I'm not sure what Annette means by the "VERY weak disclaimer" for Facilitated Communication. It is true the information box at the top of the page only warns that the article reads like a review and needs to be made more neutral but the first line of the article says it is controversial and the third and fifth paragraphs start to explain why. The widely acclaimed Frontline video on the topic starts off with a very sympathetic treatment of FC only later revealing the lack of scientific support. I think this article also gives a balanced presentation (although very clearly still a work in progress as all of these are). The discussion and history pages of this article are also very interesting. The Discussion page tags it as a controversial topic and says, because it is controversial, nothing should be added to it without a supporting citation. There is also an interesting taxonomy of levels of pseudoscience discussed and how to make that categorization.
At least one reason for making an attempt at correction to an article in Wikipedia (or putting a controversial tag on an entry) is so that at least those who go to the trouble of looking at the Discussion and History tabs can see that there are two (or more) sides to this story and they may not be as quick to believe the story on the page. I think a discriminating Wikipedia user should always check the Discussion and History pages as part of their critical thinking about the entry. If someone would take the time to generate some controversy, some of these pages wouldn't get away with passing off canards as fact. And the Wikipedia approach does assume survival of the correct information (the cream will rise to the top). If those who have the best information avoid the site, it won't be the cream that will rise. However, I have to say that, in most cases, entries on things I know something about (especially those that are noncontroversial) are quite accurate. I would say that the current version of the FC page is pretty good in the context of the history of the discussion on the topic. For an example of an interesting progression on a fairly noncontroversial (but often misunderstood) topic, see the Article, Discussion and History tabs on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (479) 524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/academics/hss/faculty/rfroman.asp "Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." - Ulysses Everett McGill How about wacko psychotherapies? If someone who is an expert in this area (like Scott Lilienfeld) went in and put a notice in some of the real crap therapies, that they are crap, I wonder how long it would take to fix them? compare the entries on crystals therapy, which opens with a skeptical disclaimer, to the one on eye movement desensitization and reprocessing where only an exxtremely weak disclaimer is made and ditto for the VERY weak nature of the disclaimer for facilitated communication! It would be an interesting 'study' to go in and add strong statements with data as to the ineffectiveness of these 'therapies' and see how long it takes to revert back! Anyone game? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang= english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
