Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis

Archives

 * Archive1

Initial statement
I would like to hear all parties' views on this issue before we go any further. I'm not after a complicated explanation of the situation or a detailed rebuttal of other editors' views just yet. I'd appreciate it if you could write a short overview of your own points of view here, under your named section.

In a nutshell, I'm after your views on what you feel the article should be but isn't, and what you hope to achieve at the end of the process. What should the article say, and why? Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WLU
I think information on the ABA page should be referenced with reliable sources and presented in a NPOV manner. What I see as extreme claims (notably the association of ABA and PTSD) should be documented with reliable sources. I am not opposed to criticisms within the article but the presentation of extreme claims that no longer represent current practice should be kept in the historical section, not in the main section. References should be represented fairly, such as the court case of Auton v. BC AG. I think the aritcle is pretty good as is. WLU 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

florkle
Insofar as I've made deletions they've crossed over into the realm of speculation (usu. negative) with no proof, and in one case citing behavior.org (a site that is very pro applied behavior analysis) as providing support for claims it was, in fact, rebutting!

I was trying to beef up the aversives section (meaning essentially "the use of punishment to change behavior") since it is definitely one of the most damaging parts of ABA's history when I accidentally became embroiled in this affair. I am opposed to the use of aversive control, but I am graduate student in an applied behavior analysis program (so you can, I think, see my prejudices?).

I too feel that there is room for criticism without having to make claims like "creating robots" or "PTSD". I would like to see this article balance 80% or more the very broad and large community of ABA research and theory (much of which is largely involving Autism, but that is simply a current trend), with 20% or less being comprised of well researched, well documented, historically valid, research driven criticism. I think anything less than 5% would perhaps be a misrepresentation of ABA's less than stellar low-points.

I am somewhat new to both mediation and wikipedia so I am shooting from the hip here. Let me know what seems right.

--florkle 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ensrifraff

 * It appears that Ensrifraff is inactive on Wikipedia, with infrequent one-off edits to ABA. Given mediation requires agreement from all parties and that requires participation here, if Ensrifraff hasn't commented here within three days, I have no option but to close this RfM at this time. If this were to occur, a new RfM can be opened if Ensrifraff returns to active editing.  Daniel  01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have executed this. Thanks to Mark for helping the Committee on this case. Cheers,  Daniel  08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)