User talk:Eyoungstrom

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi !

Leaving this as indication that I completed the Wikipedia Adventure (quite a while ago!). Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Links and resources to help with teaching with Wikipedia

Assignment Design Wizard

Hello

Hello Eyoungstrom, it was nice speaking with you today, and I look forward to collaborating with you on future projects. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to edit "Helping Give Psychology Away" workgroup

Hello User:Eyoungstrom, here's a link to the Giving Psychology Away workgroup on Wikipedia. Please feel free to give any comments and suggestions!

Link is here. Thanks! Ongmianli (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

CAGE questionnaire

Hi Eric, @Dwagg96, Carisaruiz, and Ongmianli:

• Lead section: lead sections are supposed to summarize all the major points of the article. Nothing should be in the lead that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. The first paragraph serves the purpose of the lead, though it could be better; not everything there is discussed in the body of the article, and there's stuff in the rest of the article that could probably be summarized there.

• [Next section]: The remainder of your lead should be split off into a separate section. Maybe an "Overview" or "Outline of the questionnaire", something like that.

• Reliability: I think the section should clearly answer the most obvious question that average reader would look for under "reliability: "how reliable is this questionnaire" or "is this reliable"? Tables should be supplementary or illustrative - the key information should be in the text of the article. Reading a table requires more skill, and more comfort with jargon. It's also a lot quicker to read text. A lot of what's in the "explanations" column of the table would be more useful in a block of text. Bear in mind that the reader here is likely to be a non-expert - it should be accessible to someone who has taken the test, not merely to someone administering it.

• Validity: The same applies here.

• History: I would move this up, above the Reliability and Validity sections.

There's more you'd do on the road to a GA, but I think I could be most helpful in that regard after these first steps were completed. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As for article assessment - you're free to assess your own articles. I've done it for this one. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidence-based assessment

Hi Eric - In a typical cyber-sojourn, i.e., I cannot remember how I got here, I stumbled across your request for editors interested in writing/editing articles about, or related to, evidence-based assessment.

• I am definitely interested, particularly with regard to adult assessment. Perhaps as a starting point we could correspond re: top priorities for article creation or editing.

• I am a front-line clinician, as opposed to being a clinician-researcher like yourself, but I enjoy writing and I believe that contributing to Wikipedia represents one the most important forms of community service for psychologists today.

• I have access to many databases so I suspect it would be better to reserve the Visiting Scholar appointment for another editor.

• I enjoy working with students, so feel free to 'use' me as a mentor, coach, etc. when you have students editing articles for a class or project.

• I just read your article about combining EBM insights with psychological assessment know-how. It is brilliant! Also a bit of synchronicity for me as I am transitioning from a full-time assessment role (conducting C&P exams with veterans) to a treatment role (psychologist at a VA outpatient clinic). I have been thinking a lot about how to integrate what I know about evidence-based psychological assessment in the forensic psychology realm into treatment planning, process and outcome measurement, and therapeutic assessment with psychotherapy patients. Your article has inspired me and, most importantly, given me an empirically-grounded path forward. Thank you!

• Feel free to communicate via my Talk page or email - mark[at]drworthen[dot]net.

• I have wikilinked and cited a couple of references for others who stumble across your Talk page and might not be familiar with the concepts and terms.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mark, thanks a ton for the thoughtful contact and the links. I wasn't familiar with the Bornstein paper -- that will be a helpful read for me. We are working on a new page and some other resources in response to the shooting in Florida last week. If you have time tomorrow afternoon, we are doing a flash editing party from 1 to 6 pm Eastern, and I'll post links here afterwards for you, too. We also want to figure out a way of helping with the PTSD main page itself. I am involved in leadership roles in several societies, but my Wiki skills lag behind the rest of my professional development, so I am grateful for any assistance! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Links to past course dashboards

Here's a set of links to the dashboards for previous classes:

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited General Behavior Inventory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:MED discussion

Please see this discussion at the Medicine WikiProject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See the first link in the userbox at the top of my userpage. You can write to oversight to have your IP suppressed ... They are fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pro tip! Much appreciated! I read your message to Emma with horror -- is the tree the cause of the hiatus on Wiki? I am glad you survived! It seems we may have another thing in common -- I was struck by a car; shattered my left arm trying to save head and neck as I came down headfirst. Very lucky, but I sit on a yoga ball to reduce back pain, and have a plate and screws in my wrist, so typing gets painful. Trying to use Dragon voice recognition introduces "speak-os" instead of typos, where real words get substituted and pass spell check. Some of my fumbling with the code is because I have to use fingers. Ironically, the accident is what led to my pivot to trying to learn Wikipedia. I realized that I was "playing with house money" to have survived, and that academic publishing for its own sake really doesn't help people, or certainly no where as directly and efficiently as it could. So I have shifted to doing more meta-analyses, trying to teach people to be better consumers and producers of information, and improving the content of information that is easily discoverable. I promise that I am motivated student of Wiki, if a clumsy one. :-) Warmest regards! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The hazardous hammock/tree incident set me back for quite some time, but I had much more going on in my family's health for a period of two years. I am hoping things are settled now, but I am left with a lot of back pain all the time, so I don't like to sit at a real computer. It sounds like we do have a lot in common, and you understand-- and that your accident was quite serious, too! It is embarrassing that others have to endure my typos and Siri/iPad "speakos", but I hope they're not ready to put me out to pasture just yet :) I love your "house money" expression: I have found that having survived something that kills most people has left me with a much better outlook on my dotage, and COVID hasn't much affected me at all (where I see so many others affected by depression or anxiety). My brain healed very fast (in comparison to the concussion I had in a skiing accident in my 40s), but the head and neck and back soft tissue damage ... ugh.

The accident wasn't really the cause of my hiatus, but the pain and difficulty typing add to the factors that discourage me, together with the demise of most of Wikipedia's Featured medical content, as the focus on WPMED editors has shifted away from generating comprehensive top content (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2). We spent a year dealing with my husband's prostate cancer, where early diagnosis was missed by a LOT because his GP ignored PSA: the misinformation in the entire suite of prostate cancer-related articles was the most discouraging aspect, as well as the reaction I got when I criticized the biased articles and tried to update them to newer reviews. Get your PSA tested :)

Thanks for asking! And thanks for the fabulous attitude in the face of my relentless criticism :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention something positive, offsetting the fact that Wikipedia was reporting exactly the misinformation that led my husband's GP astray, and a three-year delay in prostate cancer diagnosis (we seem to have gotten the cancer, at least so far, the results are looking good). The good part was, coming to in a neurosurgery unit with my husband showing me the subarachnoid hemorrage article on Wikipedia ... which I realized was a Featured article written by the venerable User:Jfdwolff, and telling my husband that he could trust that article! It was a nice feeling, after the prostate mess, and I am working hard now to enlist more medical editors to help tune up the older FAs. I was so disappointed to see Asperger syndrome defeatured because the main author left, and no one has maintained it, and autism needs to be defeatured, along with most of the rest. Disappointing after all the work over so many years to keep those articles in top shape. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow.... that is a lot. I am glad he seems to be through the woods, too (no jinx!).

By serendipity, I happen to be talking with several autism experts. Geri Dawson is at Duke, Laura Klinger is as UNC TEACCH, and I have talked with both of theme about Wikipedia. I know that Laura is looking at the autism and the TEACCH articles. Cathy Lord did one of the assessment chapters that is in press that I mentioned earlier (there's an anxiety chapter by Phil Kendall's group, and Cathy Lord did the autism chapter). Tom Frazier is wrapping up as the Chief Science Officer of Autism Speaks, and he is a good friend. He's shifting to teaching at John Carroll University; he was previously the director of the Autism Program at the Cleveland Clinic. I think that all of them are likely to be amenable to learning how to edit, but they will have a similar learning curve to me as they learn what is similar and what is *very* different compared to academic publishing. I would very much welcome your thoughts and guidance about how to try to build on those relationships keep/get back to FA status, plus get multiple groups of academics engaged constructively. Another conversation I am having with Laura is trying to get multiple centers to engage together, possibly UCLA and UNC, or multicenter. They understand from me that they can't edit pages about their own work (which creates a challenge for Laura with TEACCH), and it would be fantastic to see if there is a way to get sets of new editors to help maintain NPOV. Best to you and your husband in the meantime! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

When you're trying to figure out how another editor did something, go in to edit mode and look at the raw text of their post there. For example, you can look at my post above to see how I entered the parargraph break. I use the old editor, not the visual editor, so I am unsure if you will see what I see. But to cause a paragraph break, you add {{pb}} (without the nowiki tags, which I added so that the pb would display without causing a break). Another trick I learned-- from User:Iridescent-- and highly appreciate-- is to put a blank set of colons before starting my post, because that makes it so much easier to find the separation between posts.

I would LOVE to have people like that on board to help restore autism and Asperger syndrome to their former state. As one very irritating example, right now there is a kerfuffle over at autism about Autism Speaks, which autism advocates consider to be a problematic organization because they advocate for a "cure" (groan)... so they want to vanish Autism Speaks from the article. And since no one at WPMED cares about those articles anymore, that kind of logic is sticking. When actually, none of the advocacy orgs should necessarily be mentioned in the article, unless they get significant mention in secondary sources.

Some background: I am a math undergrad, Operations Research (OR) grad (engineering at Stanford), with ZERO medical background. I worked in the oil industry, later switching to banking in Latin America. But I got a good sense of the problems with ascertainment bias and sampling bias in medical literature when I had endometriosis (realizing that none of the literature reflected cases like me, rather focused on worst case scenarios of those that came to clinical attention), and because OR is so much about stochastic processes and other statistical methods and modeling, I became interested in medical editing because I could so easily spot methodological and statistical issues in primary studies. But I need the doctors to work with me on content-- can't do it alone.

User:Eubulides was the editor who mostly built the entire autism suite of articles ten years ago, with my help. He did not divulge personal information, but I suspect he was an autism expert or epidemiologist. He knew his stuff, and I knew how to help him build articles, and together we cleaned up an entire advocacy walled garden of misinformation. Now, we have me knowing how to build medical articles, but no one on Wikipedia with any knowledge of autism, and very few medical editors with any concern about Featured articles. Technically ... I am capable of reading the most recent secondary reviews and updating that entire suite, but there is no chance I can do that work alone, or be assured that I am doing it to featured standards of comprehensiveness. Nor am I really interested: what I really want to do is get WPMED re-engaged to update ALL of the outdated Featured articles. The problem there is, if you look at the chart in my sandbox, some of the medical FAs have extremely high pageviews, and that's where we get the best "bang for our buck" in not spreading bad medical info on Wikipedia.

I could guide professional people in helping me add and correct the necessary content, but it is too much of a project for me to take on alone. I need to re-invigorate WPMED, which is what I have been slowly attempting to do ... to get it back to the collaborative venture that existed ten years ago.

And THAT is why I have tried to get them all involved in helping address the issues in the assessment articles ... to show that we can collaborate together to build better content, rather than focusing on whacking vandals at acupuncture or homeopathy, where those people are going to believe what they believe no matter what we type! So, that's my story, I will help guide your professional contacts to restore the autism suite if we can build up a better corps of editors to help, and we need to take things one step at a time. And if things don't start looking up soon, I'm too old to spin my wheels, and I have a lovely garden that beckons :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so! Thank you! I have been looking at the code (and use the old editor, not visual, now except when I am dropping in citations and making tables; both of those still much easier for me with the visual editor!). I just didn't recognize what I was looking at. I would have expected it to look more like the HTML for a carriage return. Now that I know what I am looking at, I see it clearly.

Okay, it sounds like we are highly aligned in goals. Working together should be able to avoid a lot of the missteps I made in early days and self-teaching mode. In terms of helping with your larger goal of re-energizing WPMED, I can try to help with other areas related to psychiatry and psychology. My network is strongest in bipolar disorder (which will not be my first choice about where to try to engage on Wiki until we have things better worked out), followed by autism, depression, ADHD, self harm, anxiety, and trauma/PTSD with personal or professional ties to content experts, and then eating disorders, substance misuse, disruptive behavior, and sleep as another set of looser ties. The points of controversy where intelligent people disagree and I have skin in the game are diagnosis of bipolar in youths versus DMDD (a diagnosis added by DMS-5, but not by WHO and ICD-11), and borderline personality disorder versus bipolar with mixed mood or rapid cycling. The meta-analyses are usually not controversial, and my work on translating and validating assessments is not controversial to my knowledge. Everything that I have written I have kept free (and I am working on better integrating CC BY tagging in my projects and products), and the HGAPS and SCCAP projects have focused on the "best of the free" measures available in class as priorities for Wikiversity pages (and Wikipedia pages, but I hit pause on that after the first round of feedback from you). The reviews we are prioritizing are written by others, though within the clinical assessment arena, it gets fuzzy because (a) it's a small niche, and pretty quickly everyone knows each other, and (b) my exchange with you helped convince me that we needed to share the methods and accelerate their uptake in other topics. So I have made a systematic campaign of collaborating with leading content experts to try to teach them statistical methods (such as Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis and logistic regression, plus naive Bayesian decision-making a la Evidence-Based Medicine), as well as hoping to get more to engage with Wiki.

Definitely it will be a big help to think together about next steps. With coordination, I am optimistic that I can be more of a force for good, and we can reinforce each other.

Another symmetry: When things were blowing up ten days ago, I took a break outside, and thought, well, if everything gets deleted, I will have more time for my garden! I am trying to find things that the deer won't eat before the family gets to appreciate them. We have sunflowers, gladiolus, and basil in a fenced enclosure, and they seem to be ignoring the coleus and lilies and irises I planted in other clumps. I fear that they may have snacked on the spider lilies while they were still bulbs. I'll know in another month or two. Gardening, cooking, and working out/physical therapy have become three dominant metaphors in my less formal scientific writing and my presentations. :-) My very best, yet again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a tool you might want to become familiar with, if you aren't already: Page view analysis. Go to the history tab on any article, and click on Pageviews, where you can adjust the time frame, add multiple articles, etc. You'll see in this example that autism gets around 5,000 hits per day, dementia with Lewy bodies (which I just brought to featured status) gets huge spikes whenever someone famous dies, ADHD and MDD get almost as much traffic as autism, and Screen for child anxiety related disorders is viewed about 20 times a day. So one decision to make is whether you want to focus on high view articles, or focus on one suite of articles that is underdeveloped, etc. The effort has to be enjoyable, and writing on a topic that doesn't interest one is no fun. The assessment articles just aren't having a big impact, and are probably most read by people who already have access to that information and sources. I'd like to focus on cleaning up the existing FAs, because they already have "good bones", but there is more than one way to skin a cat. And I often get on a roll and go through an entire suite of one topic. But there is SO much to be done on Wikipedia to clean up glaring misinformation, that I often just have to convince myself to pass by the bad but low-pageview articles, and focus on those that get more attention. ADHD has been bugging me for a long time; it has never been stellar and is plagued because too many editors with ADHD edit it and want to install pet theories (like autism).

Have you encountered User:Casliber? Cas is a practicing psychiatrist, as well as a member of WP:ARBCOM, and one of Wikipedia's most prolific FA writers. He wrote major depressive disorder around ten years ago, when I was the WP:FAC delegate-- he might be willing to help you/me/us/WPMED give it an overhaul (if needed-- I haven't looked). The problem with Cas is he is waaaaay too busy, and can't always fully engage, but always tries.

I'm aware that childhood bipolar is fraught, and think it best to stay away. I've been aware of that mess all the way back to these days. (On a separate note, I have long advocated that no information on Wikipedia is better than bad information, and I wish we could shoot a lot of content on sight, but we can't always ... so I try to avoid looking at articles that I know are going to drive me batty :)

Here's another sad story: attachment theory when it was featured 10 years ago versus attachment theory today, because the main editor left, and no one has kept it up. So there is plenty to be done; we just need more bodies and a focus of interest.

In the garden, what the deer don't eat, the rabbits will! I once built a house where I thought I was so clever to install 8-foot deer fencing around two landscaped acres, only to find I still lost half of everything to the rabbits, and some more to the woodchucks! My husband is all about native plants, and Lilium superbum is his favorite, but if the deer get a chance early in the year, they'll nip off the tops and we lose the lot. So I'm out everyday of May and June with my stinkum deer and rabbit repellant. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful exchange this weekend! It means a great deal to me, and I have been digesting it on many levels. First the gardening -- The lilyium superbum was a revelation. There were bunches growing around my grandparents' house, and I knew them as "narcissus," but hadn't found them at nurseries here. I found one that will sell bare root ones in season, but I will have to wait, most likely until the spring. I will do a bit more research. For the deterrent, are you using the peppermint based spray, or one of the more noxious ones?

On a more technical note, I skimmed the Runyon meta-analysis, and it looks favorable about the SCARED. I will go back and review the comments in more detail, and tomorrow night we'll work on revising the SCARED entry with more detailed comments and see what open questions remain. I assume you are watching the page, but if there are ways you will like to be alerted or consulted, please let me know your preferences (or the etiquette), and I will do my best.

I am meeting with Laura Klinger tomorrow to talk about ways we might work on improving content on Wiki. It's a working meeting, and we will are reviewing pages and discussing options. We will not make any substantive edits. Her plan was the read the pages about [Autism|Autism] and [Treatment_and_Education_of_Autistic_and_Related_Communication_Handicapped_Children|TEACCH], which she was surprised exists as a page. She's the director of the center, and didn't know of the page or the editors, so that is a good starting point in terms of "arm's length"! :-). What are your thoughts about the best methods for getting expert input in this sort of scenario? A couple years ago, I looked at Hypothes.is as a way of annotating a copy of a web page, but I am not sure that it is an effective solution here. Teaching the experts editing has been an uphill climb -- they are all busy, overcommitted, and it's not fun to feel like a beginner again. The number of people my age or older that I have succeeded in getting to make sustained edits is ....One. And you are corresponding with him. A third option, which has gotten traction, is to copy the Wikipedia page into either a GoogleDoc or MS Word document, and let the content experts drop in comments and make tracked changes. We used this method to get input on the KSADS page, and we have worked in the opposite order (start with a GoogleDoc, crowdsource expert input, and then clean and convert to a Wikiversity page) very effectively on Wikiversity pages.

In working with experts like Klinger, Frazier, Lord, Dawson, my inclination would be to copy and paste existing pages into a GoogleDoc and get their input that way (eliminating any barrier to entry for them). That also creates a buffer, where we are not going "rogue" making edits on Wiki pages. From there, I think that there are a couple different models of ways to refine the content before editing the mainspace Wikipedia page:

(a) We could share the GoogleDoc with you and other experienced editors. (A prototype for this is on a couple of our Wikiversity pages, where we have "stapled" a GoogleDoc with editing privileges onto the Discuss/Talk tab. Very few people venture there unless they know to do so, but that also eliminates the editing skills barrier to entry).

(b) We could move the suggestions from the GoogleDoc over to the Talk page. More convenient for you and the experienced editors, for sure; but a pain in the butt for novice editors (especially trying to convey the nuance of tracked changes or comments; ESPECIALLY since visual editor is not an option for talk pages. Holy Bad Design, Batman! Let's make the place where it would be least harmful for novice-editor/content experts to make suggestions the *most* difficult part of the interface for them to use!).

(c) We could start a draft page that shadows the existing one, and make edits to the draft page. That sounds bizarre at first blush, but it avoids the obstacle of having to use the old/non-visual editor interface to make the suggestions.

Of the three, the easiest for the outside experts I would like to try to help engage is option (a). The biggest problems I see with it are that it is an "outside Wiki" platform, and I would be very concerned about the optics of that for you and other proficient editors. Is there a way that we could set up a protocol to keep things transparent, and make sure that there is appropriate editorial input to maintain NPOV?

What I like about any of the three is that it is creating a middle layer of the "neural network" where learning and refinement can happen before moving content to mainspace. The current Wikipedia preferred models of "learn how to edit in your spare time, and then write a draft page, or make suggestions on Talk for others to move other" is creating a serious bottleneck to engagement and growing new editors. I am not saying this lightly. I can send my slides from my 2016 address at APA in Denver. The talk looks delightfully naive (if one enjoys that type of thing) in how easy I thought it would be to get a cadre to engage, learn, and make sustained positive contributions.

I very much welcome your reflections and suggestions. I would be game for trying a hybrid, perhaps with an extra layer, where the first pass is outside content experts working with a GoogleDoc (linked or publicized in a way that was not secret, but that also did not incur an expectation of editing or review for you and other Wiki editors), and then HGAPS editors move the content that they think meets MED MOS and other criteria over to a talk or draft page (which more experienced Wikipedians would then vet and move).

Lastly, I have been thinking about ways that we could work together to capitalize on our respective strengths and communities. I know that there are some initiatives to get Wikipedians library privileges at universities, and there are probably other ways of obtaining access. If you would like to have library privileges at UNC, or have colleagues that you would recommend, I would be glad to formally support the process. (I can't guarantee success, but I would do my best to be an effective advocate!). I also am wondering if it would be helpful to reach out directly to publishers. It strikes me that Wikipedia's emphasis on secondary and tertiary sources creates a gap, where many texts and handbooks are available in paper format, but not electronic versions. (This is creating some glitches for me in my teaching, as we are pivoting to online). If it would be helpful, I would be glad to explore options with publishers. Last, and most likely to succeed in the short term, I would be glad to work with editors in teams focused on projects, and use Zotero and/or the Open Science Framework to share PDFs and materials in the service of editing pages. HGAPS has a Zotero license, and we are gathering sets of review articles and organizing them by topic to make it easier to add quality citations to pages. It would be a simple matter to add experienced editors to the teams.

If any of these ideas sound helpful, please let me know. If you have other suggestions of ways to be helpful, definitely let me know.

Thanks, and best regards! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ack, tomorrow? On my iPad, let me get to a real computer to respond, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, but no worries. I can slow-play things, and she and I see each other several times a year without trying. Zero rush on your end! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, gotta get to it now, or it will fall between the cracks. Too much else going on, and going to the cabin at the lake for the holiday.

First, the garden ... the product I use is disgustingly noxious, because I have a real rabbit problem ... it is called Liquid Fence, stinks to high heaven, but it keeps them away. We started our Turk's caps lilies from bare root, and have a place where we order all our natives and wildflowers, bare root-- they survive the postal shipment. We have amethyst shooting star, Virginia bluebells, Jacob's ladder, wood sorrels, lots of others ... and an entire hill of a native garden and rain gardens to absorb runoff. But the Turk's caps are a favorite, and you have to seriously stink 'em to keep the rabbits and deer away when they are first budding.

Next, how to link an article-- you need two brackets. TEACCH.

I read your message with excitement ... until I got to the point of realizing that what will be easiest for all of you will be the hardest for me. And you are right that we want what is easiest for the experts. And I may not be the typical editor, or the best editor to advise you on best practice, because I am almost 100% Wikipedia-only. I don't go to the other WMF projects at all-- don't even know how to upload an image at Commons, and don't like editing off Wikipedia because it becomes too much to keep up with. I can give you lots of advice in other areas, but the person to read over your query is WhatamIdoing (WAID), as she can tell us who else to bring in to help you make those decisions. I know there is a group of you working at Wikiversity, and some of those editors will be better versed in how to set this up for ease of editing. And it should be set up in a way that doesn't depend on me ... because I'm old :) :) My preference would be to work in draft/sandbox, and to have them/you all ping me when something is ready for review and to be moved in, but I can see that is the least desirable for you and in terms of trying to get more people involved. But I will be a nuisance working with Google docs, for all those typing/tree-related matters we discussed above. So we need to better explore the possibilities.

The area I can be of more use is advice on sourcing and Manual of Style. On sourcing, it is hard for research scientists to understand that they have to set aside their typical way of writing, be very aware of WP:SYNTH and the need to reflect what the most recent secondary reviews and independent sources say, while relying rarely on primary sources (see WP:MEDRS) for biohealth content. If they start from the best sources, we are less likely to have any WP:COI issues-- unless they are the authors of those sources or too closely connected to the authors. And if that's the case, typically as long as they declare any COI, problems can be avoided. Of course, an article like TEACCH will have lots of background information that need not be MEDRS sourced. And of course Wikipedia has a house style, which I can help with. I have pinged WAID above, and she will help us figure out who else to bring in on the right setup. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sweet! It's the {{od}} tag that brought our sprawling conversation back to the left margin? (The length is my fault, clearly -- one of my favorite collaborators teases that I tend towards Tolstoy when the world wants Hemingway!). I realized that I have f***ed up the links, but held off fixing because you had indicated you were responding, and I didn't want to create conflicted copies. I went to browse your sandbox with the tables of FA articles needing review. I clearly have much to learn -- your "table craft" is impressive. Have you read Musashi's Book of Five Rings? I recognize and admire the mastery I see, even though I am far from mastering it yet myself.

Back to substantive stuff: I would really prefer to keep exploring ways to maximize your (convenient) engagement. You have been one of my two best teachers in Wiki (not particularly gentle, but extremely candid and constructive; and as we both know, life is too short for platitudes and polite BS).

Let's try this -- I'll use a GoogleDoc for early stage stuff, and try to use a draft page for next tier of curated suggestions. The "sandbox" doesn't work as well as hoped when engaging from the outside, for a bunch of reasons. One is egos -- having a draft in one person's sandbox immediately irritates peers who are essential contributors if we are going to achieve NPOV. Putting the draft in a student's sandbox has the unintended consequences of reinforcing anti-Wiki stereotypes, makes the link harder to find, and makes the best experts less likely to engage. For now, I'll pin the link to the GoogleDoc onto my userpage (especially if we are talking about Autism, given the volume of views and edits). We can iterate and evolve from there.

Also, when you have time, please let me know what I can do to help advocate and provide more resources (subscription access, Zotero, Open Science Framework, etc.

And, wow! That is quite a garden. I will be doing some homework to see what of that might survive a transplant to Chapel Hill! Thanks, yet again, on all counts! --The Bald Guy (my nickname among students!) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Darn it! I am worried about showing my mentor some progress, and my fingers and my nerves are letting me down. Is it kosher to go back and clean up technical aspects of my earlier comments? Thanks, yet again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes on the {{od}}, which stands for outdent. Best used sparingly, as it can be irritatingly disruptive in threads involving multiple people, and is sometimes used to derail discussions, but I thought we had threaded deep enough, and this is a conversation on user talk, which is different than article talk.

I am terrible at tables! Have not read that, but am taking "The Math of Life & Death: 7 Mathematical Principles that Shape our Lives" for cabin reading at the lake. My husband gets a kick out of giving me mathy stuff for birthdays, but I find they sometimes state the obvious. Perhaps like reading a pop psychology book for you :)

Yes, you can clean up all the typos and formatting you want on your own talk page. And you can generally clean up your own typos anywhere anytime. (And I make so many typos that I broadly authorize anyone to correct them anywhere anytime, as long as they're obvious.) Where you have to take care is only in not altering the meaning of a post in other places (Wikipedia space or article talk pages) after others have responded to it. You can alter a post as much as needed until/unless someone else has responded, and then it is better etiquette not to alter. When I am typing on iPad, I have so many difficulties that I often send the post as is, and go back and fix typos later. I don't know how people put up with me :)

Yes, I can see that sandbox won't work best for all of you, so I'll figure out how to deal with whatever you come up with. I've never worked with a group on google docs so it could be interesting! WAID is, again, the best person to let me/us know what we might do in terms of resources. Typically, I edit content where if the source is not indexed on Pubmed, we probably shouldn't be using it anyway, so I've never felt a need to have more ... but let's see what WAID says. I am also very close to a medical library, and there often ... per the aforementioned prostate.

Separately, one logistical problem we will have with autism is keeping work synced with what is in the article, as it changes often. What is there now is quite off, but it is not considered good editing to rewrite an entire article elsewhere, and drop it in all at once, so it will be important to go in stages. And I *always* leave working on the lead til last. Since WP:LEADs summarize articles, it seems backwards to try to write a lead first, before the article is finished.

If you're that much of a gardener, I'll have to get a complete list out of my husband. I forgot one of my favorites, which I learned to grow from seed pods ... Jacks-in-the-pulpit. Oh, and all the butterfly weed and milkweed, so we can raise monarchs. And of course, my peonies ... since I'm still an bi-coastal type, trying to turn granola :) I got a kick out of "not particularly gentle, but extremely candid and constructive" ... I will suggest it to the next person in real life who goes passive-aggressive on me! And where I live now, that's a daily thing! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Had a great conversation with Laura Klinger. She's going to have her team make a copy of the TEACCH page and suggest some edits, and I will run these by you (either as a GoogleDoc or making a section in my Userpage like we are doing with VMI), and we can discuss how to implement appropriate edits. She skimmed the autism page and looked at the edit history and immediately recognized the issues with advocacy group perspectives, and knows the history and nuance. We are not going to attempt to edit the page; we'll start small with TEACCH, work together, and decide together when & how to scale up. Looking forward to it! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I gutted that article yesterday because it was a wreck. It was a WP:NOT-a -directory, NOT-a-webhost collection of ancient primary studies. It still has a lot of issues, but less is a better starting place for rebuilding.

Yes, autism is beyond a mess, which is quite sad because in 2010 Eubulides had it in good shape. It took two knowledgeable medical editors (Eubulides and me) working together ten years ago to deal with the walled garden of advocacy issues (which are now back, along with dated info), so our best bet for now is to get you up to speed on how to edit effectively, before we tackle larger projects, which we will do via the VMI sandbox. We're on! I have to investigate some old medical history for my son just now, but I will get on VMI later this evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

New mentoring proposal

Good morning, Eric! Looking forward to hearing about your meeting. Meanwhile, I have an idea to help you create an article, start-to-finish. It will be an easy stub on something I have needed for a long time, as it is mentioned in many places, but has no article. Through creating this short and simple stub, I can teach you lots of stuff that you will find useful (I hope :) going forward.

Sources:

• Shin S, Crapse TB, Mayo JP, Sommer MA (2009). "Visuomotor Integration". Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Springer. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Harvey EM, Leonard-Green TK, Mohan KM, et al. (May 2017). "Interrater and Test-Retest Reliability of the Beery Visual-Motor Integration in Schoolchildren". Optom Vis Sci. 94 (5): 598–605. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001068. PMC 5443123. PMID 28422801.
• Fang Y, Wang J, Zhang Y, Qin J (2017). "The Relationship of Motor Coordination, Visual Perception, and Executive Function to the Development of 4-6-Year-Old Chinese Preschoolers' Visual Motor Integration Skills". Biomed Res Int. 2017: 6264254. doi:10.1155/2017/6264254. PMC 5804408. PMID 29457030.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

My idea is you will create a sandbox, eg User:Eyoungstrom/VMI and we will create this stub from scratch, which you will publish. I will teach you through this a number of finer points you may not have been exposed to, and you can do all the editing, while I comment at User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI. All we need is a stubby definition of VMI that can be linked in all the places where VMI is mentioned. And we will figure out whether to name the article Visuomotor integration or Visual-motor integration or Visual motor integration before you actually create the article. It will be short and easy. I will teach you lots of MOS stuff, standard medical citation format, how to categorize and tag the talk page, how to create redirects, how to decide how to name the article, how to find where it needs to be linked, etc.

What say ye? If you are game, just click on that red sandbox link, and start typing ... Visuomotor integration (VMI) is ... If you have a strong feeling about which of the three names we should use, you can start with that, and we'll figure it out from there. If you don't have a strong feeling, I'll show you what things we need to look at to make the decision, but we only have to do that when ready to publish to mainspace. I am thinking of basically a one-parapraph stub, which you can later expand with students if you want.

The first lesson is that you start an article based on finding high quality sources indicating notability is met, and after checking that the content doesn't better belong elsewhere. Those three are all I can find that provide a basic definition; you may have something better. The second lesson is that you can watchlist a red-linked (uncreated) page, and I have already watchlisted User:Eyoungstrom/VMI, so I'll know when you start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! Count me in. I have started the page. In re-reading your message, I am wondering if I am interpreting the scope correctly. Do you want the page to focus on Visual Motor Integration as a general construct? Or focus specifically on the test of that name that assesses it?

The VMI test is one of three most widely used in class, and I have given it a few times clinically. I used to teach it as part of the Clinical Assessment class. Are you familiar with the Mental Measurements Yearbook? It's an independent review organization, house at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. I will pull their reviews of it, too. Let me know a way to get PDFs to you if helpful. Other similar tests include the Bender Gestalt Test and the Koppitz scoring of the Bender. There are certainly others in similar space. Notability would be buttressed by the fact that there are three commercially distributed tests (at least) in that space, and there will be chapters describing them in graduate level textbooks on clinical assessment.

Let me know if I am going in the right direction. Looking forward to it! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Off to an app't, more later, I want to define the concept, the assessment tools would be elsewhere, maybe already exists, no time to check ... we just need a definition of VMI ... back home in about three hours, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will pivot accordingly. All best in the meantime!Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm back. As we construct this article, I'd like to conduct a very structured conversation at User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI, so you can use the feedback there as a roadmap for creating a teaching or student learning guide. Frankly, none of the Wiki Ed materials are adequately oriented towards biohealth content, and we can build that here. So, that means I will be putting some queries and comments here on your talk-- to avoid cluttering the roadmap-- and putting other comments at that talk page in a structured format, that will be different than a regular article talk page. In a regular talk page, sections are chronological, but in your own userspace, you have leeway to do things as you like. So I will set up sections there to discuss the different things you will want to remember for future instruction, and we'll work by those sections, which won't be chronological.

One reason I want to do this experiment is to create this roadmap, but the other is to help us develop a way of working together that may translate to larger efforts. This small effort should help us fine tune our Google docs v sandbox/draft/article methodology. And you'll learn some things along the way. Separately, I will email you so you can email me back any PDFs. And then I'll start in on the talk page there, with the idea that we will go very slowly and methodically, to build a teaching tool. (Be aware that I often forget to check my Wikipedia email, as I prefer Wikipedia work to be transparent, and most folks know not to email me if it can be said on Wikipedia-- if I forget to check my email, you may need to poke me here on Wikipedia. And I check use my Wikipedia email account from my iPad, so be prepared for a gazillion typos :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm back (again), ready to dig in. But the six-hour drive back home tomorrow. I looked in to Zotero, and (old dog, new tricks) I think we should stay on track for now at getting you up on some Wikipedia things, and then later figure out if I need to learn new software. I may be a one-trick pony ... used to the Diberri template for citations, and PubMed for articles. But we'll get to that ... first things first. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I hope that you had a great time at the cabin! I am looking into getting a Diberri "style" added to Endnote, Mendeley, and Zotero. If it works, that will automate things in a way that should reduce "newbie citation clean up" chores substantially. No guarantee, but I am optimistic. All best! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Is there something that you are doing that triggers the email alert that I have a new message from you? It's possible that it is a setting that I made in my User preferences a while ago but forgot about. It is a handy trick for people like me who are much more plugged into their email (for better or worse -- I suspect worse in a lot of ways). Cheers! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, just stopped for the day ... had a nice relaxing trip, good combo of gorgeous weather and rain so I could get some indoor work done, let me go remind myself how email alerts work. I forget :) I am very plugged in to my real email, but not at all to Wikipedia, because I so insist on transparency, and hate off-Wiki communication. I'll be back. Hope you had a good holiday and all weekend ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Found, the settings are on your end. Click on Preferences at the top right of your Wikipedia screen, click on the notifications tab, scroll down to "Email from other user", and choose whether you want web notification or email notification. I have web ... that is, Wikipedia tells me when someone SENDS an email. The problem is, when someone responds to an earlier email, you won't get another notification. You can always ping someone to your page to tell them you emailed them, or drop a {{ygm}} on their talk (Template:You've got mail). I'm off for now, pick up pack and clean up and drive tomorrow ... left you lots of typing in sandbox ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Boghog/Diberri citation filler

re: Zotero -- I am doing a little digging to see if there is a way to have it configure citations to follow your preferred Diberri format. It looks like there is not an off the shelf solution yet, but there are plenty of variations on Vancouver already built. [Here's] a current list. If you or someone familiar with the nuances wants to scan the list, or send a set of specifications for customization (e.g., three authors and then et al.; include PMID if available...) and I will contact the Zotero team directly about building.

With the specs detailed, I probably could also hack an Endnote output style (I've done that successfully a couple times in the past) to do what we want, but Zotero currently plays a bit nicer with Wikipedia. LMK what would be helpful next steps. To be clear, the goal is not for you to learn a new tool, but for us to work together to optimize an existing tool so that it is easier to connect with Wikipedia editing processes. :-) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And [here's] a similar menu of starting options from Endnote. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boghog: is probably best for this. If they do not know, we can try RexxS next.

Just home, detoured through a State park, hit a patch of wild lilies, Turk cap style, sending pics once I catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry -- created a conflicted copy. Thanks for the subsection -- good call! 01:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Etiquette question -- with a subsection, do we keep indenting where we left off in the parent section, or okay to start with a :?Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is your talk page, you can do whatever you want :) Sort of. Had it been an article talk page, I might not have sub-headed a post not made by me, but I wanted to help Boghog know what to read. In the parent section, yes we can continue with indentation of that conversation as if there Is no subsection. Hope this makes sense, long day, tired, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Got it. Sleep well! 11:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The most straight forward solution, if you have a PMID or PMC id, is the citation-template-filling tool. The EndNote and Zotero styles linked above are Vancouver format suitable for a bibliography in a Word Document, not as a Wikipedia citation template. Ideally we want to export the citation as a {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} template. Both EndNote and Zotero are capable of doing this, but it would take some work to define a custom Wikipedia/Vancouver style. It is claimed here that Zotero can generate Wikipedia citation templates, but I cannot locate any Wikipedia style in the Zotero Style Repository. I might be able to create one. Which bibliographic software (EndNote or Zotero) do you prefer? Boghog (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As described here, I discovered one can export a whole library in Wikipedia cite journal template format. However a quick copy of a single reference to a cite journal template is apparently not possible. Furthermore the exported citations are not in Vancouver style. It would take some work to create a new export style for Vancouver. Boghog (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been doing some digging, too. I want to continue pursuing this for a couple reasons, some specifically psychology-related:

(a) DOI is core to the APA style (required element in 6th and 7th editions of style);

(b) DOI is increasingly available for psychology articles;

(c) DOI is increasingly used in Open Science to identify code, figures, and other resources (figures being the most relevant for Wikipedia, probably);

(d) and, sadly, many psychology journals are not indexed in PubMed. Most of my core journals as a clinical psychologist are, but the more that the topic shades into counseling, community, psychodynamic, qualitative methods, or the Humanities, the less likely the journal is to be indexed in PubMed. PsycINFO and Web of Science are the commonly used databases in those areas (and ERIC in more education-oriented topics).

So, my hope is that if I can get reference management programs that have substantial usage in psychology to have an output style that better approximates Diberri/Boghog, that will make it easier to work with journals and topics that are outside of the scope of PubMed per se.

I am going to experiment with running a dozen references through the tool you recommended and a couple of the Vancouver variants to see what is the closest first approximation. I may post the results in my sandbox for you and others to review to see what the glitches and nuances are. More soon, and thanks! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

These are good points, and I had been contemplating posting to you about similar. We have multiple objectives here-- to make your editing easier, to make editing easier for others, to lessen the incredible and frustrating amount of work New Page Patrollers have to go through with student editing, and to get more psych articles improved!

So the first issue is that, if you all are to help on Featured articles, where citation consistency must be maintained, it will be useful to use the Diberri tool in instances where it reflects the existing citation style. I can't overstate how often I resent feeling like a secretary, spending my days cleaning up someone else's citations :) :)

But more importantly-- with respect to DOIs v PMIDs-- the problem is that we often see manual citations from students (that is, no citation template, and not even any consistent style-- just some amount of information that forces us to go figure out what the source actually is). That is permissible within WP:V policy, but we lose one of the strengths that citation templates and bots afford us ... if you provide a citation template with ONLY a DOI, or ONLY a PMID, a bot can fill in all the missing pieces. And Diberri always returns a DOI if you plug in a PMID. In other words, if we could get students to at least supply a PMID when one is available, or at least use citation templates, and remember to respect existing citation styles on Featured articles, we will have made progress. I typically tend to edit articles where I would expect any source used to be PUBMED-indexed, because FAs should only use the highest quality sources, and those are PUBMED-indexed ... I think? If we can get student editors to supply better citations, by any means, we will have lessened the frustration on established editors, and allowed them more time to focus on content rather than cleanup. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree about the multiple objectives. @User:SandyGeorgia, the pages of personal interest to you and to me both will usually fall in Project:Medicine and usually be indexed in PubMed. Getting other sources (DOI based) to work more seamlessly will be important for the portion of psychology (and the rest of the humanities) that is outside of scope for PubMed, so that will be helpful in the long game with GLAM and other pages. It also is helpful in cleaning up stubs and C- and B-class articles in WP:Psychology (which I have dabbled in as part of trying to be a good citizen and self-teach while staying away from pages in my realm of content expertise!).

I'll do some research on what the relative coverage of Psych and Education journals is in PubMed. There have been network analyses showing that the flow of information is asymmetric, too -- Psychiatry journal articles get cited in Psychiatry and Psychology journals both, whereas Psychology journals are more likely to only get cited in psychology journals (resulting in lower impact factors). The asymmetry of overlapping coverage in PubMed vs. PsycINFO is a contributing factor.

In the short term, this is not a big deal for my journeyman project on VMI. :-) It's much more about the long game.

Out of curiosity, how big a project would it be to link the Diberri/Boghog citation builder to CrossRef, GoogleScholar, or something that uses DOIs? (PsycINFO and Web of Science are behind paywalls, and CrossRef might be. If that is the main obstacle, I raise my hand to tilt at the windmill of negotiating access or an exception, like TurnItIn has done for the plagiarism checking).

Another thought on GoogleScholar -- it is making the citation impact of the author, journal, and article easier to find. Those are things that we emphasize as ways of evaluating sources, too, that PubMed currently doesn't make as convenient.

Lots to mull over.

Happy rest of Thursday! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

On the "Out of curiousity, how big ... ", BogHog or RexxS might know. Me, dumber than I look :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How big a project would it be to link the Diberri/Boghog citation builder to CrossRef, or ... ? Adding DOI search to the Diberri tool is not trivial. CrossRef (which is not behind a paywall) is probably the most straight forward to implement. The Diberri tool is written in the Perl scripting language and there is a CrossRef module for Perl which definitely makes things easier. However Perl is not my primary scripting language. No guarantees, but I will see what I can do. Boghog (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for considering! I know zero Perl, so I can't help with that; but I would be glad to beta-test. If there are any other ways I might be helpful, please let me know. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Info about coverage of Psychology in PubMed vs other databases

Hi, all! I worked with one of our wonderful reference librarians to get some sense of relative coverage of psychology topics in different databases. This is not precise, but still conveys that the majority of psychology journals are not indexed in PubMed. I had not understood how big the discrepancy is because the particular bubble in which I work overlaps more with medicine.

Here is a scouting report from her, copied & pasted with her blessing:

Pubmed: There are 5,200 journals currently indexed in PubMed: [list]. If I add “psychology” to that search it provides a subset of [224 journals] (but surely this misses some of the relevant titles). For any journals that have ever been indexed for PubMed: [list].

PsycINFO coverage is [here] -- currently 2285 journals indexed, so that is 10x (order of magnitude) more than tagged as psychology in PubMed.

Web of Science - https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results - you can search “psychology” under “category” and subcategories will appear (applied, clinical, etc.).

Google does not provide transparent information about content or date coverage for Google Scholar. Various studies have been undertaken over the years to attempt to evaluate coverage. I’ve attached a [fairly recent article] (2019), but I’m not sure about some of their methods (ex: they compare EBSCO databases to GS, but do not include PsycINFO (EBSCO is the platform we get PsycINFO through) or Academic Search which is a major EBSCO database; they also omit some of the most relevant ProQuest databases in their evaluation of ProQuest). The article does include Web of Science in the analysis (and I think Scopus as well). (The Gusenbauer article is long, and concludes that Google Scholar has by far the most extensive coverage, so again, a lot more psychology articles than would be in PubMed).

All of this is merely to convey the potential value of having DOI integrated into the tool. Zero pressure! This is data backing up the enormity the potential impact and appreciation! :-) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Any sense of why some are not Pubmed indexed yet others are? It is important to know vis-a-vis quality ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure! It's a matter of scope and content, not quality, per se. There are entirely separate databases for the humanities, chemistry, etc. [Here's] a list of databases organized by discipline. Psychology, for better or worse, is an "interstitial" discipline that overlaps with several others. What you and I are most interested in are pages at the overlap of Medicine and Psychology. The details above show the sprawl of psychology's "concept space" into lots of areas outside of medicine (some overlapping with the humanities, some with basic sciences....).

Even in our Venn diagram zone of overlap, where Psychology and Medicine intersect, relying only on PubMed actually introduces bias in coverage. Searching for "assessment of autism" or "autism treatments" in PubMed will find all of the good pharmacological treatments, imaging, and biomarker studies, but it is likely to miss papers about functional behavioral analysis, Lovaas treatment, behavioral interventions, and studies about screening tools or interviews for assessment. Journals that focus primarily on psychotherapy or psychological assessment are sometimes not indexed in PubMed, even though they are well-regarded within the field. Many of the psychology journals that are indexed in PubMed also get added more slowly than core medical journals. I'll send some thoughts on quality, but don't want to get burned with a conflicted copy while I peck away slowly. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So, because of the prioritization of biology in medical research right now, PubMed as a main source will skew towards biological research, drug treatments, and biological assays and imaging. If you talk to psychotherapy researchers and developers (I am not one by trade), the playing field wasn't level to begin with. NIH is not funding psychotherapy studies (and the exceptions have to include imaging or genetics, or both), and big pharma will fund drug studies, but not psychotherapy studies. So the therapy studies are harder to fund, take longer to complete, and may have a hard time getting into medical journals (where bio research is trendy).

re: Quality, If we made a list of the top 20 journals in Psychiatry and in Clinical Psychology, the impact factors in the psychiatry journals will be higher. That doesn't provide a direct indication of relative quality, though. Medical articles tend to be shorter, get reviewed faster, and they get cited by both psychiatrists and psychologists. So they have advantages in volume, speed, and size of audience. Psychology articles are longer (11000 words for a new research article in the top journals, versus 3000 to 6000 words in top Psychiatry journals), go into much more detail about the methods and the history and theory, and get cited by psychologists, but much less by psychiatrists. One of my favorite colleagues jokes that it is Hemingway vs. Tolstoy -- both are high quality, but the differences in style lead to differences in size of audience.

Speaking as someone who teaches and works in both Psychology and Psychiatry departments, there is no question that doctoral training in psychology goes into much more depth about research design and statistics. As a strength, it leads to much more rigorous work. As a weakness, it can turn to pedantry.

The Wikipedia article about the h-index does a good job of summarizing a lot of the challenges in comparing impact and how it is imperfect as a proxy for quality. LMK if this is helpful (or if I am getting into Tolstoy-zone, or, horrors, pedantry!). Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating, and very relevant for updating FA autism ... will have to rely on your knowledge of which are top-notch non-indexed psych journals for FAs. Some of what you have typed here should be summarized and posted to a whole new thread at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick VisualEditor followup

Eventual intended VE-for-taklkpages

A note about Visual editor and talkpages, ehenever you are editing a pageon WP (even talkpages) it turns out you can activate VE by editing the URL to include ?veaction=edit. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyoungstrom&veaction=editsource

Downsides = Can't edit just one section, and indenting formatting not yet supported.
Various VE-for-talkpages has been in the works for ages, but the latest upcoming attempt is here.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Intriguing! It has some interesting behavior (showing all the pb things as templates, etc.). Really good news for encouraging newer editors to work on the talk pages or drafts instead of mainspace, though. THANKS!!! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some topic expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I looked at it, and it is outside of my scope of expertise (though peripherally connected). I haven't deleted this for almost 2 years, because I had excellent intentions -- I know that this is something I *could* help with, but I have been preoccupied with other things at both work and life (as we all have been the last couple years). Best wishes for 2023! 18:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions about the General Behavior Inventory

Hi Eric,

Thank you for all the tremendous work you and your students have done (and are doing) to share knowledge derived from the psychological sciences with the public. You are making a difference!

I posted a couple of questions about the GBI on its Wikiversity page. If you or one of your students get a chance, would you take a look? I want to learn how to best use, score, and interpret the instrument. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mark! Thanks a ton for the poke! I have been busy off Wiki for a while, so I hadn't noticed. I am flying to Korea June 25, and am going to be much more active on Wiki after that. I will definitely hit this then if not sooner. I hope you are well! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Eyoungstrom. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Andres De Los Reyes, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The reason I bring this up specifically is on the De Los Reyes article under "Selected publications" it looks like there's a paper from 2020 where you're both listed as co-authors. My apologies if that isn't you. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for all of your help working on the bio pages! Yes, that is me on the paper. I am traveling today and will have variable access to the Internet, and family things for the holidays in the coming week, but I wanted to acknowledge quickly.

Specifics about the paper: It's a secondary analysis of data gathered on an NIH grant for which I was the principal investigator, and I shared the data, answered questions about it, reviewed some of the analyses, and reviewed a late draft of the paper as well as the revisions.

I had no role in picking the papers included on the page. At this point in my career, I have more than 600 publications (ORCID link), and probably more than 50 that included data from that grant and line of work or secondary analyses, so on the one hand, it's not a major percentage or piece of my work, and the connection is from a grant funded more than 20 years ago (NIH R01 MH066647).

"Secondary COI": Flipping that, because I am a senior investigator and almost never publish solo authored papers, there are probably more than 200 people who have published with me, so there is the opportunity for a lot of "passive" or "second hand" COI. I have reviewed the WP:COI you kindly linked, this morning as well as previously, and don’t see specific guidance about how to address (though I have done some things to be proactive about it — more below.) I have been aware of the possibility of second-hand COI  (which increases in probability, if we succeed in getting more psychologists), which is why I use my real name on Eyoungstrom and have linked to my ORCID and my GoogleScholar search as well as my page at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the HGAPS.org page. That ensemble of links and tools is there to be transparent and help editors and readers scope me out quickly to decide for themselves how they want to weigh any possible COI vis me. I stopped editing Wikipedia articles in my areas of primary expertise back in 2016 because of COI (which I didn’t understand as well previously) (and even though it pains me to see the state of many of those articles!). We are corresponding on my Wikipedia userpage, not my Meta one. Not sure if you are seeing all of those tools and links or not (I am still learning about having multiple User pages).

Additional Considerations: However, there are additional factors about this and a few other pages here that I would love help thinking through. The specific page here is one of a set I have been keeping my eye on as part of a Wiki Rapid Grant (linked) to link and add more material from conferences (which are almost universally closed and off-Wiki) to Wiki (including images in Commons as well as pages on Wikiversity and Wikipedia). There is a sister grant from the Association for Psychological Science to create a prototype and materials for working in the opposite direction, teaching researchers and presenters how to link more material and content with Wiki platforms. Both of these are listed on the Wikimedia User Group page for H-GAPS, and as well as on the HGAPS.org site. In addition, we have created Wikiversity pages about both projects (the one directly related to this page is here), both as a deliverable for the grants, and to increase the footprint of these projects on Wiki platforms. We have not created Wikipedia pages about the projects, because they are small grants, have not achieved WP:Notability, and we would have a major COI with editing a page on the topic! :-)

As a way of having *any* editing activity on Wikipedia, the project settled on the idea of working on Bios for speakers who had presented at a conference. This avoided creating new articles that might not get well developed in the timeframe and space of a small grant, and also creates a portfolio of sorts for the project. The team selected a mix of pages to edit, prioritizing women in science and members of historically underrepresented groups as well as some senior investigators, which would be helpful in terms of continuing to engage the societies (and also hopefully their teams). We are delighted that WMF also shares those values and priorities!

We are trying to do the BLPs the right way. Former students or current students are not editing pages of their mentors, for example. The arm’s length editors have been relying on what is online, in articles, or in other bios or CVs (where available) to work on the page. Some of the close paraphrasing and other glitches you have been helping us with are an unintended consequence of the arm’s length people being junior and unfamiliar with the content area, so it’s harder for them to move away from the scaffolding of the source materials they are working with. My edits on the page have been either minor formatting things or trying to help with the close paraphrasing, where I was rewording things or reorganizing, never adding additional content. Here’s one of the more extensive edits.

I have more that I am thinking about and will add, including some additional nuances that would be great to think through together. Because of the goals and the history of the grants, there are aspects that would be great to continue to be mindful of COI, and to get input about how to continue to strive for transparency and NPOV.

I am out of time for now. I will return to add links (as you kindly did!) as I have internet access and time, as well as more about the grants (though adding the links to the grants themselves on Meta and Wikiversity will help a lot). I may ask for other members of the team to drop the links on this thread – even though it is in my sandbox – as a way of getting you and other readers more information quickly.

We are grateful for the attention and input from you and other experienced editors, particularly since BLPs are complex!

More ASAP, and thanks!

Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Yo Jackson

Hello, Eyoungstrom. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yo Jackson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Yo Jackson

Hello, Eyoungstrom. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Yo Jackson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)