It’s sad to see how Bargh seems to be attached to his original research and is not willing to consider that some of his early experiments may have been poorly designed, regardless of whether the effect is real or not. His Wikipedia page mentions nothing about the controversy.
Yesterday afternoon the IP address 87.69.248.247 came along and took back out the criticism added to the start of the entry, returning later to delete the remaining criticism in the main body. Theguy who originally added the criticism understandably put it back, telling 87.69.248.247, “If you wish to dispute the content or its relevance, please discuss.”
This moved 87.69.248.247 tore-delete the re-added material, and remark, “I have erased slander blogs aimed to destroy this person’s reputation if anyone wants to read them he can find it online not in his personal WIKI page [...] There is current controversy around the quality of this replication and this was not the most well known paper of Bargh as what mentioned”.
Who will win this exciting contest? Find out in the next episode of Wikipedia!
It’s sad to see how Bargh seems to be attached to his original research and is not willing to consider that some of his early experiments may have been poorly designed, regardless of whether the effect is real or not. His Wikipedia page mentions nothing about the controversy.
Looks like someone has now added it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bargh&diff=537069679&oldid=527782415
Well written, too. Hopefully it will last.
We now have an edit war!
Yesterday afternoon the IP address 87.69.248.247 came along and took back out the criticism added to the start of the entry, returning later to delete the remaining criticism in the main body. The guy who originally added the criticism understandably put it back, telling 87.69.248.247, “If you wish to dispute the content or its relevance, please discuss.”
This moved 87.69.248.247 to re-delete the re-added material, and remark, “I have erased slander blogs aimed to destroy this person’s reputation if anyone wants to read them he can find it online not in his personal WIKI page [...] There is current controversy around the quality of this replication and this was not the most well known paper of Bargh as what mentioned”.
Who will win this exciting contest? Find out in the next episode of Wikipedia!