All businesses have complaints pop up every now and again. How they deal with complaints can, on occassion, have a meaningful impact on their operations. Recently, a group started a Change.org petition to goad Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales into changing some aspects of their editing policies. They feel that their areas of interest are not being fairly represented on Wikipedia. To date, they've only received around 8,000 signitures which, as some of the younger people in my office have informed me, is not very many. This is probably - at least in my opinion - because their crusade is stupid.
Wikipedia is widely used and trusted. Unfortunately, much of the information related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong. For five years, repeated efforts to correct this misinformation have been blocked and the Wikipedia organization has not addressed these issues. As a result, people who are interested in the benefits of Energy Medicine, Energy Psychology, and specific approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and the Tapas Acupressure Technique, turn to your pages, trust what they read, and do not pursue getting help from these approaches which research has, in fact, proven to be of great benefit to many. This has serious implications, as people continue to suffer with physical and emotional problems that might well be alleviated by these approaches.
Here's the question, how would you handle this kind of complaint? Jimmy Wales actually responded rather perfectly in my opinion:
No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
How would you monkeys have responded?
I'm not sure being condescending was actually the perfect response. His message was spot-on, but the mechanism for delivery was divisive.
Any points he may have scored by talking about empirical scientific data and published studies in respected journals was lost the minute he called people lunatics and charlatans. That is all they remember after reading his reply.
Oh...if he would have left out that last sentence...it would have been perfect.
I think the last sentence is what made it perfect. Perhaps this is why I'm not running wikipedia.
There is published research for all kinds of alternative medicine. Maybe most of it it's bogus and hard to replicate. In truth, so it's most of the traditional medical (or financial) research.
I feel like even forming an opinion on this matter is a waste of time. Can't believe the shit people devote themselves to.
I loved it. 100% truth
I would have told them to go fuck themselves.
The Tapas Acupressure Technique sounds awesome. Free paella for everybody !
I think the sentence about it being replicable is the best. To all the lunatics: Convince some talk show host to let you come on the show, have 3 local professors in your subject come as well, and prove the shit you're claiming! Poof, instant millionaire!!!!!!!!!!
Fugiat tempora voluptas dolores voluptatum qui. Sunt hic pariatur amet maiores eius et minima.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...