|
Author
|
Topic: wikipedia
|
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 09:47 PM
  
Mention of Wikipedia in one of the other threads caused me to check the current listing for polygraph. It was pretty awful. Other examiners have made revisions over time, and I just now made a bunch of new ones, but there are several Wikipedia users who are identified only by IP address who have an interest in polygraph and do not bother with any other Wikipedia entries. We can guess who they might be, since there are several Antipolygraph.org cites in the polygraph entry. Since Wikipedia is the foremost encyclopedia on the Web, we probably ought to be more vigilant.
- JimIP: Logged |
Buster
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 06:57 AM
We will see how long it lasts.IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 08:08 AM
In my experience, new entries last about a day. I think the trick is to write the who article and cut-and-paste it every time it changes back.IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 02:17 PM
The changes lasted less than 24 hours, changed back by a user named Geomas. According to his user profile he doesn't edit anything except the polygraph topic. I undid the changes and put my version back, but I expect this will go back and forth for awhile. I am apt to tire of it before the antipolygraph zealots do.
- JimIP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 02:32 PM
Perhaps the wiki admins will lock the topic eventually. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 03:28 PM
Yep. That's what I expected.The Wiki folks have complained that some articles lack balance. Maybe there's a way to complain and get that info there for good? IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 09:47 PM
I have undone the cancellations of my changes at least a half dozen times today, so maybe the Wikis will step in soon. I also started a dialog on the discussion page (you might have to be signed in to see that). If anybody wants to add anything click the [edit] link next to the topic heading of "politicized." Here's what's been said so far.
===
There seems to be a concerted effort by persons associated with the antipolygraph.org site to repeatedly modify the Wikipedia polygraph entry to register opinions in opposition to polygraph, to include only narrowly gathered facts in opposition to polygraph, and to delete any facts supporting validity and reliability of polygraph. This is supposed to be a neutral forum. While it is understandable that some have strong feelings against polygraph, this is not an appropriate place to voice them. Jim (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Your edits removed several sourced statements, including a ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. You replaced them with un-sourced statements. There’s nothing political about insisting that citations from courts and scientists remain in the article. There’s also nothing political about removing a refuting statement when it is un-sourced. Also a statement from the American Polygraph Association, who has a vested interest in polygraphy, even if there was a citation, is hardly a convincing refutation of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress and the National Academy of Sciences.76.27.147.32 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since several of the "sources" are antipolygraph.org, that can hardly be regarded as neutral. You obviously have a point of view. This is not the place to express it. It is possible to find a source for virtually any point of view. That does not validate the view. We don't quote the number of deaths from appendectomies when we discuss medicine, and then argue against appendectomies. Jim (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 11:15 PM
I got complained about and the polygraph article is now locked. However, after that I left a long and detailed critique of the article on the discussion page, and know that at least one of the objectionable parts has been removed. Small victory.IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-06-2007 08:06 AM
A round of applause for the efforts. I am inspired by jrwygant's efforts. If 100 of the 2000 examiners gave as much effort, the field would be a far greater force to be reckoned with. Thanks for your unpaid service. Karma is good to men like yourself.IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-07-2007 03:36 PM
I have managed to get a few more of the most egregious comments removed from the Wikipedia polygraph topic. I've discovered that leaving an explanation on the discussion page when editing helps a bunch. If anyone wants to add something specific about research results and provide a cite, hopefully to a professional peer reviewed journal (not the APA's Polygraph) it will probably be left in. We could use some positive stuff with cites so impeccable that they will not be removed.IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
