Concerns with Wikipedia

Wikipedia and Survival-Oriented Entries

by Tom Butler

Abstract

The online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, is fast becoming the first place on the Internet to look for information. It was able to acquire a substantial amount of content because information contributors are volunteer editors. The initial ideals set forth by its founders for Wikipedia have been codified by numerous rules designed to produce balanced, accurate and well referenced articles that are an important resource for information storage and exchange. However, while the intentions of the founders were good, implementation has not always produced balanced and accurate articles. Subject matter experts are generally discourage from participating, leaving the articles to editors who must rely on other sources, making many articles at best, a study guide and compilation of references. In the case of non-mainstream articles such as those concerned with survival of personality, the lack of subject matter experts, editing rules and a well organized group of conservative skeptic editors produce articles that include misinformation, subtle bias and a pervasive assumption that it is not possible for the subject to be true.

This essay describes some of the discoveries about Wikipedia made by the author during a four month effort to make the EVP article more agree with the facts and offers a possible response to Wikipedia’s cultural influence from the communities involved in “fringe science” research. Please note that the comments here are time-sensitive, in that progress in achieving balance in Wikipedia articles has been made since this report was written. Some dates have been included to clarify this.

Wikipedia as an Important Educational Tool

Children are raised to know that encyclopedias are an authoritative source of information. Every school library has at least one set and many homes have a set of the information packed books. Because they are recommended to children by schools and parents as a dependable research tool, it has always been important that encyclopedias are a trustworthy source of information.

Today, the new online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, is being favorably compared to Encyclopedia Britannica for both content and accuracy of facts. It also has a very high rank in search engines for a very large range of subjects, including a growing number of those usually considered paranormal. As an opinion setter, Wikipedia is now at the forefront as a source of information for adults and children alike.

Problems that Bias some Wikipedia Entries

From a brief survey of articles about Wikipedia, it is apparent that the majority of entries in the encyclopedia contain well written, mostly current, in-depth explanations. While heading the advice in Safely Using Wikipedia, at the end of this essay, readers of this essay should not overlook the good Wikipedia can offer to the public in the dissemination of information. With that said, even a casual review of some of the less “mainstream” entries will show obvious errors, and substantial bias in favor of a skeptical view. This seems to be especially true for entries that address survival of personality after physical death.

I recently attempted to update the Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) entry.^[4] Following are the basics of what I have learned about Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is managed by a foundation, but entries are produced and maintained by volunteer editors.
To contribute content, it is not necessary to register as a contributor (editor), but registration as an editor is open to anyone and takes only a minute.
The registration system includes the observation that editors have been harassed, and therefore, the new editor may wish to use a screen name.
Virtually all of the editors are using screen names, making them essentially faceless entities. As I will explain below, this anonymity suspends normal social influences on behavior but replaces it with an implicit fear that "bad behavior" will be punished by being blocked from contributing. There are tools for determining whether or not a blocked editor has registered with a new screen name, so being permanently blocked can be a civilizing factor. As of October 2007, i have been an editor over a year and I have note a certain amount of community pride amongst editors, as well, which encouraged cooperative editing practices.
Tabs at the top of encyclopedia entries will take the visitor to Discussion, Edit This Page and History pages. A good practice is to discuss an edit in the Discussion page before making it on the article page.
For people who believe in etheric phenomena, the EVP discussion page^[^5] should be considered mandatory reading. It clearly demonstrates the struggle between established thought and alternative thought. Be sure to read the archive pages that are accessible at the top of the page, since it is in page 1 and 2 of the archive that most of the exchanges I had are stored.
My initial effort to make the EVP entry a little more acceptable was to write a whole new entry that provided the facts, and possible explanations posed by people commenting on the subject--pro and con. This can be read .^[1] There is little doubt in the existence of EVP. The real discussion concerns what EVP is and how it occurs, so that is how the proposed entry is written. I soon discovered that the other editors were determined to keep an adversarial tone for the entry with "skeptics" pitted against "proponents." As of October 2007, there is still a "Paranormal explanations" section and a "Criticism" section. Both contain explanations, but the "Criticism" section argues a mundane cause. Separating these in this way creates sides of the argument when in reality there is a continuum of proposed explanations, each with its pluses and minuses.
There are many rules intended to guide editors and to assure that entries are written with a neutral point of view and based on acceptable references. This system apparently works well for uncontroversial subjects.^[6]
Editors who have a good understanding of the Wikipedia rules for what are acceptable references are more able to control content of entries, because it is difficult to argue the “rules” with someone if one does not have a strong understanding of them. See Techniques Used by Editors to Get Their Way

Since the editors use screen names, it is essentially impossible to know who is posting and what his or her qualifications might be. There were several instances in which it became evident that some of the other editors in the EVP forum simply did not know enough about EVP to be able to distinguish a reference providing evidence based information from a reference making untested claims.

Subject matter experts are deliberately ignored, and their input is given the same weight as, say an unsigned, undated web page. Not granting credibility to subject matter experts was a deliberate decision, according to Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder. In regard to the respect for expertise, Sanger states, “…expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated.”^[2]He further states that the decision to ignore expertise was deliberately made when Wikipedia was founded.
Further illustration of the consequence of this policy is in this exchange: "Anthon.Eff said in part, "... those of us who actually contribute to this article are interested in useful feedback. For all I know, you are a 13 year old boy alone in his bedroom with a computer...." To which editor, InShaneee, responded, "... Wikipedia doesn't allow for discrimination against any type of users; a '13 year old boy's contributions must be given the same respect as anyone else's. --InShaneee 05:27, 27 December 2006.^[8]
A second method of minimizing input from subject matter experts is the complexity of working with the Wikipedia editing program. Although it has many sophisticated capabilities, the text editor has a relatively primitive human-machine interface and there are many rules that must be learned if one wishes to be an effective editor. (As of October 2007, I am still making what are probably silly mistakes.) It is not intuitive and does not conform to other editors I have used. In effect, unless a person has the technical ability to work in such environments, and the time to learn the rules, the person’s expertise may never be made available to Wikipedia readers.
A third way that subject matter experts are discouraged is the matter of conflict of interest. As it was applied to me, the fact that the AA-EVP and the book we wrote, There is no Death and There are No Dead, are mentioned in the article meant that I would benefit from things said in it, and therefore, I should not be contributing. In fact, I was told that I should not contribute because anything positive said about EVP would further my work, and therefore I must have a conflict of interest.
Using this logic, any scientist who might seek a research grant should never contribute to articles about his or her subject area, because doing so might improve chances for a grant. In EVP, almost all of the people who have taken the time to form hauntings investigation clubs would be barred from contributing to anything having to do with the etheric. In the end, virtually all subject matter experts are disqualified by the conflict of interest rule.

Update: A recent arbitration has produced this ruling clarified the conflict of interest rule:^[9]

Conflict of interest
10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, a new encyclopedia on the scene is Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page) which does require editors to use their real name.

Some of the editors will argue that only mainstream journals or popular press are acceptable as references. According to one editor responding to my efforts to include a research article by long-time Scottish EVP researcher, Alexander MacRae, “Blaming the scientific community for not having a category in which EVP fits is not helping your case. According to WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, an assertion cannot be implied to be authoritative if it is not supported by the mainstream opinion. I don't think SPR is a proper, reliable source on which to base factual assertions made by Wikipedia. LuckyLouie 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)”^[5] In other words, if the mainstream community does not believe in it, then it cannot be shown in Wikipedia as anything but a belief on a par with essentially unsubstantiated statements by skeptical organizations.

The SPR is the British Society for Psychical Research which was established in 1882. It publishes a peer reviewed journal and is largely populated with scholastically trained researchers. ^[3]

Alexander MacRae is probably the most disciplined, science-based EVP researcher in the world, and his protocols have been carefully reviewed by academically trained researchers. So easily discounting his input about EVP is equivalent to saying that there are no people working in the field of EVP qualified to comment on the nature of EVP and all Wikipedia will allow for the EVP entry is input from people who have demonstrably limited knowledge of the subject.

This position apparently comes from the “No Original Research” policy, which according to the “In a nut shell” explanation, “Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.”^[7] According to the editors, the Journal SPR does not qualify as a “published” source because it is not sufficiently mainstream. See also ^[10]. An interesting quote in this regard is from editor LuckyLouie: ... regarding the article's introduction, "EVP" can only be stated to have been "observed" in various media if cited by authoritative sources such as IEEE Journals, Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals, International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration, and current academic texts. Otherwise, the observations must be phrased as a claim. - LuckyLouie 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist#EVP ). See also^[11] for an example of how the skeptical editors resorted to defamation of character to win the day.

To assure that fringe entries are recognized as such, terms such as “proponent,” “claim,” “alleged” and “pseudoscience” are required by Wikipedia rules. As of October 2007, I see that the above mentioned arbitration^[9] has resulted in a softening of this view, so that a statement as to the "fringe" status of the subject in the opening section makes it unnecessary to put a qualifier before every reference to the subject.

Subjects without referents

6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editors use the ploy of discrediting by association. For instance, an attempt was made to show that, because the directors of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP) are Spiritualists, anything associated with the association must be based on religious thought and is therefore not able to be considered factual. The same editor wanted references to extraterrestrial EVP left in, presumably because it made EVP seem even less believable. In fact this point was raised on two occasions.^[5]

Entries can be edited without discussion, and the result is that technically incorrect and unsubstantiated changes can be made and will remain until someone takes the time to look and see if the entry has been changed. This requires that entries, such as that for EVP, must be examined on an almost daily basis.

At least one editor, ScienceApologist, has learned that being a bully is more effective than seeking consensus amongst editors. In fact, he has even been given an award for his substantial contribution to Wikipedia. Since he did not know that I had been participating in the discussion, I surmise that his recent entry into the EVP discussion was clearly without reading preceding comments. He immediately began making multiple changes, moving the increasingly neutral entry to a new level of radical skepticism. When he did learn who I was, his comment to me was that, "Tom, I'm going to point out that you should really refrain from editing this article as it represents a conflict of interest, since this seems to be something you get employed doing. --ScienceApologist 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)"
Some webmasters for other sites have put copies of the EVP entry on their site. Two examples are Answers.com and AllExperts.com. The result is that, even if the "official" entry for EVP is made to contain acceptable information, there are already many copies of the earlier version scattered about on the Internet.

Skeptic's Club Sponsored by Wikipedia

This is probably more true as the perception of sponsorship than actual direct support. Nevertheless, there is a WikiProject Rational Skepticism that is:

"Dedicated to creating and adding to articles related to science and philosophy, while checking the POV currently present in various Wikipedia articles dealing with such topics as psychics, magick, "alternative" medicines, etc." Included objectives are:

This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate the efforts of Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on various topics, while maintaining the NPOV.

The goals of this WikiProject are as follows:

To create new articles relating to science and reason.

To create new Wikipedia articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Wikipedia, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.

To place pseudoscience tags on articles related to pseudoscience, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.

To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.

To improve those articles which need help.

To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

The page includes a list of members, and reading the Discussion page, it is clear that skeptics are helping skeptic to make sure paranormal entries are not written in a way that the reader might think the phenomena is even possible. So the point here is that the skeptical community is institutionalized in Wikipedia, and they are dedicated to promoting the skeptical viewpoint as embodied in The Skeptic's Dictionary

A Reason for Concern

The popularity of Wikipedia has made many of the entries appear high in search engine results. For instance, in a search in Google.com for “EVP,” aaevp.com is first, skepdic.com is second and Wikipedia is sixth. (January 2007) Since encyclopedias are supposed to be dependable sources of information, a person trying to learn about EVP is pretty much assured to visit Wikipedia. Update: as of 21 February 2007, the Wikipedia EVP entry is third, just behind aaevp.com and ghostpix.com. As of October 2007, Wikipedia is number one in a Google search for "EVP."

The only way to make sure the public sees a level-headed presentation of EVP first is to support your favorite website with a link.

This popularity is positioning Wikipedia, and especially those unseen skeptical editors, to have a profound influence on what people believe. I am probably not qualified to examine entries that are not related to etheric studies for balance and factual reporting. Based on my experiences with EVP, I would think the use of any Wikipedia entry as a reference or source of information without a second source is risky.

After a brief survey of other subjects, such as mediumship and remote viewing, I see that any reference to survival of the personality that is offered as a real possibility tends to draw resistance and criticism from some editors. For instance, one of the first entries on the discussion page for EVP states, “I really don’t know what to do with this article. It is about spirit voices in audio recordings and it takes itself very seriously. I'm not sure if it should be deleted, noted as factual malarky, or rewritten to say how this ridiculous thing is believed by some people. I’m leaning toward deletion since I haven’t a clue how to make this a factual article - Texture 03:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)”^[5]

Virtually all of the research for EVP is considered original research by WikiProject Rational Skepticism editors, and considering the statement by Wikipedia founder, Jimbo Wales, “If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it’s true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn’t belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research,"^[7] it is clear that the organization that "owns" Wikipedia agrees.

Attacks on personality, rather than content

If you decide to become involved in any attempt to educate the public about things paranormal, do not expect your comments to be answered by the skeptics with logic and facts. Since they have little of that available to them, they will more likely attempt to discount you by showing that you are fraudulent or mentally impaired. Please do not respond in kind.

One thing to note though, is that the determination of skeptics is a warning to everyone that they are not approaching these subjects rationally. Anytime someone goes after personality, rather than saying something to the effect, "I trust that you are reporting what you are experiencing, but I know of nothing that would cause your experience. What is your evidence?" there is the probability that the person will never accept what you are saying. I have heard the statement many times in Wikipedia that things paranormal are cot real, and therefore are impossible and should be talked about in that way.

Techniques Used by Some Editors to Get Their Way

The following are observations based on experiences I had while trying to make the EVP entry represent EVP in a reasonable way and may not be typical of your experiences. I am not advocating that any editor practices this behavior, as it is disruptive and effectively defeats the high standards Wikipedia is based on. It is, however, important that well-meaning editors recognize these tactics and seek remedies by escalating complaints to the administrative class.

Since the skeptics generally outnumber the people who believe paranormal phenomena deserves study, the skeptics do not have to listen to their argument. If they do have to listen, they only respond to the last point made in a post. That way, the opposing person will have to repeat the point over and over again.

Skeptics are more stubborn than the opposition. They say that they are working for a consensus, even an informed consensus, but never compromise, and instead, accuse the opposition of refusing to compromise.

Skeptics accuse the opposition of doing what they are guilty of doing. As an example, I suggested that it might be necessary to ask other EVP people to join in, and the skeptical opposition behaved in a most indignant fashion. Later, they posted a banner asking other skeptical editors to join in and then accused the "EVP people" of mounting an organized campaign to control content. In fact, they had run me off at the time and there was only two other people who seemed a little pro EVP. I later discovered that there was actually a Wikipedia sponsored Skeptics club and its members were coaching one another on how to deal with the opposition.

They threaten their opposition. Skeptics tell opposing editors that they are going to take them to arbitration, or even more daring, they goad them into an argument and then call in an Administrator to punish the opposition.

They eliminate their opposition by saying they have a conflict of interest. In my case, I was open with my name and qualifications. All that did was give them an argument that I had a conflict of interest. In fact, based on altercations I have seen, it could be argued that any research scientist can be disqualified from editing articles about his or her field of interest because doing so may enhance the chances of receiving a research grant.

The Inquisition

For me, a new tactic employed by the skeptics is to eliminate opposition by having them banned from editing paranormal subjects. The tactic begins when the skeptical editors gang up on the opposition with increasingly outrageous edits that push the point of view of an article to strongly support a skeptical view. Prior to a recent arbitration case (September 2007), the EVP article is a good example of this. However, since the arbitration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal), I see hope that articles like the EVP entry will become more stable and better represent the subject

Update: As of October 2007 and for the second time, Martinphi, an active editor who works to see that paranormal subjects are given fare and accurate representation in WIkipedia has been the target of an arbitration intended to stop him from editing paranormal subjects. ^[12]

Safely using Wikipedia

The majority of articles in Wikipedia seem to be well compose, and I image they are reasonably correct. As I said before, the problem seems to come with fringe subjects and especially with those dealing with survival. Even so, I would make the following recommendations to anyone planning to use Wikipedia:

Consider Wikipedia as a study guide for all subjects. The rules of Wikipedia require that comments be supported by references. So, the references are presumably the first source, and should always be used if available, rather than what is said in the Wikipedia article.

Check on the reference before accepting anything said in Wikipedia. Not all editors are trained to know what a satisfactory reference is, and too often, I have found that the person who wrote the referenced source is simply not qualified to speak on the subject or the person was not actually addressing the subject. This is especially true of the Skeptical Dictionary and articles on James Randi's pages.

It is common for editors to say something and then try to find a reference to support the statement, so it is easy to see how they might cite a reasonable sounding source that is not available for examination, such as a hard to mind text book. If you cannot find the reference, it is best to discard the statement.

Many schools do not allow students to use Wikipedia without at least one other reference. From Vicki, an AA-EVP member and university instructor, "Those of us who teach at colleges and universities in the U.S. are strongly urged not to accept any references from Wikipedia in research papers from our students since the entries can and are regularly being edited by people with no degree or expertise in the area they are editing." As a precaution, we recommend that parents take time to explain how Wikipedia is written and how important it is to have good sources of information.

What Should be done to Counter Biased reporting in Wikipedia?

Like it or not, Wikipedia has an entry for EVP. It is now necessary for us to keep a close eye on the entry to make sure changes are not added that bias the entry even more. The article is actually in pretty good shape as of October 2007, thanks to the efforts of editors such as Martinphi, but paranormal articles suffer frequent "attacks" by editors who disagree with what is said. Atg some point, the only thing left to us is to challenge what the articles outside of Wikipedia.

It is hard to offer cautions about Wikipedia without seeming to tear down an important tool for public education, but until Wikipedia has made changes to improve the subject matter qualifications of the editors, it simply cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information. If and when such changes are made, we believe that Wikipedia should be promoted as a valuable tool for civilization building. Until then, always be aware that articles in the online encyclopedia may contain incorrect information.

There are a few things you can do to help in this:

1. If you have a web site, place the “Concerns with Wikipedia” logo on a page that the public will find. It has a link to this web page. We have no problem with you copying this essay to your web page, but one of the objectives is to have as many other web sites linked to this page as possible, and as you can see, we do try to keep the essay updated. A web site’s ranking in search engines is at least partially based on how many other pages are linked to it, so your link will help others fined this page.

2. Let us know about other Wikipedia entries that you think are biased with an email to us, and we will begin to add the titles of those pages to the bottom of this web page. In that way, search engines will be more apt to offer this page somewhere close to the Wikipedia entry.

3. If you have a good understanding of one subject or another in this field, and the time and skill, register as a Wikipedia editor and learn how to make changes. If you do this, be sure to use your real name as a screen name. Show the other editors and the public that you have the courage of your convictions. And most importantly, make sure you can reference your comments and that they are fact-based.

If you wonder why we ask that you use your real name, consider this passage from the novel, The Lord of the Flies. See www.essaydepot.com/essayme/2059/index.php. From that essay about the book, "These masks also let the boys hide from their conscience we can see this when we are informed, 'The mask was a thing on it’s own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness.'”

Not all editors are guilty of this, but it is clear that many do not feel bound by social norms, and we feel this is at least partially because they are hiding behind screen names. Without the usual social pressures to behave toward one another in a civil way, other than the fear of being banned, some editors are rude, aggressive and do not behave as if they care about issues of right or wrong--only winning a point or getting his or her viewpoint expressed over that of the perceived opposition. Please do not become one of them.

4.  Tell everyone you can about this. We are not trying to be obstructionists. All we want is for the public to know the evidence that is based on existing research.

Other Wikipedia entries providing misinformation about the Subject

Psychic Detective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective, 29 December 2006
Immanuel Velikovsky, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velikovsky, 10 December 2007
[This man proposed one of the better known and probably better conceived physical studies hypothesis that offers alternative explanations for astronomical and historical planetary events. Since it contradicts some established theory, defenders of mainstream science have been particularly interested in criticizing this article. The author of an article about Velikovsky was permanently banned from editing in Wikipedia because of his "edit warring" with the pseudoskeptical community. Not being Velikovsky scholars, we cannot comment on the position taken by the skeptics or the "proponents," except to say that many of the skeptics are the same that I had to endure in the EVP article. Read Velikovsky and Wikipedia for even more reason to be concerned with Wikipedia.

References

1.  Tom Butler, A Proposed Wikipedia Entry for EVP, AA-EVP, http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm, 21 December 2006.

2.  Larry Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism, http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25, 31 December 2004.

3.  Society for Psychical Research (SPR), http://www.spr.ac.uk/, 21 December 2006.

4.  Wikipedia, Electronic Voice Phenomena, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomena , 21 December 2006.

5.  Wikipedia, Electronic Voice Phenomena, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomena also look at the archived pages Especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive1#rewrite, 16 January 2007.

6.  Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, 21 December 2006.

7.  Wikipedia, No Original Research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, 21 December 2006.

8. Wikipedia, Talk: Spiritualism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spiritualism, 6 January 2007

9. Wikipedia Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal, 23 October 2007

10. Wikipeedia, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE, 23 October 2007

11. Wikipedia, Talk:Electronic Voice Phenomena, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive10#Paranormal_investigators , especially Ames Research Center Speech Recognition,October 2007.

12. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Recommended Reading As a hint about who is ruling Wikipedia, read how self-serving the Scientific Skepticism entry is. It is pretty much unchallenged. If you consider the use of Richard Dawkins as a reference in the "Perceived Danger of Pseudoscience" without any real balancing reference, it is clear that Skeptics have more in their agenda than simply shedding light on ignorance.

Did you know?

Sociologist H. M. Collins noted that, " ... positive replications by critics are exceptionally rare in science." From: Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by H. M. Collins, Sage Publications, 1955.


	aaevp.com Home \| AA-EVP Archive \| The Big Circle \| Best Practices Development

	© 2006-2008 aaevp - All Rights Reserved