I am horrified by this: [link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology[/link]
Scroll down to where it says basic kenesiology. Where have they got their information from I wonder. Is Applied Kinesiology different from Systematic Kinesiology, which is what I have studied.
No wonder we have so many problems getting any credibility for it out there with publicity like this around.[&:]
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
Wikipedia is made up of contributions from the public. You can alter it yourself.
Sharon
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
You might be interested in reading these, two consecutive posts inHP's Business forum, on the subject of complementary therapies in Wikipedia:
[link= http://www.healthypages.net/forum/fb.asp?m=408113 ]http://www.healthypages.net/forum/fb.asp?m=408113[/link]
Holistic
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
Well linked Hol. 😉
Yes, Wikipedia moderation tends to go on some of the same rules as a lot of the scientific community (not all though). They seem to have this idea that if it (whatever the subject is)can't be proven in a scientific manner or through hard facts that have been observed or otherwise accepted as a scientific explanation, then people can't create entries to give details as if they are fact (even though thousands, nay millionsof us have experience of these things and know ourselves that they work and are true). They end up getting edited and made out to be some sort of cult, belief system or otherwise put-down non-factual information. We could of course argue that nobody has truly observed an electron, or quantum particles but, because certain scientific things have a long running basis of theories then they are generally accepted as scientific fact and thus allowed on wikipedia as such.
Wikipedia is full of very good information, it's just a shame that there is such a narrow mindedness amongst certain sectors relating to it.
Love and Reiki Hugs
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
You can easily edit anything in Wikipedia and as long as you reference it to a reliable source then it will generally stay there.
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
Depends what their moderation team deem to be a "reliable source". We could link the Reiki article to a reliable source which translates the words of Usui sensei's memorial stone about how Reiki has healed many people, but they'd still take it out because there is no "scientific" proof. It's been tried and it failed unfortunately.
[&:]
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
Frustrating isn't it. Perhaps somebody out there who belongs to the Federation or ASK (and who is more knowledgeable than me) could edit it with some facts and references. Such a shame not to get the point across to all those people out there who are brainwashed everyday by adverts for over the counter remedies and drugs which only treat the symptoms and not the cause.[&:]
RE: Wikipedia Interpretation of Kinesiology
[sm=hippy.gif]Hello all.
i am doing a diploma, and we have to look on different sites for research, we have been told not to rely on anything written in wikipedia, as it is not reliable enough.
take care