posted 04-13-2009 10:00 PM            

It just wreaks with an under current of GM BS.

I understand that there isn't much interest in a full on PR campaign, so be it. But wikipedia is a respected source that many people rely on and the message there is fact, fact, half-truth, polygraph is bad, fact, fact, polygraph is bad and here is why, fact, don't trust polygraph, fact, half-truth. You get the point.

Any ideas of how we, the profession, can monitor and update the falsities and subtle digs by GM on the wiki site?

It is statements like the following that must be brought into balance:

First line under heading 'Reliability' -

There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.

First line under heading '2003 National Academy of Sciences report' -

The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost since the introduction of the device. (How is this an important opening phrase regarding the report...its not, this is just GM's clever way of getting his message across while trying to sound objective.)

First lines under heading 'Polygraph in popular culture' -

Lie detection has a long history in mythology and fairy tales; the polygraph has allowed modern fiction to use a device more easily seen as scientific and plausible.

I mean geez, does it get any more obvious there is an agenda here. The entire point of Wiki is to allow a balanced perspective by input from many. This site is one man spinning his perspective. Any ideas of how to get a small group of people to take just this one thing on.

I don't think it is a stretch to say something like this would fit the APA goal of:

Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education

Please tell me where I am wrong.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 04-14-2009 07:48 AM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 04-14-2009 03:06 PM            

It would help to have several folks requesting the changes cause as you can see from the following statement that GM is using our lack of assertive effort as proof that the consensus is everyone is okay with those type statements.

"" We’ll let each reader decided for himself whether or not convincing evidence exists. Remember that Wikipedia operates on consensus, the fact that this statement has been in the article well over a year speaks with a very loud voice, other editors may replace it, indicating that a consensus of readers agree that convincing evidence does not exist ""

What about a consortium of many associations working together (resources, people) to fund a small group that works on public relation and information dissemination venues like Wiki?

We could begin to bring a powerful voice and balance in this arena. I will bring this up with the NPA Board if others are willing to approach AAPP/APA. Maybe even include the larger states like CA, FL, TX, etc.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 04-14-2009 05:54 PM            

I am responding to your statement that Wikipedia is a respected source of information. That may have been true at one time; however, as you know, besides running a polygraph school, I am also a full-time criminal justice professor as well as an adjunct CJ professor at several universities. None of these educational institutions allow Wikipedia as a cited source for any type of academic research or research paper because it is so often inaccurate or just plain wrong. In corresponding with other CJ faculty at other colleges and universities, they have instituted the same policy concerning Wikipedia.

posted 04-14-2009 10:48 PM            

I guess all my blathering is really about influence. You don't have to be accurate to have influence and in my opinion, we are losing the influence game. If there was a vote tomorrow on a new law to ban polygraph screening, we would lose hands down because of the effective snow job GM and others have done. People believe the news and we've seen news reporters spout off inaccurate info over and over as fact. Oh well, I'll run back to my corner and splash some water in my face.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 04-15-2009 10:56 AM            

I am not suggesting that we don't do anything, (and I am not of the thought process of putting my head under the sand, either) and I agree that we need to be proactive in the "influence" area. I don't believe, however, that we would lose that vote you were mentioning.

As you may recall, AP.O had a petition running several years ago trying to get signatures to show support of outlawing screening tests or outlawing polygraph completely - I can't remember which.

Regardless, as I recall, he got less than 500 signatures - worldwide - (and we don't know how many of his flock signed other names in order to get that many signatures), but it was a complete flop so I don't know that he is winning anything.

We could probably run a petition that would show support that George's name should be changed to "A--hole", and we might get just as many signatures without faking any of them.

You should also keep in mind, too, the your site does produce a lot of positive influence, likely even more so than the sites of the various professional associations, to educate the public about polygraph and, directly and indirectly, counter AP.O. So give your efforts some credit, too, and keep up the good work that you and your site have provided.

Maybe we can get small group of those who participate in the Forum to work together and see if we can put some information that more accurately portrays our profession on Wikipedia. I don't know if or how they accept informational contibutions to their site. I would be happy to participate.

posted 04-15-2009 02:58 PM            

I mean for someone with his auspicious/ suspicious/ pernicious/ malicious/ injudicious and even borderline seditious, qualifications as an antipolygraph expert, combined with his incessant demands for Published!! Peer Reviewed!! Scientific Research!! studies (that he can then criticise because he doesn't understand/agree with them or their methodology) to lower himself to participate in a pseudo-resource that can't survive the vetting process for a third grade social studies essay seems more than a bit contradictory.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my awe of him, both as a stalwart crusader against injustice and one of the great analytical minds of our time, is diminishing with each new bit of tarnish that appears upon his Crown/Colander.

But hey that's just one man's opinion and to quote that well-known Renaissance Man, Roadhouse Cooler, and Eclectic Philosopher Dalton, "Opinions Differ"

------------------
Ex scientia veritas