A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact that you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are many aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond some persons¹ ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a WP editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing Article on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered strong resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this fact. Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven¹t looked back since. I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed away.
I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in the encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand it. For me, the true measure of an ³expert² in something is his or her ability to explain it to someone who isn¹t.
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia who have suffered from these conditions.
Some thoughts.
Marc Riddell
If that had become an arbitration case, the focus would be on use of reliable sources. Neither patients nor therapists count as reliable sources, however much personal or professional experience they have, or how incisive their insights.
Fred
+! :)
Nina
On 1/11/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact
that
you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are
many
aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond
some
persons¹ ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a
WP
editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing
Article
on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered
strong
resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this
fact.
Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven¹t looked back
since.
I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of
Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed
away.
I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in
the
encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could
understand
it. For me, the true measure of an ³expert² in something is his or her ability to explain it to someone who isn¹t.
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the
encyclopedia
who have suffered from these conditions.
Some thoughts.
Marc Riddell
If that had become an arbitration case, the focus would be on use of reliable sources. Neither patients nor therapists count as reliable sources, however much personal or professional experience they have, or how incisive their insights.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l