Wikipedia:Peer review/Kaiser Permanente/archive1
I feel the article has mearly become a criticism of kaiser permanente
1. no other hmo has a criticism section 2. the kaiser permanente criticism section is longer that the rest of the article put together 3. criticism is in each section of the article 4. fact is mingled with truth to create logical fallacies. 5. the criticism is mirrored in almost all the links from the article 6. when valid rebuttals are placed, they are removed or distorted by either pansophia or an anonymous user. 7. I strongly feel (but cannot prove) that the anonymous user and pansophia have an agenda against kaiser and are using wikipedia for their personal gain.
thank you
1. I wrote most of the article, though it has been edited by others. What I wrote replaced what was basically a Kaiser ad written by a Kaiser employee ("Justen").
2. I created the Criticism section: I thought it was important to identify criticism as criticism, and it's a fact that there's a lot of criticism of Kaiser - perhaps more than any other HMO. I agree this section is long, and I made some efforts to shorten it myself. Other people have come through to edit it, as well.
3. I removed some of Cotman68's remarks - they were naysaying (with some Kaiser propaganda mixed in) rather than rebuttals, and there were a couple of false statements. I've also restored some of the information that Cotman68 deleted. Cotman68 has also made false assumptions about authorship, and he made some false statements about my activities. He doesn't seem to hear any of these issues: I left a message on his Talk page offering to talk it out.
4. As a Kaiser doctor, I believe the "gain" issue should be raised in the context of the Kaiser marketing piece written by Justen and the source of Cotman68's paycheck. I did convey a lot of criticism of Kaiser, but I labeled it appropriately.