Talk:Misophonia

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2024

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2024 and 22 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DoubleDoctorZack (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey folks, exciting stuff hopefully to come here. Clearly this page has quite a history, and I happen to have done my PhD on misophonia (https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/a9e54a3e-61db-467b-b2cf-2eb0e9f8b977), so I genuinely have quite a lot to add here as someone that's been in the field of misophonia research for a bit and has attended three years of Misophonia Research Fund funded investigator meetings (sidebar: we should probably make a page for the misophonia research fund [1], as the major [read: only] org funding research on misophonia, with $10M in grants funded to date). Though there's clearly been a lot of COI and self-promotion on this page to date, that's definitely not my goal here—I'm really trying to "clean up" the page and improve the quality of information on misophonia that people are being exposed to here on Wikipedia. I'll probably self-cite once or twice (because I have published relevant works, but you know from the link above who I am, and I'll certainly disclose that when I do self-cite), but the goal here isn't really to self-promote (as much as to promote misophonia itself as a legitimate condition and ensure that patients and providers have accurate and evidence-based information). If anything, I'd love to make misophonia a featured article one day, just for the awareness!

Please do feel free to reply here or ping me on my talk page if you find any of my edits problematic, do find me conflicted in some way (e.g., take issue with my citations), or want to discuss any of my (soon-to-be extensive) revisions to this article. I certainly don't want this to be "Zack's take on misophonia." DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding Photo to Infobox - Ideas?

Hi folks. One of the edits I'd love to see made to this page is not having a pictureless infobox. I don't have a strong preference as to what that picture has to be (as long as it represents misophonia in some way), but I attempted to make something yesterday that was then taken down by another editor today. That picture is shown below for reference (disclaimer: generative AI created the base picture, which I then modified; I do have decent digital art and photo-editing skills/software but not infinite free time to animate my own characters, etc.). I'm not gonna lie, I'm a little bummed about this turn of events, given the amount of time I actually took to make what I thought was my first meaningful contribution to the page (and as someone with a PhD in this area, I have plenty more where that came from), but instead of simply trying again, I thought I'd ask the other people who care about editing this page what they actually want to see in an infobox photo (alternatively, give me a good argument as to why this page should not have one, but I haven't seen that yet). Essentially, I'm taking requests, so please let me know what I can try to make here.

DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're discouraged! To give an actual style guide link, my view in removing it was that MOS:LEADIMAGE says that it should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and I wouldn't expect to see a humorous cartoon in a medical reference work.

From what I've seen around Wikipedia, most medical articles about non-visible conditions seem happy to run without a lead image, where there is no obvious physical condition to photograph and no visual representations in the literature (or, at a push, in pre-existing art). Checking a few, the only original artwork I've found is at dyslexia, where a silhouetted child draws some letters incorrectly. Perhaps something like that could work here (a silhouette with fingers in ears against a simple background of a restaurant?), but I'm not sure it's that necessary. --Belbury (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the guidance. I was sort of going off of depictions I had found on other misophonia resources (which, frankly, had at times been humorous). For a more serious way of depicting misophonia, one could explore https://www.soquiet.org/, arguably the most prominent misophonia patient advocacy org (also a page I'm meaning to make at some point). But to your suggestions, I Midjourney'd a couple "silhouette pics" that I thought might be reasonable, and here's the one I liked the most. Let me know your thoughts (and others may feel free to chime in).

DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No to both. As far as I am concerned, the only time it is ever appropriate to have an AI-generated image in an encyclopedia is if the topic of discussion is that image, such as File:Trump’s arrest (2).jpg being discussed in the article Deepfake. Otherwise, having no image is better than having an AI image, because AI images are not accurate, and this is supposed to be an educational resource. Those two things are in conflict with one another. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, and I can understand that rationale. Assuming it were actually my own work, how would people feel about a picture of common triggers (mouth chewing, nose sniffing, pen clicking, etc.) as the infobox pic? Again these would be animated/cartoonish as this is what I can actually produce as a digital artist. DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Major rewrites coming in near future

Hi misophonia talk page folks! First off, thanks to those who have engaged with me thus far on my journey to significantly improve this page. I've done some significant digging into the misophonia literature and also studied up on the wikipedia style guides (especially WP:MEDRS and WP:SELFCITE), and I think I'm ready to take a crack at really editing the content of the page in most of the sections, sourcing out the sections with better sources (read: secondary sources whenever possible per WP:MEDRS, though I do think there are a couple primary sources I'd like to keep/see here like references to specific measurement tools [or their respective validation studies] in a section I want to make about assessing misophonia symptoms), and removal of sections/text that is based almost entirely on primary sources (again, this is in line with the WP:MEDRS guidelines).

I also plan to eventually find an infobox picture that works, which I think I will actually commission from a well-known misophonia advocate (if he's okay being the "face" of misophonia, that is). It's fairly hard to argue that a real picture of a real person with misophonia, wearing earphones and a t-shirt that has something to do with misophonia is a bad picture of misophonia for an encyclopedia entry on misophonia. The rest of the infobox will also eventually be filled out with some well-sourced claims, of which I have plenty ready to go!

One thing to also note is that when editing this page, I will inevitably be encountering some of my own published research (I am Zachary J. Williams; here's my NCBI mybibliography). I'd also like to note that my work was already cited in the article before I got here and I actually removed what I thought was a bad citation of it (lol). Given how small of a field this is (and the fact that I believe I've contributed meaningfully to it in ways that certain other researchers haven't, like describing overlaps with autism) I may nevertheless want to sparingly add a citation or two to a paper of mine elsewhere in the article (that I'll happily declare and note for the talk page). Hopefully, with the amount that I'm changing the article (and citing other researchers' work, of which I have 20+ secondary sources lined up that I didn't author), nobody is going to accuse me of unfairly promoting my own scholarship on this page (but please comment here and let me know what you think—I'm genuinely trying to do the right thing here, and if anyone finds my edits to be problematic, let's talk about it.

Articles most likely to be (self)-cited at some point:

• Decreased sound tolerance in autism: understanding and distinguishing between hyperacusis, misophonia, and phonophobia(includes operational criteria for misophonia my research group used for diagnostic purposes, as well as a way to actually give an ICD code when "diagnosing" misophonia clinically; audiologists reading the magazine really liked this article!)

• A review of decreased sound tolerance in autism: Definitions, phenomenology, and potential mechanisms (very comprehensive review article [it's an early version of chapter 1 of my dissertation that I used for my PhD qualifying exam on this topic] that at the time collated all known information on the overlap of autism and decreased sound tolerance conditions, misophonia included and still remains the authoritative secondary source on autism and DST [though the dissertation chapter is updated and technically better, I don't know if it would fly as a WP source]).

• Development and Initial Validation of the Duke Misophonia Questionnaire (I was just the psychometrician on this study, but I still authored it; the DMQ is a major measure in the field and should be cited in any "symptom measurement" section)

• Psychometric validation of a brief self-report measure of misophonia symptoms and functional impairment: The Duke-Vanderbilt Misophonia Screening Questionnaire (this was actually the paper that was here when I arrived, but I still think it's relevant to any "symptom measurement" section; the paper also describes the prevalence I found in the autistic population in my dissertation work).

Anyways, I hope that folks aren't too taken aback if they come back to the misophonia page and see a very different entry in a couple days to weeks. I'd rather have discussion in the comments here than a ton of edit wars and reversions, but I've also gotten a few other interested people in the misophonia research community now working on this project with me (again, with the shared goal of making sure the information here is actually of good quality of patients, scientists, etc.), and if things do get out of hand, we aren't above seeking a page lock of some level to ensure that it stays that way. DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)