skeptics", with a "k".
Line 1: Line 1:  
NLP talk page June 2006 - comment on HKUS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=60465256#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29]
 
NLP talk page June 2006 - comment on HKUS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=60465256#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29]
    +
 +
You don't get what's happening here. We want critics. We just don't want more meatpuppets that have come here via the University of Hong Kong skeptics club. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161]
 +
 +
The whole purpose of blocking and everything else we do here is to create a good Wikipedia article and to keep the peace in this discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshopgeneral Feb 2006 NLP workshop]
    
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176
Line 31: Line 35:  
== Helen is indefinitely blocked ==
 
== Helen is indefinitely blocked ==
   −
:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely.  You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that post of yours might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
+
:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely.  You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176 that post] of yours [complaining about censorship] might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
    
== NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==
 
== NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==
   −
'''Focus on objectivity'''
+
:'' '''Focus on objectivity'''  
−
 
+
Psychology is the most subjective of all sciences and therefore I ask everyone to keep an open mind towards NLP as a science, as the aim of Wikipedia should be to provide neutral and objective information rather than articles based on bigotry and partisanship.''
−
Psychology is the most subjective of all sciences and therefore I ask everyone to keep an open mind towards NLP as a science, as the aim of Wikipedia should be to provide neutral and objective information rather than articles based on bigotry and partisanship.
  −
 
  −
NLP is the antithesis of traditional psychology (modeling extreme cases of mental illness and searching for causation) as NLP models people with the ability to do something extremely well in order to map how such 'healthy thinking' can be reproduced by other people. Therefore, supporters of traditional psychology have a serious conflict of interests that makes it impossible for them to contribute without bigotry or partisanship in some form or another. However, while traditionalists may be incompetent in contributing to writing an objective and informative article about NLP, they are more than qualified to review the text to ensure the neutrality of the wordings.
  −
 
  −
I know that there has been a lot of sabotage on the NLP page, but more or less anal argumentation against NLP by supporters of conventional psychology should be considered destructive sabotage as well. The discussion about whether NLP should be recognized as science or not belongs in foot note form only, as everything beyond "NLP has been criticized for lack of merits and some supporters of traditional psychology refuse to recognize NLP as science" is completely useless for the Wikipedia visitor who is searching for objective information about NLP and not intellectual masturbation by the academia.
  −
 
  −
NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago; it is a new approach that will never get a fair peer review, because there is no real peer reviewers as long as the already recognized scientific peer is entrenched with bigotry and partisanship to support the exact opposite thesis.
     −
In order of relevance, a neutral article about NLP should contain points about a) WHAT is NLP, b) HOW does NLP theory differ from traditional psychological theory, and c) is NLP RECOGNIZED as a cognitive science. The last point is the closest to irrelevant and please note that it asks whether NLP is recognized as science, not whether it is a science.
+
:'' NLP is the antithesis of traditional psychology (modeling extreme cases of mental illness and searching for causation) as NLP models people with the ability to do something extremely well in order to map how such 'healthy thinking' can be reproduced by other people. Therefore, supporters of traditional psychology have a serious conflict of interests that makes it impossible for them to contribute without bigotry or partisanship in some form or another. However, while traditionalists may be incompetent in contributing to writing an objective and informative article about NLP, they are more than qualified to review the text to ensure the neutrality of the wordings.''
   −
Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to contribute with my view on how the new NLP article can be better structured.
+
:'' I know that there has been a lot of sabotage on the NLP page, but more or less anal argumentation against NLP by supporters of conventional psychology should be considered destructive sabotage as well. The discussion about whether NLP should be recognized as science or not belongs in foot note form only, as everything beyond "NLP has been criticized for lack of merits and some supporters of traditional psychology refuse to recognize NLP as science" is completely useless for the Wikipedia visitor who is searching for objective information about NLP and not intellectual masturbation by the academia.''
   −
Thomas [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57440064&oldid=57439994]
+
:'' NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago; it is a new approach that will never get a fair peer review, because there is no real peer reviewers as long as the already recognized scientific peer is entrenched with bigotry and partisanship to support the exact opposite thesis. In order of relevance, a neutral article about NLP should contain points about a) WHAT is NLP, b) HOW does NLP theory differ from traditional psychological theory, and c) is NLP RECOGNIZED as a cognitive science. The last point is the closest to irrelevant and please note that it asks whether NLP is recognized as science, not whether it is a science. Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to contribute with my view on how the new NLP article can be better structured. Thomas ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57440064&oldid=57439994]
    
== Now the 'anti' side has been completely banned (6 June) ==
 
== Now the 'anti' side has been completely banned (6 June) ==
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/Special:MobileDiff/69338...69359"

Navigation menu