"Parapsychology" today's featured article on Wikipedia

[Larry Boy]

Opening English Wikipedia to look for some info relating to the Olympic Games, I found out that today's (080811) featured article is about parapsychology! Having got the impression that featured articles are chosen because of their quality, I expected it to be reasonably balanced. However, looking closer on the article, I was quite disappointed to see that it was terribly biased. The first line says it all: it begins with the (hardly neutral) statement that "Parapsychology...is the pseudoscientific study of paranormal events[.]" Perhaps more importantly there are no counter-arguments to the criticisms being put forward at the end of the article, making it appear to the uninformed reader as if the matter is more or less settled. Furthermore, there are serious omissions of important facts, making it appear, for instance, as if Jessica Utts is a skeptic!

[Ersby]

It mentions that Utts was one of the people to criticise the PEAR remote perception experiments, which is true. It says nothing about her being a skeptic.

The thing about the "criticism" section having no rebuttal is that if you do put the replies, then you get the opposite effect - it appears that the arguments have been settled in parapsychology's favour.

The article is fine - it works as an introduction to someone not versed in the subject, with plenty of links to other sites.

But point taken about the opening line.

[jacob]

It appears that since it's the featured page today it get a lot of edits today.
Just look at the page's history:
Revision history of Parapsychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Open Mind]

Not read that, a bit busy today ...

Many of the articles I've read on anything paranormal on Wiki are biased, loaded articles, particularly if referring to events or people who are now deceased .... they cannot sue or object.

I remember when I used to post on JREF members there were encouraging each other to write articles for Wiki, people who clearly have never read the original accounts .... a lot of these pages link to the Skeptics Dictionary which selects failures and anything suspicious in original accounts rather than simply attempt to give a balanced viewpoint.

It was often the original researchers in parapsychology/psychical research who reported both the case for and against, as any good researcher does .... yet the 'skeptics' trust the scientist as accurate if debunking or casting doubt ... yet ridicule the very same source/scientist who often put forward evidences

What is needed is something to counter the 'skeptics dictionary' like a 'Directory of Possibility' where both sides must be expressed in a neutral tone of possibility ...... otherwise the only solution will be to create a 'Directory of Pathological Disbelief' every time a well known 'skeptic' misreports ....and seldom corrects.

I will read the article later.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by jacob

It appears that since it's the featured page today it get a lot of edits today.

That's odd. Don't they usually protect the featured article?

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Ersby

It mentions that Utts was one of the people to criticise the PEAR remote perception experiments, which is true. It says nothing about her being a skeptic.

I think it is misleading to put up her views on the quality of a certain set of experiments without mentioning that she regards the quality of other studies of the same type as solid proof of psi. Isn't that called cherrypicking? (By the way, to clarify, I wrote: "making it appear... as if Jessica Utts is a skeptic")

Originally Posted by Ersby

The thing about the "criticism" section having no rebuttal is that if you do put the replies, then you get the opposite effect - it appears that the arguments have been settled in parapsychology's favour.

In a supposedly neutral article shouldn't you include at least some mention of the proponent's replies to the criticisms? Like, for instance: "However, X argues that Y."

[eyemsougly]

Hey Ersby, glad to see you back, I love your work!

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Ersby

That's odd. Don't they usually protect the featured article?

I also found this strange. Perhaps it's not as big a problem with more uncontroversial articles.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

I think it is misleading to put up her views on the quality of a certain set of experiments without mentioning that she regards the quality of other studies of the same type as solid proof of psi. Isn't that called cherrypicking? (By the way, to clarify, I wrote: "making it appear... as if Jessica Utts is a skeptic")

She's quoted several times in other Wiki articles, so anyone examining the issue won't be misled for long. Indeed, I think the opposite. If they see that Utts doesn't blindly accept all claims of the paranormal, then they're more likely to take her seriously when she does.

As Open Mind points out, the most pertinant criticism of parapsychology usually comes from other parapsychologists.

In a supposedly neutral article shouldn't you include at least some mention of the proponent's replies to the criticisms? Like, for instance: "However, X argues that Y."

And who decides who gets the final say?

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Hey Ersby, glad to see you back, I love your work!

Thanks. I do lurk. It's just that today there were two threads I could contribute to.