AlisonCary

Welcome!

Hi AlisonCary! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Bates method

Such substantial changes as you made to Bates method must first be discussed in Talk:Bates method. In the meantime, I have reverted them. -- Jmc (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I can discuss my proposed changes. I am interested to know how such a heavily biased article has been allowed to be on Wikipedia for so long. I thought articles were supposed to be neutral. The article is heavily one sided. How does that happen? AlisonCary (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jmc, I have submitted some commentary about my views on why the article should be updated with my proposed article. Who approves, comments on the proposed changes? Is it the person who made the original biased article? Regards Alison AlisonCary (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alison, you might want to take a few minutes to read neutral point of view and WP:FRINGE. What Wikipedia means by being neutral is that the article fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, summarizes the significant views of the subject as supported by reliable sources. In the area of fringe/pseudoscience, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to the claims made by proponents. The WP:FRINGE guideline in particular will give you an idea of the type of information appropriate for the Bates method article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I offer the following view point in good faith with reference to the heavily biased nature of the current article. I have read the information about fringe and neutral view points - thank you for the links. In reference to "Fringe theories in a nutshell" - To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. OK, this Bates Method article is not in an article about a mainstream idea. TICK. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. TICK, The Bates Method article is in a separate article with side panel boxes identifying it as Alternative Medicine and, at the bottom, Pseudoscience, so the reader has disclaimer to keep in mind when reading an article. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. OK, I feel that the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints is not represented in this article. Minority viewpoints, such as a neutral and open-minded view to this alternative medicine concept is NOT represented in this article. The "majority" view has been represented using the scientific documents that say there are no statistically findings that support the Bates Method, but the minority view of personal testimony to the efficacy of Bates Method principles have not be allowed to be added to this article, even when these testimonies are published works in the public domain, with published reviews of these testimonies.

In reference to reliable sources, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." It is identifiable in the current article that "significant minority views" (Bates method can be effective), has no representation in this article which is dominated by the majority view (Bates Method is ineffective.) Numerous books, written over the decades, could meet the criteria of reliable sources and yet have not been included in this article (at the current time.) An example of published, reliable source could be a reviewed book. Amazon has the most readily available option for the public to write their reviews, with both pro and con represented, allowing the reader to make their own decisions. Here is one of 10 or more books that I would propose to use to represent the "significant minority view" The Secret of Perfect Vision:: How You Can Prevent or Reverse Nearsightedness by David D Angelis (2011) Publisher:North Atlantic Books; 1st edition Amazon source shows 75 ratings to deliver 4/5 review and numerous written, personal reviews of the books value. I realize Amazon is a commercial ecommerce site, which is frowned upon compared to a Scholarly site, but it is a readily available forum for comment. External reference: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Perfect-Vision-Prevent-Nearsightedness-ebook/dp/B005LAI8M6

Overall, I think contributing to Wikipedia articles is an act of service to the world, offering a summary of the 'best of' information that is available in the public domain. In this case the wide ranging information in the public domain, on this topic is not represented at this time, and my edits would neutralize the article with the significant minority views.

AlisonCary (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, Alison, as I believe you're genuinely interested in making the article better and that this is going to seem like I'm moving the goalposts each time you propose something. But I need to point out that a "reviewed" book doesn't mean reviewed by customers. Wikipedia has no interest in what the general public says in what we call user-generated content. Amazon reviews are worthless for determining if a source is reliable or if the book is a "significant minority view", as are those on Goodreads for that matter. I can't find any book reviews of the De Angelis book that would be acceptable source for an article on the book and I can't find any sources that indicate that the book has received any academic attention. So it's just a commercial book (and one that says the Bates Method isn't enough, you need his improvements on it). I can't find anything to support his scientific or medical credentials to speak as an expert in this matter; frankly, he sounds like a run-of-the-mill huckster.

The other thing that I need to point out is that information in articles that falls in the biomedical realm has stricter sourcing requirements than other articles, which you can read about at WP:MEDRS. Any content that is going to claim efficacy of a method to correct eyesight would need to meet those criteria. Along the same lines, personal testimony, even if published in reliable sources, carries little if any weight. Schazjmd (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Schmazid, Thank you for your prompt response and recognizing my genuine attempt to improve this article, which I am. I can see that my powers of reason and persuasion are inadequate for this task. I notice years and years of discussion in archived talk about this article by talented and persistent people. On 24 Oct 2012, I see an editor wrote a sensible and measured "talk" about this biased article, stating it "the most biased, one-sided article I have ever seen on Wikipedia" and his personal experience of success of the Bates method. Since then, debate after debate has been pushed back by administrators, and most recently (Dec 2020) and active interchange between 3 people brought about no alteration in the article. And so I conclude my attempts will be equally futile. What a shame! I thought I was going to be adding value to the world in my own little way... I realize now, this is not to be. I have had an interesting 24 hours, learned a lot about Wikipedia, it's hierarchy, competition and limitations. I'll chalk that up to experience. Thank you for your interest in my views. Kind Regards, AlisonCary (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Please, feel free to ping me if you decide to stick around and possibly edit in other areas (most are not near as contentious or difficult) and have any questions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Schmazid, thanks for the encouragement. I think is interesting that, by comparison, an article about an alterative medicine yet relatively mainstream topic like Chiropractic care, is recorded in Wikipedia, in the first sentence as a "pseudoscientific alternative medicine". I realize that the word "pseudoscientific" alerts the reader to adopt a certain lens to their evaluation of the materials presented in the article, and that's a good thing. Yet, in the Bates Method article, the words "ineffective" and "potentially dangerous" have been allowed to be used by the administrators of this article. So, I don't think there is much more to say about the inconsistent approach to upholding the policies that have been kindly pointed out to me. Over and out. Regards, AlisonCary (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification of discretionary sanctions area for awareness

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the message. I have read through the archived talk. I can see this article has had much debate, and remains a heavily biased article. I can see that, despite Bates Method being rightly declared as ‘alternative medicine’, this is interpreted as pseudoscience. Bates Method is labelled fringe, and indeed it is on the edge of the optical industry, even beyond Behavioural Optometry. Due to these heavy labels of pseudoscience and fringe, it appears that the editors with decision making roles(administrators) have overriden the attempts by others to debate both neutral and positive stand points for over 10 years. I can see that this heavily biased article will undoubtedly stay this way, which in my opinion, doesn’t uphold the Wikipedia integrity. I will not be spending my time on this debate as I can foresee it will be futile. AlisonCary (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)