Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
Yeah, and I'm not happy that people are clearly being idiots and instead of being understanding you're all
"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL STUPID IDIOT ROFLMAO GAHAHA GO BACK TO MYSPACE"
Which is very unprofessional and gives all of us a bad image and makes God kill a kitten.
Remember, though, I have 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve Wikimedia so I won't leave over this. It'd be stupid thing to leave over, though.
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good point Daniel, and I'll go you one better. psychosis doesn't necessarily means schizophrenia, and vice versa. I know 4 schizophrenics personally who are active and productive members of society with almost full-time positions that have a high degree of responsibility. One of them is my driver. I have another staff member who is schizophrenic, and also a gentle, wise, lovely person. The current crop of medications are literally revolutionizing peoples lives.
When most people are talking about psychosis, they're talking about a psychotic episode. I've had three in my life, and I'm just plain old bipolar. Even then, violence has a tendency to be turned inward (see Margot Kidder, Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, etc.). Usually it's just random, bizarre actions with no violence attached. Statistically, violence from people with psychiatric disabilities is no greater than the general public, but violence towards the mentally ill is much higher per capita (world-wide).
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've seen major depression (a tendency to isolate from the "real world", both on and off Wiki), social anxiety disorder (same thing), Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (endless fiddling with user pages, compulsive copy-editing and wikignoming), sociopathy (harassment of other users), ADHD (me), bipolar disorder (again, me), and paranoia (everywhere). That's just off the top of my head. As Fred said, however, you simply can't diagnose a keyboard. That's the beautiful thing about the Internet, (with all them pipes).
It's nuts that there is no article [[Stigma (mental health)]] on Wikipedia. I might stub it this morning. There is a giant hole in the encyclopedia on Mental Health-related topics that I've been meaning to get to. This encyclopedia just doesn't build itself - no matter how much I stare at the screen.:)
Nina
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, and I'm not happy that people are clearly being idiots and instead of being understanding you're all
"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL STUPID IDIOT ROFLMAO GAHAHA GO BACK TO MYSPACE"
Which is very unprofessional and gives all of us a bad image and makes God kill a kitten.
Remember, though, I have 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve Wikimedia so I won't leave over this. It'd be stupid thing to leave over, though.
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "Nina Stratton" ninaeliza@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:04:38 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
Good point Daniel, and I'll go you one better. psychosis doesn't necessarily means schizophrenia, and vice versa. I know 4 schizophrenics personally who are active and productive members of society with almost full-time positions that have a high degree of responsibility. One of them is my driver. I have another staff member who is schizophrenic, and also a gentle, wise, lovely person. The current crop of medications are literally revolutionizing peoples lives.
When most people are talking about psychosis, they're talking about a psychotic episode. I've had three in my life, and I'm just plain old bipolar. Even then, violence has a tendency to be turned inward (see Margot Kidder, Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, etc.). Usually it's just random, bizarre actions with no violence attached. Statistically, violence from people with psychiatric disabilities is no greater than the general public, but violence towards the mentally ill is much higher per capita (world-wide).
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've seen major depression (a tendency to isolate from the "real world", both on and off Wiki), social anxiety disorder (same thing), Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (endless fiddling with user pages, compulsive copy-editing and wikignoming), sociopathy (harassment of other users), ADHD (me), bipolar disorder (again, me), and paranoia (everywhere). That's just off the top of my head. As Fred said, however, you simply can't diagnose a keyboard. That's the beautiful thing about the Internet, (with all them pipes).
It's nuts that there is no article [[Stigma (mental health)]] on Wikipedia. I might stub it this morning. There is a giant hole in the encyclopedia on Mental Health-related topics that I've been meaning to get to. This encyclopedia just doesn't build itself - no matter how much I stare at the screen.:)
Nina
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
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, and I'm not happy that people are clearly being idiots and instead of being understanding you're all
"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL STUPID IDIOT ROFLMAO GAHAHA GO BACK TO MYSPACE"
Which is very unprofessional and gives all of us a bad image and makes God kill a kitten.
Remember, though, I have 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve Wikimedia so I won't leave over this. It'd be stupid thing to leave over, though.
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
It's "consumers", not "patients". That cranky statement aside...
[[NAMI]] highlighted a study done on the stigma associated with psychiatric disabilities and found that the population that had the most intransigent prejudices against the mentally ill were mental health professionals themselves. This is disappointing, but not surprising. Though study after study showcases the success rate of the Recovery Model, few MHPs know it, much less accept it or even understand it.
On a side note, many people reject the disease model of addiction. I myself stopped drinking through [[Rational Recovery]]. A 29% success rate [[12 step model]] simply didn't cut it for me.
Nina
Marc Riddell 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.
One emotion that this will not evoke in me is surprise. ;-)
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'm just glad that I'm not writing in this field. While most fields already have the dynamic tension between well-meaning but unschooled amateurs and professionals the inertia of whose schooling may have involved accepting certain assumptions withut question, mental health can also involve people who refuse to accept reality on a more personal level. They can too easily show the respect level of a scientologist.
Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are questioned.
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia who have suffered from these conditions.
I think this last point would run into Wikipedia's verifiability meat-grinder.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
Marc Riddell 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.
One emotion that this will not evoke in me is surprise. ;-)
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'm just glad that I'm not writing in this field. While most fields already have the dynamic tension between well-meaning but unschooled amateurs and professionals the inertia of whose schooling may have involved accepting certain assumptions withut question, mental health can also involve people who refuse to accept reality on a more personal level. They can too easily show the respect level of a scientologist.
Scientology: the denial system for the ages.
Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are questioned.
The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions cultural stigma.
³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver.
The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.
If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the bell, don¹t push the button :-).
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia who have suffered from these conditions.
I think this last point would run into Wikipedia's verifiability meat-grinder.
My intent here was to enable persons suffering from these conditions to understand they are not alone. However, I agree it would create a citation as well as confidentiality nightmare. Oh well, nice thought.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/15/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
Marc Riddell 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.
One emotion that this will not evoke in me is surprise. ;-)
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'm just glad that I'm not writing in this field. While most fields already have the dynamic tension between well-meaning but unschooled amateurs and professionals the inertia of whose schooling may have involved accepting certain assumptions withut question, mental health can also involve people who refuse to accept reality on a more personal level. They can too easily show the respect level of a scientologist.
Scientology: the denial system for the ages.
Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are
questioned.
The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions cultural stigma.
³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver.
The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.
Yes, this is problematic, but if the "experts" use so much jargon that the lay reader cannot use the article, which is often the case, then it's as good as no article, because experts probably aren't consulting Wikipedia for information in their field. This is another area where it is hard to get some Wikipedia editors to see the problem, that using jargon, first isn't necessary, and that second, blue-linking jargon doesn't make it acceptable, and that third, if you can't explain it without the jargon maybe someone else should be writing it.
KP
If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the
bell, don¹t push the button :-).
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the
encyclopedia
who have suffered from these conditions.
I think this last point would run into Wikipedia's verifiability meat-grinder.
My intent here was to enable persons suffering from these conditions to understand they are not alone. However, I agree it would create a citation as well as confidentiality nightmare. Oh well, nice thought.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:34:32 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
On 1/15/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
Marc Riddell 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.
One emotion that this will not evoke in me is surprise. ;-)
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'm just glad that I'm not writing in this field. While most fields already have the dynamic tension between well-meaning but unschooled amateurs and professionals the inertia of whose schooling may have involved accepting certain assumptions withut question, mental health can also involve people who refuse to accept reality on a more personal level. They can too easily show the respect level of a scientologist.
Scientology: the denial system for the ages.
Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are
questioned.
The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions cultural stigma.
³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver.
The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.
Yes, this is problematic, but if the "experts" use so much jargon that the lay reader cannot use the article, which is often the case, then it's as good as no article, because experts probably aren't consulting Wikipedia for information in their field. This is another area where it is hard to get some Wikipedia editors to see the problem, that using jargon, first isn't necessary, and that second, blue-linking jargon doesn't make it acceptable, and that third, if you can't explain it without the jargon maybe someone else should be writing it.
KP
KP,
I absolutely agree with you. As I said somewhere else, the real test of an "expert" is their ability to explain something to someone who isn't. There are many, many fields I don't have a technical clue about, but I do have the curiosity to want to know something about. Therefore, my questions are going to be very basic ones, and it's a joy to come across a source that has the ability to answer these basic question in terms I can understand.
In Wikipedia, if an Article is written by an "expert" in the field, and it cannot be understood by someone who is not, it should be edited by another "expert" in that field with the ability to make it understood.
MR
If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the
bell, don¹t push the button :-).
I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the
encyclopedia
who have suffered from these conditions.
I think this last point would run into Wikipedia's verifiability meat-grinder.
My intent here was to enable persons suffering from these conditions to understand they are not alone. However, I agree it would create a citation as well as confidentiality nightmare. Oh well, nice thought.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
From: "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com
Yes, this is problematic, but if the "experts" use so much jargon that the
lay reader cannot use the article, which is often the case, then it's as good as no article, because experts probably aren't consulting Wikipedia for information in their field. This is another area where it is hard to get some Wikipedia editors to see the problem, that using jargon, first isn't necessary, and that second, blue-linking jargon doesn't make it acceptable, and that third, if you can't explain it without the jargon maybe someone else should be writing it.
KP,
I absolutely agree with you. As I said somewhere else, the real test of an "expert" is their ability to explain something to someone who isn't. There are many, many fields I don't have a technical clue about, but I do have the curiosity to want to know something about. Therefore, my questions are going to be very basic ones, and it's a joy to come across a source that has the ability to answer these basic question in terms I can understand.
In Wikipedia, if an Article is written by an "expert" in the field, and it cannot be understood by someone who is not, it should be edited by another "expert" in that field with the ability to make it understood.
I'm led to believe that we have many articles on mathematics that could use this kind of treatment. :-)
People familiar with the jargon tend to be blind to the effect on the learnng of others. The use of WP: shortcuts on this mailing list is an example of this.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:49:19 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
Marc Riddell wrote:
From: "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com
Yes, this is problematic, but if the "experts" use so much jargon that the
lay reader cannot use the article, which is often the case, then it's as good as no article, because experts probably aren't consulting Wikipedia for information in their field. This is another area where it is hard to get some Wikipedia editors to see the problem, that using jargon, first isn't necessary, and that second, blue-linking jargon doesn't make it acceptable, and that third, if you can't explain it without the jargon maybe someone else should be writing it.
KP,
I absolutely agree with you. As I said somewhere else, the real test of an "expert" is their ability to explain something to someone who isn't. There are many, many fields I don't have a technical clue about, but I do have the curiosity to want to know something about. Therefore, my questions are going to be very basic ones, and it's a joy to come across a source that has the ability to answer these basic question in terms I can understand.
In Wikipedia, if an Article is written by an "expert" in the field, and it cannot be understood by someone who is not, it should be edited by another "expert" in that field with the ability to make it understood.
I'm led to believe that we have many articles on mathematics that could use this kind of treatment. :-)
People familiar with the jargon tend to be blind to the effect on the learnng of others. The use of WP: shortcuts on this mailing list is an example of this.
Ec
How about this? There would be two versions of the same Article in WP. One written by a jargon-insistent ³expert² for the benefit of other experts², and the other written by a different ³expert² writing for those readers trying to figure out what the hell the other ³expert² is talking about. And, on this alternative page, in a very prominent place would be a button such as Google has: [Translate this page]. :-)
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are questioned.
The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions cultural stigma.
I agree that it's a subject for another time, but in the public mind the two tend to be indistinguishable.
³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver.
"Assumption" is a slippery word in any field. "Hypothesis" is a better word. The "fact" will be what is empirically observed in a single experiment. Repeated results with identical facts will aubstantiate the hypothesis. I don't know that you can validly say that facts are "based on" case histories. To me they would be the separate incidents that go into making up a case history. The accumulated experience of multiple case histories becomes the fodder for revised hypotheses.
Pharmacology alone is seldom a cure, but it can calm a crisis so that the therapist can explore the origins in search of a real solution. But then not all chemotheraputic agents are 100% effective in cancer treatment.
Instincts, insights and intuition fall outside of the rigid barriers of the scientific method. All the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to convince a religious adherent to the scientific method that these themes have any validity. The influences of Aristotle go that deep.
The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.
Both experts and non-experts can fall into the trap of confusing fact with opinion, and defend their respective determinations tenaciously. Some will carefully distinguish the two with the statement that facts are what they state in an argument, and opinions are what their opponents put forth.
If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the bell, don¹t push the button :-).
If there's one thing that Wikipedians do well it's push buttons. :-)
Ec
On 15/01/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Scientology: the denial system for the ages.
Despite considerable conflict between Scientologists and critics on the articles - and I speak here as a moderately well-known critic - our Scientology articles are surprisingly good. It's nice what referencing to the hilt can manage.
- d.
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
There are also people who are clearly clinically mentally ill who participate in Wikipedia; pointing that out isn't stigmatizing them.
It's easy to stigmatize them if you talk about it loosely, sure. And I have no problem with anyone who wants to clearly demarcate the difference between "random jerk/flamer/vandal" and "paranoid, schizophrenic, or otherwise mentally ill".
As an example of the actual mentally ill people we have around WP, one regular complainer to Unblock-En-L has come around at least four or five times, and each time large parts of his emails have been the classic distinct "word salad" writing that is very typical of moderately functioning schizophrenic writers. Organized enough to hold a coherent line of thought for a sentence or two, but then immediately off into a completely unrelated topic, with no logical bridge or connection.
My wife has worked with the mentally ill and has a significant amount of college training in both clinical psych and neurobiology. I showed him this guy's email last time and she immediately without prior context suggested that he was unmedicated or poorly medicated and schizophrenic, without my telling her that I'd figured that out a while ago. Sometimes it's that obvious.
That's fine. However, all users should be treated with the same respect and courtesy. I think that's Fred's point. I've also seen word salads coming from users who are very passionate about what they want to get across but have only a glancing knowledge of the English language. Sometimes, they change their subject in the middle of a sentence. One of my good friends who is schizophrenic is an amateur historian who would be excellent on Wikipedia. He's in recovery ([[Recovery model]] doesn't exist yet either), however. You make an excellent point about poorly medicated/unmedicated folks with psychiatric disabilities. It's a huge problem with the [[Public mental health system]].
Nina
On 1/11/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia. What psychological defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."
As in schizophrenia.
It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant, I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact, actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
Words _do_ have meanings.
There are also people who are clearly clinically mentally ill who participate in Wikipedia; pointing that out isn't stigmatizing them.
It's easy to stigmatize them if you talk about it loosely, sure. And I have no problem with anyone who wants to clearly demarcate the difference between "random jerk/flamer/vandal" and "paranoid, schizophrenic, or otherwise mentally ill".
As an example of the actual mentally ill people we have around WP, one regular complainer to Unblock-En-L has come around at least four or five times, and each time large parts of his emails have been the classic distinct "word salad" writing that is very typical of moderately functioning schizophrenic writers. Organized enough to hold a coherent line of thought for a sentence or two, but then immediately off into a completely unrelated topic, with no logical bridge or connection.
My wife has worked with the mentally ill and has a significant amount of college training in both clinical psych and neurobiology. I showed him this guy's email last time and she immediately without prior context suggested that he was unmedicated or poorly medicated and schizophrenic, without my telling her that I'd figured that out a while ago. Sometimes it's that obvious.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l