Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday July 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

NLP talk page June 2006 - comment on HKUS [1]

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. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [2]

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) Feb 2006 NLP workshop Revision as of 07:41, 6 June 2006 (edit) (undo)Helen Wu (Talk | contribs)

Hi Antaeus. I have noticed some strange and odd things on the NLP article. Most of the HKU skeptics society has been banned from editing on the basis of they are suspected sockpuppetry. I am a member, and I am worried about myself being banned if I make any objection to the NLP advocates removing verified information. I know at least some of them are not sockpuppets. I met Alice, Headley (Wei Qing), Hans, and Bookmain (Jim) a few months back, and Camridge (Liz) is also really nice. They are all therapists and academics. Do you think they will ban the whole of Hong Kong and China from editing that article? Also, I notice you have a grounding in editing pseudoscience subjects. I can send you some soft copy papers on NLP that the group gave me if you like. The article at presently seems to be going under some kind of censorship campaign. Some of it refers to scientology and other pseudosciences so I thought it may be helpful and "synergetic" for you. Helen Wu 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FT2 explains why the sceptics club was banned

I doubt much I say will make any difference. However, here to clarify is why the HK sockfarm / sceptics place was banned: Wikipedia has rules and policies. Those rules govern, inter alia all personal conduct, and approaches to articles. Because of the nature of the internet, they also govern when and how a user may be removed for suspected accounts, or for multiple editors working together in a manner that blocks proper functioning of Wikipedia, even if by chance they are different individuals sharing computers. You may not like this, but each place has its rules, and those were spelled out over a very long period of time, and at many levels. They were spelled out by numerous individuals, personally and on the article, by mediation, by arbitration, by mentorship, and ultimately, by removal.
The users named have been blocked not because of a sudden desire by a number of editors and mediators (most of whom had no prior interest in NLP) to take a side. In fact they were not formally removed until the mediators tired of their knowing improper conduct, after many months of work by 3rd parties who feel their time was wasted. That's how life goes: - in a communal work, no individual is indispensible, and those who do not learn, tend to ultimately discover this. I'm told it's a bit of a shock. They were removed because, simply put, they did not learn how to write in accordance with an encyclopedic style. they were removed for "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards, breaches of sockpuppet policy first notified to them over 8 months ago and not rectified in that time, running of one of the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet groups of 2005 (WP:SOCK refers), and virulent personal attacks. Most of these things had little to do with the content they were writing.
(Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley) Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know. FT2 (Talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC) [3]

Helen Wu objects: "You are an NLP follower"

FT2 I have seen your edits. You are an NLP follower. You are worse than Woohokitty. You both should be nowhere near the NLP article. FT2, you and Comaze should be banned like Terryeo for making hundreds of hours of extra work and sly conflict. Your excuses are extreme and one sided. The NLP followers obviously did lots of "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards. You are one of them. Tell me where in this version of the article [2] there is any false facts, vandalism or deletion of valid source material? You are trying to delete it yourself and vandalism is what the NLP followers do when they get frustrated with the facts that don’t promote NLP. You are also as unconvincing as Woohokitty. I didn’t ask for your desperate one sided excuses or threats. You certainly don’t want me editing on the NLP article. That is because you are an NLP follower. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [4]

FT2 replies

Well, if that is your idea of emotional control and level headedness, then a fair number of people probably would find it hard to edit collaboratively with you. I feel terrible being "worse than woohookitty". But if you can point out a false fact I have inserted -- and I do mean a false fact, not just a thing you read into it or assume, that I didn't say, please tell me. Or do you think I also influenced the arbitration committee (most of whom are busy people who have never heard of NLP and could care less which side has the "right" view) to decide where the problem was, too? FT2 (Talk) 10:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I gather you are blocked now for breach of civility (note: not for your views). None the less, as I'm sure you get to read this page, here is your answer, some of the "false facts" and "deleteions": Source material of founders of NLP is factual, deleted. Source material on users of NLP is factual, deleted. Neutral point of view and representation of "writing for the enemy" is required by policy, deleted. Factual observation that much NLP is not new age and promoted in cult-like manner, deleted. Statements by HeadleyDown claiming false credentials for Morgan, repeatedly inserted. Presentation of subject matter "best foot forward" as required for both sides, deleted. Positive views of some researchers to set against negative views of others, deleted. In fact, almost anything that presents both sides with equal respect, deleted. FT2 (Talk) 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman

Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman. Don't try to lie to me. You tell me how was the article influenced? Was it by the editors or by the facts? The science editors were oftentimes lesser than the antiscience editors. But the science was still there. The influence was facts only. [5] NLP followers tried to influence with pressure constantly. Disruptive is when an antiscience editor makes lots of questions to the science ones to waste time or cause conflict. You banning science editors may not be censorship but it definitely will happen to lead to censorship. I know a fact that the science editors were not all from the same university. So don’t give me your lie. You failed to support the facts, and now the censorship is going to happen. If I try to edit on the NLP article, then how do I control other editors from Hong Kong? I suggest something, then two more suggest, then I am banned? You suggested a stupid idea. Stop with your excuses. You convince nobody. You should have your next job to ban all critical realist editors on the scientology article to give the scientologists a chance to do their promoting and cover ups. Then you give your same stupid excuses. You warned me off, and I will wait till other non-Hong Kong editors say how stupid and confusing your NLP enhanced article is. Then I'll give full support with all the sources the NLP followers deleted. In the meantime just take your excuses somewhere else and let me edit other articles. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [6]

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 [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) [7]

NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago

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.

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. 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 [8]

Now the 'anti' side has been completely banned (6 June)

I think I am ready to make a serious return to editing this page (though I did comment during the mentorship here and there). Now that the "anti" side is pretty much completely banned[9], I'd look to help clean up the POV wars mess and also makesure that neutrality is maintaned.Voice-of-AllTalk 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) [10]

Version of NLP on beginning of June [11]

Version after it has been cleaned up [12]

One admin not quite so sure

Disturbing comment from WHK: [13]

The 'Clean up'

From the beginning of June 2006 when the sceptics were banned, there were about 180 edits to the NLP article [14]. These were as follows

Example edits:

  • FT2 removes 'flagrant' POV [15]. For example,
    • he changes "Professors Sharpley, Druckman, and the National Research Council have criticised NLP ..." to "Due in part to its open-ended philosophy, NLP is criticised by some as pseudoscientific and for its manner of promotion, with some promoters using exaggerated claims. Professors Sharpley, Druckman, and the National Research Council have criticised NLP ...".
    • he changes "NLP is based on New Age beliefs in unlimited potential" to "NLP's approach in part draws upon New Age beliefs in unlimited potential and also relies upon a strong observational basis. " [16] [my emphasis]
  • An edit by Doc Pato [17] described as a 'copyedit' removes this whole heavily referenced section:
    • "Due in part to its open-ended philosophy, NLP is criticised by some as pseudoscientific and for its manner of promotion, with some promoters using exaggerated claims. Professors Sharpley, Druckman, and the National Research Council have criticised NLP in research reviews which conclude that its claims are unsupported and that it has failed to show its claimed efficacy in controlled studies [11][12][13]. Several reviews have characterized NLP as pseudoscientific and mass-marketed psychobabble[6][14]. NLP is identified by many scientists as charlatanry and fraudulent [15][16][17] as a dubious therapy and a cult [18][19] described by Winkin [20] and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[11][13][14]. Beyerstein [21], Lilienfeld [13], and Eisner [19] express concern over the verification of certain aspects of NLP. On the other hand many credible bodies worldwide report both use and support of the field."
    • On the 9 June this part of the article [18] now reads "Due in part to its open-ended philosophy, NLP is controversial. It is often criticized in the scientific estabishment as unproven or pseudoscientific[citation needed], and amongst those who watch for fraud, for exaggerated claims and unethical approaches by a number of practitioners.[citation needed] There is also some dispute amongst its developers and proponents as to what exactly NLP is and what is not.[citation needed] On the other hand, a wide range of credible bodies worldwide, including law enforcement, clinicians, government bodies, professional psychological bodies, educators and business coaches, have given strongly worded support for its use, if taught by a skilled and competent trainer and used appropriately."