User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me

Problem with this suggestion

I think this is a great idea, but I just question the fact that you suggest people should come to WP for medical/emotional advice. While that'd be nice, WP has a disclaimer which says that WP should not be used for medical advice. I know you have good intentions, but I don't think we need to suggest that WP should be the source of all medical research. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that they "should" come to WP. I do believe that some do or inevitably will. The question is, are our relevant pages ready for them? They're not. And I don't condone giving advice, per se, but rather, we should present what resources are available, and report the protocols or procedures recommended by medical authorities -- the same approach taken on Wikipedia's medical-, health-, and first aid-related articles. Such as when 9-1-1 should be called (according to the experts, local authorities), etc. That's not medical advice, but would definitely lead them to a qualified source of it. Thanks for your feedback. The Transhumanist 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely understand, and think this is a great idea. I just wanted to bring that forward and make sure that wasn't one of the objectives of this endeavor. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that you are working in good faith with your suicide-related edits, but "focus should be on prevention, intervention, and treatment" is simply in violation of WP:NPOV. The article should be neither anti-suicide nor pro-suicide. On the main article, you replaced "Terminology" with "Intervention - suicide as a medical emergency" as the first section. That is the same as starting George W. Bush article with a section titled "Criticism - Bush as a political emergency". Prolog 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, on three counts. First, I replaced "Terminology" with "Suicidal phenomena", which is what is covered in that section. Second, Bush is a person, not an act or event. Suicide has laws and medical protocols established for preventing it which are directly relevant to the topic and to people looking up the topic. But, of all the people looking up the topic, it is escpecially relevant to readers in crisis, and that's what we need to take into account here. It has to do with relevance rather than POV pushing. Emergency response is the normal procedure in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world. Simply reporting that is not so much posing a position on an issue as it is representing the current state of affairs in society. Not to give it priority in presentation is to not give it its representative weight. Third, the pro-suicide/anti-suicide issue has very little or nothing to do with crisis cases, which are for the most part caused by depression. No major faction in any debate that I've ever heard of maintains the position that depressed people should be allowed to, encouraged to, or assisted in committing suicide. And it isn't hurting anyone to place the section on intervention first. All the rest of the material is still there. Scrolling half-a-screen or so down isn't a high price to pay for catering to emergencies first. The Transhumanist 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... No.

Have you not read our disclaimers recently? Wikipedia does not give legal advice or medical advice, and explicitly disclaims liability for everything. Please do not make any attempt to push Wikipedia as a "help resource for those in need", this is very a risky area – Qxz 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not "pushing" it, nor advertising it. I think the articles should be ready to assist better than they are, and they can do that without specifically advising. All I'm advocating is reporting what's out there, in the order in which crisis cases may need it most. The disclaimers still stand. The Transhumanist 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not saying the articles don't need improvement. But that header at the top of the page is the wrong way of approaching it, as is your description of the articles as "real-life help pages" on the Community Portal. These are not real-life help pages, they are encyclopedic articles, and we should not regard them or attempt to pass them off as anything else – Qxz 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life help pages are exactly what they are, by default. It only takes a single person to access them for the purpose of getting help. It is inevitable that someone in crisis is going to look it up on Wikipedia. We have to keep that in mind in terms of relevance of the material presented. So while direct advice may not be given, we can certainly report what others are doing, or what protocols others are following. That's the way the articles are written now, and I'm not recommending that we change that. All I'm saying is that the presentation is lacking (there's missing material, and there's less than optimal order of presentation). The Transhumanist 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that the language used in portraying this project is poor (no offense) so it seems that it's trying to get something done that it's not meant to do. The intentions are very good and like Transhumanist said, event if WP isn't meant to be a place to look for help, it will inevitably be one. Maybe the focus has been lost in the wording of this project. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at my description again. Thanks for the feedback. The Transhumanist 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Transhumanist 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of presentation on the suicide template

Reposted from the suicide template's talk page:

Intervention should be top and center. It represents how our entire society is set up to deal with suicide, and though it may be POV with respect to the issues pertaining to suicide, it isn't POV with respect to suicide as a phenomenon. Suicide is an act. An act which, like murder, arson, theft, etc., is against the law. Law is not just a view, it is a rule of society which has punishments attached, and large organizations of law enforcement and judicial personnel to enforce and adjudicate. To present all of that as just a view, is POV, as it skews the picture of what is going on in the real world. Also, society, from the top levels of government to local government jurisdictions to hospitals and the entire medical field, has policies and protocols in place and very actively implemented with respect to suicide in the form of emergency medical response. This is also much more than a view, and involves the expenditure of public funds, the employment of emergency service personnel, and the actions one can expect of almost every doctor. Phenomena and their epiphenomena have greater relevance and a higher position on the reporting hierarchy than issues about those phenomena. Debates or views about the issue of whether or not suicide is right or wrong are secondary to the presentment of what suicide is, and to the organizational measures put in place to manage it. These are physically relevent to the topic, not merely discussions or philosophical positions about the topic as views are. Somehow, in your interest of preserving NPOV, you've lost sight of that. Suicide is far more than just an issue. And so is society's very active response to suicide. The Transhumanist 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still gives too much weight on suicide intervention and suicide contemplation. Suicide, as the article states, is "the act of willfully ending one's own life". Therefore, articles that are directly related to ending one's own life should be first in the template. As you put it yourself: "Suicide is first and formost an act and event". Regardless of how society and medical persons react to it, suicide is always an act, done with a certain method. History of suicide and suicide methods are more related to the topic than suicide intervention and especially the likes of crisis hotline. I'm pretty sure that if there was a template on fire, prevention would not be on top of it either. If you look at its article, protection and prevention is the last section. Prolog 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is lacking. It should read "the unlawful act of". Also, saving the lives of potential suicide victims is directly related - that's why police, firemen, paramedics, and doctors are all trained to intervene. With respect to the norms of society, intervention is the most relevant subtopic. That's why emergency numbers are at the front of every telephone book and 9-1-1 is not only printed on every pay phone (in the U.S.), it's free to call. Because they are most relevant. The same applies to the treatment of emergency-related topics in the encyclopedia. We have to anticipate the needs of readers and what is most relevant to those in greatest need. So, if a person who is contemplating suicide accesses this template, do you believe it is better that he get a detailed description of how to do it, or that 55% of suicides blow themselves away with a firearm? That could only help him go through with it. And what if his mother was looking it up instead? Do you think she needs that first? No, she would need to get her kid into medical treatment as soon as possible. She may have looked it up on Wikipedia because she just didn't know what to do about it. In such situations, time is at stake, and every second may count. They can go back to the article and read the rest later after the immediate crisis is taken care of. You're not thinking in terms of the crisis cases. The order of presentation needs to be prioritized with respect to them. After all, Wikipedia is first and foremost a public service. The Transhumanist 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, correction: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia written by the public to inform the publiic. The Transhumanist 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post further discussion below the line

No, I disagree. While I agree that many of the articles listed on the page do need improvement, the suggestion to improve them so that they are more helpful to people needing help is a bad suggestions. Review WP:NOT.

The above thread, that is, of what order the names of articles should be presented on a navigation box, has already been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides in the debate. Concerning the list of articles on the page adjacent to this talk page, I'm glad we agree that the articles need improvement. If they are generally improved to the highest quality to which they can be developed, they will easily provide the information that most people would be looking for, including those needing help.

Purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, NOT to "help people"

Despite your noble desire to help people, Wikipedia is not the right place for this.

--Richard 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary motive of Wikipedia's goal is to help people. The Transhumanist 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your interpretation. Other editors have expressed similar opinions on this page. Read WP:NOT. If you are not amenable to resolving this dispute, the next step is probably a Request for Comment. --Richard 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mere interpretation. It's obvious. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information. If the underlying motive isn't to help people find information, then what is it? The Transhumanist 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting and important topic, both human-wise and wikipedia-policy-wise. I strongly second the proposal to add links/formality to this discussion, via mentions at RFC and VP(policy).

It might also be useful to use the very short article Help (and TT's recent changes there) as an example for discussion? --Quiddity 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I've experienced the devastation of suicide in my immediate family, so I fully comprehend TT's stance/proposal and his assertion that this topic merits special treatment (and care); but as it stands, the project conception is skirting very close to, if not in violation of, points #4 or #1 at WP:NOT#IINFO. Hence I agree with calling for help/guidance from some policy-grokking admins, and discussing before overhauling any more. --Quiddity 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide, continued...

I disagree. Look at the other encyclopedias. Encarta has it on the third page. [1] My written encyclopedia has just a couple of sentences near the end. Wikipedia should be no differently. Plus, I think this has been discussed many times before on the suicide talk page over the years. 129.120.193.101 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is different, and isn't bound by the same conventions as other encyclopedias. And this particular application of NPOV hasn't been discussed all that much in the discussion archives you mentioned, and when it has, there has been a very vocal element in favor of presenting relevancy, and a reluctance to provide coverage to advocacy and how-to descriptions. Suicide is a multi-faceted subject, and so NPOV has been discussed concerning many of its facets and corresponding issues (such as concerning someone trying to impose religious views in the medical section, whether we should we provide links to how-to sites, and "how much coverage should be devoted to methods?", etc.). The red flag of NPOV has been raised most often when the prospect of harming readers is discovered. And that's a good thing. So providing help resources for those seriously considering suicide or those trying to help them isn't NPOV, it is representative of our society's norms, and it is common sense. It is what is most relevant to such readers' situation. Also, Wikipedia's policies makes a provision for exceptions to all its rules -- so if NPOV or any other rule is an impediment to making Wikipedia better, the impeding rule goes away -- and providing helpful information on emergency protocols so that they are most easily found in the article on suicide certainly qualifies as an exception to impeding policies. But most significantly, if we err, shouldn't we err in favor of saving lives rather than encouraging their end? The first mistake can be remedied, the second cannot. The Transhumanist 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making sense of the suicide NPOV issue

The two main opposing viewpoints on suicide have to do with euthanasia. In that debate, those in favor of assisted suicide face-off against conventional medical (and religious) ethicists. That's where the big controversy is. But neither side in that debate holds the position that most people in a suicide crisis (such as that caused by depression) should be encouraged or advised to commit suicide, nor would either side in the debate support the withholding of crisis help information from such persons. No, because that's a whole different issue. The assisted suicide issue only becomes relevant for individuals in continuous pain and suffering usually due to a terminal illness or extremely debilitating condition, which goes beyond crisis management. So the NPOV policy applied to the suicide article allows for the euthanasia issue to be covered. Invoking Wikipedia's NPOV policy in such a way as to hamper the provision of community service information, to those involved in a suicide crisis who may be seeking or calling out for help, is inappropriate. The Transhumanist 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]