[WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?

[K P]

On 1/15/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>