Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson)/Articles

dimensional approach to personality disorders

As the article does not appear to actually be about the topic and the changes made to the article do little to actually make it about the topic, after a relatively exhaustive search, I really think it should be merged into Personality disorder#Interventions. Your topic isn't mentioned here, here. In a few additional searches, this isn't clearly defined as a topic. I don't think it would pass WP:GNG and I suspect I might be able to get it deleted if I nominated it for deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

Some students either were not informed of the criteria for DYK or were inappropriately guided to articles. One article would have required an expansion of approximately 16,000 words in order to get to DYK length. Of the articles I reviewed, not a single one was close to being ready for DYK. Beyond that, with one exception, no one has responded to feedback yet. I'm not the only WP:DYK reviewer who is not getting responses back in a timely manner. As I and others are volunteer contributors and we're not being paid to be teaching assistants, this is frustrating. Students are being asked to engage in Wikipedia culture and either are being given improper assistance or are NOT following directions. Most of the articles will require major rewrites before they can be eligible for DYK. These reviews take time... and we are doing the work by helping students... and the students are not holding up their end of the bargain. (At the same time, they burden the system because none of the students submitting DYKs have reviewed other DYKs themselves. This should almost have certainly been done BEFORE the students wrote their DYKs to demonstrate that students understood the criteria the community would judge their own work against. Because yes, frustrating and annoying to have a whole classroom full of work where not a single article looks like it will get through DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least five articles on the Big Five in the DYK queue right now, that contain much of the same information: Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five, Big Five personality traits and culture, Change in the Big Five in (Change in personality over a lifetime}, Five-factor model (in Dimensional models of personality disorders) and Personality and life outcomes - basically about the Big Five — all these nominated for DYK right now. And maybe more. I haven't checked them all. So all these new articles on the "Big Five" make sense? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the Big Five

MathewTownsend wondered whether the big five merited multiple articles about topics related to it. In my opinion, yes. However, I and my students are certainly open to suggestions for change. The Big Five is a major topic that occupies massive amounts of scientific effort. It is a dominant model in personality psychology (and not my model, to be sure). In fact, I believe it is woefully underrepresented on Wikipedia. A quick search revealed 342 scientific articles published on the big five in 2011/2012 alone, and 2424 articles published since just 2000. If you look at the specific traits within the model, you add thousands more scientific articles: extraversion (9189), agreeableness (2860), conscientiousness (3636), emotional stability (2493), openness to experience (1917). Each of these traits alone could itself possibly merit multiple pages. I would guess it is no smaller in scope and importance that Positive Mental Attitdue (1 C, 38p) in social psychology, Tissue Engineering (12 pages) in biology, Acoustic Fingerprinting (15 pages) in physics, and Stink Bug (7 pages). We went through a careful procedure of article selection, following the recommended syllabus by the course program. Students first explored the content area, then they listed about 4 possible articles to write and elicited feedback from the community. They modified their selections based on feedback from the community and me, and then selected one of the four to write on. They then wrote a sandbox draft and elicited feedback on that. They responded to the feedback from the community, the ambassadors, and from me, and then finally posted their article and nominated it for DYK. All along, they read guides, files, and wikipedia pages about article selection and DYK. We had multiple course discussions about the selection. It is possible that one or two of these articles are not distinct enough, but I think they are, and this judgment is based on careful investigation and following of Wikipedia policy. William Fleeson (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the "Big Five" is a "dominant model in personality psychology". But your students, through their articles, are presenting it as the dominant model. Further, they seem unaware of the history of factor analysis and other statical means of defining factors or dimensions. So their articles present a very distorted picture of the current situation. Yes, DSM-V is going to include dimensions, but no where have I seen it documented that the "Big Five" is more important than other personality assessments using various statistical methods to define factors or dimensions. Could you provide some evidence? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]