Something has gone very wrong with the SPR's psi encyclopaedia

The SPR's psi encyclopaedia was intended to be an antidote to the unbalanced sceptical coverage of psi by Wikipedia. But judging by material like this, I feel it's in danger of ending up equally unbalanced in the opposite direction:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...dc-therapy

The article describes the subject matter as controversial, but is based on a work by the proponent of the technique in question. I can't see any critical comment or any representation of other views about the technique. The Society for Psychical Research is not meant to hold corporate views, and I don't believe it should be promoting unbalanced coverage of controversial subjects.

[Laird]

Hmm. Yes. When only a single source is cited, we have a right to be concerned about objectivity.

I'm not sure there is a problem. Is Wikipedia taken as the benchmark against which all other efforts are to be measured? How about using other measuring sticks?

I'm not sure there is a problem. Is Wikipedia taken as the benchmark against which all other efforts are to be measured? How about using other measuring sticks?

I’m not using Wikipedia as a benchmark. I’m concerned about the lack of balance in the SPR’s encyclopaedia. Previously, the SPR has always been very careful not to express any corporate views in favour of the existence of psychical phenomena or against them. I think the Society is going to jeopardise its reputation if it puts online reference material about controversial subjects, and represents only one side of the argument.

There are plenty of examples of articles on the Psi Encyclopedia that are written by authors deeply involved in the research itself (and, unsurprisingly, show their own contributions in the best possible light). Since parapsychology is such a small field of research, it's usually impossible to find objective third-parties to write about any subject in any detail.

There are plenty of examples of articles on the Psi Encyclopedia that are written by authors deeply involved in the research itself (and, unsurprisingly, show their own contributions in the best possible light). Since parapsychology is such a small field of research, it's usually impossible to find objective third-parties to write about any subject in any detail.

I agree it’s never going to be easy to maintain objectivity in such a difficult area, but I think if they’re putting forward as reference material about a controversial technique, just a summary of a book by the inventor of that technique, then they’re not really trying.

Maybe I haven't really looked at it hard enough, but what are they leaving out? Are they showing more of one side the the other, like more skeptic articles then proponent ones? I guess I'm wondering what exactly is the imbalance

Maybe I haven't really looked at it hard enough, but what are they leaving out?

Who knows? What's left out of an article is difficult to find out by reading it - unless the reader is already familiar with the subject matter.

I have to say the more I look into this the less comfortable I feel about the SPR's uncritical coverage of it.

This is a commercial operation. "Induced After-Death Communication" is a registered trademark. The therapy costs $560-$840 for two sessions totalling 2-3 hours. If you have a grief issue or trauma as a result of bereavement, the likelihood of an After Death Communication during the therapy is stated to be 75%. 

Alternatively you can train to be a therapist yourself. Anyone who has done a weekend of training in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing can become a trained IADC therapist after a one-day course (cost $850). Your name will then be included in the directory of trained therapists on Allan Botkin's website.

Hmm, that probably does set it apart from other pages on the encyclopedia.

I saw you commented on their facebook feed. Any response?