Talk:Cogmed

Merging

Either we can merge the article or we can mention that pearson is the owner of cogmed.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since there is enough coverage we can keep it here. Companies don't need to have the same articles as their parent companies. It has a fair amount of coverage.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Completed major overhaul of the article trying to provide balanced and research substantiated view. Will be editing "Viewpoint" section next. Wiki-shield (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Completed article edits: included Claims and Criticism sections, added external link to magazine articles.Wiki-shield (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Taeyebaar I removed your references to sciencedaily.com and Elsevier - they are duplicate and do not express any original opinion rather than provide abstract of Zach Shipstead's article that is already discussed in "Criticism" section. Wiki-shield (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar, please stop removing informative text with valid sources. You argument re blogs is incorrect: you should read "WP:RS" properly - the blogs used as references are NOT "self published blogs" deemed as unreliable sources.Wiki-shield (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

The article at this writing has at least two blogs used as sources. The Beautiful Minds blog on Scientific American is not subject to editorial review by SA and therefore not a reliable source. The SharpBrains blog is not a journal or media outlet, is self-published, and has no editorial board. This is also not a reliable source. Unless better sources are found, the statement "The New Yorker article was later criticized for misrepresenting the study and missing the fact that the study found that WM training produces reliable short-term improvements in both verbal and visuospatial working memory skills." is unfounded and should be removed. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Supporting Research

All supporting research for Cogmed (54 research studies conducted by Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, University of California – Davies, etc.) was removed from the article after recent edits. Only the information about one negative study by Melby-Lervag and one negative post by Cook was left in this article. For the sake of WP:NPOV I am adding back the line about supporting research. I open this section here for any discussion on research - please discuss on talk page before editing the article. Wiki-shield (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it's blatant promotion. Your inability to neutrally assess your own or others' edits is rather obvious here. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So ignoring all supporting research and positive articles in press and mentioning only a negative study and negative popular article is your idea of WP:NPOV? Wiki-shield (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Article issues

I accidentally stumbled upon this article and very surprised to see the statement: "The company's marketing efforts have been described in popular media.[19] A 2013 article in The New Yorker magazine said that brain training games are "bogus."[1][6] ". Actually, Cogmed never did any marketing in popular media, the training has been always conducted through clinical psychologists. Whoever wrote these 2 sentences is confusing Cogmed with popular brain training apps such as Lumocity or BrainHq, these app did a lot of marketing, often misrepresenting the results. The article in New York Times doesn't mention Cogmed and talks about brain training apps mentioned above. The references to "yellow press" such as Boston Globe and New Yorker is a joke when you have 100s of academic papers supporting Cogmed and thousands of psychologists worldwide prescribing Cogmed to their patients on a regular basis. As a clinician, I can tell you that, in 10 years of using Cogmed, we've seen better results from this training than from ADHD medication. I am not sure how Wikipedia works but speak to specialists for God's sake and don't publish this nonsense.

I edited the receptions section to make it more neutral so that all parties are satisfied as I explained in the edit summary. Redirecting a topic is like that disagreeable because it has enough coverage to meet General Notability.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes it would so it comes out a more neutral. And since many references are legitimate.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Taeyebaar: I think Guy, who "blasted out" the "PR crap" would disagree that he's satisfied with you restoring the material, changing only six words. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but he never redirected the article. He just removed certain sections- which was also a questionable action. It still stands as a notable topic. The fact that it was bought by pearson education is not a legitimate reason to redirect it anymore than redirecting lucasfilms to disney, just because one was bought by the latter. The content of cogmed was what was in dispute.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Taeyebaar: If you want to restore to Guy's version or restore the entire material, go ahead, I won't revert again. But be prepared for some push back as all parties definitely won't be satisfied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• We won't know that unless we try. Anyways even if the content is disputed, how does that stop it from being a notable topic of it's own?--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Taeyebaar: The version you want to restore is full of self-sourced puffery. There's not much left after that was taken out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. I am not disputing that, however other news coverages such as the NYT, the research report by the University of Oslo are all legitimate. The blogs need to be verified as not self-published, which I am still waiting for. Some google searching shows some results for research on cogmed, so I think we need to be satisfied with the coverage part. It does warrent an article of it's own.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I had ensured that primary sources were kept away and had added critical sections so I don't see the problem there. The problem was that there were some blogs being used as citations in support of the program. I have no problems with suchas, long as the original publications can be found- if they even exist, which was the real problem. Another problem was that the article claimed "despite supporting research" while ignoring the negative results of other research.

This is now starting to sound like a discussion. If you don't mind, I'd like this conversation to be shifted to the cogmed talkpage.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar: No objections to you copying this over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Significant portions of this article should not be sourced to the company's marketing materials. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not dispute that part. However there are still other legitimate refs such as the NYT article and the research report from the University of Oslo. Other Google search results show more neutral discussion about this topic, but I still feel it's sufficient enough to meet general notability guidelines.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I had brought this up before: A lot of the external links need to be placed in the references section; though not all.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article as done by User:Tgeairn seems more or less neutral and can be left for the time being until we can sort out the minor issues later.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Studies

This article is filled with attack studies, whereas its competitors articles are written like ads.

Wikipedia is not a marketing tool and the fact the brain training pages have turned into them is sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2902:7000:D5C:1ECB:17D4:8EA5 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)