General Discussion

TheRickles

(3,113 posts)

39. The professional organization of practitioners of this therapy gave up trying to influence Wikipedia.

Sun May 11, 2025, 10:33 AM

May 2025

As mentioned in the article, their edits were deleted from Wikipedia within a matter of hours, despite being citations of relevant medical literature from top-tier journals. It seems that for some topics (like alternative/holistic/integrative health), Wikipedia doesn't live up to its own standards, as was shown by Jimmy Wales' over-the-top comments in reply to that organization's petition to him.

If you're interested, the website for this group has compiled the research - over 100 RCTs, 8 meta-analyses, etc. It's pretty compelling, whether you believe in energy or not! And FWIW, the research is now using terms like biomagnetism and electromagnetic fields - not quite so woo-woo any more.

https://www.energypsych.org/researchdb8c71b7

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

FakeNoose

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Remember When Wikipedia Was Considered Suspect? [View all] MineralMan May 2025 OP

What happens when AI starts using itself as its source material? Ocelot II May 2025 #1

Yes, indeed. MineralMan May 2025 #5

What could happen is what's called "model collapse" - which there have been warnings about for years: highplainsdem May 2025 #17

Over multiple iterations the errors get larger and the facts become overwhelmed. erronis May 2025 #24

Wikipedia still is suspect. Nothing has really changed over the years. n/t valleyrogue May 2025 #2

It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #10

Wikipedia BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #13

Point something out. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #14

How about this? TheRickles May 2025 #22

Okay you may have something there, but it also points out the revision process restores a lot of it Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #27

I still occasionally find circular Wikipedia source citations muriel_volestrangler May 2025 #37

Can happen. Complex subject matter is difficult to master and difficult to untangle. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #42

The professional organization of practitioners of this therapy gave up trying to influence Wikipedia. TheRickles May 2025 #39

Such as? BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #63

Every spoken or written word is suspect. That's human nature. hunter May 2025 #19

That's my position also. The "Talk" and revision pages are valuable in their own right. erronis May 2025 #25

It is still "suspect." It's just that, like you say, you can generally check their sources...nt Wounded Bear May 2025 #3

I do occasionally. It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #11

Ai reformats work done by others samsingh May 2025 #4

One day per week Turbineguy May 2025 #6

IMO, AI is an amazing innovation anciano May 2025 #7

Current AI is Generative AI, not true AI. It doesn't reason, it makes stuff that looks reasonable. Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #8

I call it fAI for fakeAI. Calling it AI is such a joke. CrispyQ May 2025 #9

You are correct, of course. MineralMan May 2025 #12

Define sentience Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #16

This is similar to what has been done to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" in visuals. erronis May 2025 #28

Well, I consider artificial intelligence to be equivalent to MineralMan May 2025 #31

Okay, a bit of a start to definition Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #36

OK. Definitions can be difficult when the subject is abstract. MineralMan May 2025 #48

Good story and kudos to you. But you draw the wrong lesson and there are counters Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #51

Oh, I'm not saying that what they're calling AI will not be a useful tool. MineralMan May 2025 #52

I think you may have deep seated mystical beliefs preventing you from recognizing all its forms Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #56

Not mystical at all. MineralMan May 2025 #61

I'm open to the possibility that we've created an environment where AI could come about, CrispyQ May 2025 #21

I agree. What's this? Highlight Look Up Wikipedia underpants May 2025 #15

"starting point to other references" is exactly how it should be used RandomNumbers May 2025 #30

Steve Pruitt has a lot of time on his hands. underpants May 2025 #18

"AI" is not just another Silicon Valley gold rush Ponzi-oid investment bubble... paulkienitz May 2025 #20

If they have so much confidence in it, the first task we should assign AI is climate change. CrispyQ May 2025 #23

The #1 fix to climate change* is population reduction RandomNumbers May 2025 #34

That's the #1 overly simplistic fix, not the #1 realistic fix Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #38

"WEF and "globohomo" ??? RandomNumbers May 2025 #45

WEF is World Economic Foundation. "Globohomo" is the nutty concept that globalists and homosexuals are aligned Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #53

Ah, thank you. As usual, a "right wing talking point" is idiotic RandomNumbers May 2025 #58

Post removed Post removed May 2025 #55

Your exact words: RandomNumbers May 2025 #60

Contraceptive and abortion rights were never "active reduction". Exercising them is active prevention, not reduction Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #64

Oh yes, the 8 billion pound elephant in the room. CrispyQ May 2025 #44

Thank you. I blame lack of science education RandomNumbers May 2025 #49

"The thing is, we might still be able to turn things around relatively humanely..." CrispyQ May 2025 #65

Totally agree. RandomNumbers May 2025 #66

The potential is enormous, so is the danger. Joinfortmill May 2025 #26

I was recently going through the history of the moniss May 2025 #29

First off, AI is a tool... Much like a calculator JCMach1 May 2025 #32

Then, it is misnamed. MineralMan May 2025 #33

thanks for that explanation of your use of these tools. Real life applications are helpful. erronis May 2025 #35

The free to use baked in stuff is largely trash JCMach1 May 2025 #40

Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow will agree. erronis May 2025 #46

In both your examples you are manipulating language... hunter May 2025 #50

It's problematic when legit news media cites AI written content as a source IronLionZion May 2025 #41

Wikipedia can be a useful starting point, but only that. And yes, generative AI slop is a growing problem there. Eugene May 2025 #43

AI (GPT) IS A TOOL. Layzeebeaver May 2025 #47

I agree The Bot's make up word salads. Historic NY May 2025 #54

Yes, sometimes they do. MineralMan May 2025 #57

I perfer Language Tool Historic NY May 2025 #59

Yes, AI is a tool, and probably a useful one. MineralMan May 2025 #62