Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
- d.
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues, however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such organisations are in /that/ direction.
I don't believe people should attribute to insanity what can be attributed to ignorance or plain dickery, but when the insanity/problem is obvious, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
John
On 6/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
- d.
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues, however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such organisations are in /that/ direction.
I don't believe people should attribute to insanity what can be attributed to ignorance or plain dickery, but when the insanity/problem is obvious, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy It's only an essay, but it says a lot.
On 05/06/06, Katie the Obscure nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
- d.
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues, however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such organisations are in /that/ direction.
I don't believe people should attribute to insanity what can be attributed to ignorance or plain dickery, but when the insanity/problem is obvious, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy It's only an essay, but it says a lot.
-- niht-hræfn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?action=histo... As you can see it was written only about 2 months ago, ENTIRELY by Fred Bauder (see differences between his last edit and the most recent edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?diff=4849837...). It's his personal opinions, it's not policy at all. In fact it should probably be in his userspace.
Selina . wrote:
On 05/06/06, Katie the Obscure nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues, however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such organisations are in /that/ direction.
I don't believe people should attribute to insanity what can be attributed to ignorance or plain dickery, but when the insanity/problem is obvious, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy It's only an essay, but it says a lot.
-- niht-hræfn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?action=histo... As you can see it was written only about 2 months ago, ENTIRELY by Fred Bauder (see differences between his last edit and the most recent edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?diff=4849837...). It's his personal opinions, it's not policy at all. In fact it should probably be in his userspace.
It's tagged as an essay for a reason.
John
I don't apologize for the essay. I think it is useful. Basically it says, "We are not equipped or qualified to offer therapy to you, but you are welcome to use Wikipedia if it is helpful to you and you are not too disruptive.
Fred
On Jun 5, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Selina . wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy? action=history As you can see it was written only about 2 months ago, ENTIRELY by Fred Bauder (see differences between his last edit and the most recent edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy? diff=48498374&oldid=45622959). It's his personal opinions, it's not policy at all. In fact it should probably be in his userspace.
-- Selina -
On 6/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues, however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such organisations are in /that/ direction.
"Dammit, Jimbo, I'm an encyclopaedia, not a doctor."
John Lee wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
- d.
On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet.
I added it[1], but I was reverted[2]. I still can't find where on the talk page it was discussed though.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&am... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&am...
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:19:47AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus diagnosed.
[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem, because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
What a mind-numbingly bad misreading of my post.
Karl,
What a mind-numbingly bad misreading of my post.
Incidentally, I also misread your post. After reading the first few paragraphs, it seemed to me that you were trying to describe what is called "pathologizing". But then, as an example, you gave... a pathology. So whatever point you were trying to make was completely opaque to me as well.
Jkelly
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Incidentally, I also misread your post. After reading the first few paragraphs, it seemed to me that you were trying to describe what is called "pathologizing". But then, as an example, you gave... a pathology. So whatever point you were trying to make was completely opaque to me as well.
I found his choice of Asperger's as the example quite illustrating, since there is some controversy over whether (and/or from what point in the continuum) it should be considered a pathology instead of merely a personality type, and in particular whether it is useful to view it as either one to the exclusion of the other.
Given that there exists a continuous spectrum of behavior from normality via various degrees of Asperger's to full blown autism, it does not really make much sense that attitudes towards such behavior should change discontinuously at some point. Unfortunately, people often do have such a discontinuity between "normal" and "abnormal". I don't believe this was quite the point Karl was trying to make, but it does seem to me to be the point in his argument that you missed.
(I'm genuinely trying to explain my viewpoint here, since I _did_ find Karl's post rather illuminating. I'm not really trying to argue about which viewpoint is "right".)