Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

DSM-5 plan of action

Couple of questions...

1) Is there a plan of action for updating references from DSM-IV to the DSM-5?

Ex. On the main page for this project, under the resources heading, there are links to the DSM-IV codes. Do we want to update that?

2) Speaking of codes, is there consensus here about always using the ICD-10 codes from now on?

It looks like there's been some attempt made to keep the info boxes consistent, but IDK if that stemmed from this project or WP:Medicine or if on this project we have an opinion about it. Info boxes on most WP:Psych articles list both the ICD-10 code and the DSM-IV code that corresponded with the ICD-9 (see bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder). There are stragglers that were never updated to the ICD-10 (see bipolar I disorder). So if I were to update an article like bipolar I disorder, should I leave the ICD-9 stuff and add ICD-10? Seems to me that we should work towards removing the ICD-9 codes completely at this point.

4) Do we generally try to keep the terminology in articles consistent with the current version of the DSM?

Ex. What was Substance abuse in the DSM-IV-TR is now substance use disorder-mild in the DSM-5 and substance dependence is was changed to SUD-moderate or severe. It bugs me having the outdated stuff there, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's an argument for keeping it. (I'll make a separate post later about the outcome of the 7-month old discussion to merge/not merge certain SUD-related articles that I just read on the substance dependence talk page. It seems like they thought SUD only replaced substance abuse in the DSM-5.)

5) Has there been any discussion about how to handle references to the DSM-IV that no longer apply in the DSM-5?

Ex. Polysubstance dependence was removed from the DSM-5. I miss it, but it's gone. Clearly the article needs at least one sentences addresses that, but is it due the same amount of weight as before?

Permstrump (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the topic, but Wikipedia is sometimes accused of being U.S.-centric, including by the medical community. I am not opposed to including information about any version of DSM in any article, but of the two systems (ICD and DSM), if one takes precedence it should be ICD because it represents a worldwide view. Even in the United States insurance companies require ICD. For the record I am an American with a Ph.D. in psychology and a medical degree, but I do think we should be sensitive to the issue of Wikipedia being written for worldwide readership. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be rigorous one way or the other. Our terminology should be based on the literature as a whole. DSM and ICD are very important parts of the literature, but they shouldn't be the sole determinants of our terminology. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Any medical diagnostic system for psychopathology has many shortcomings. There are other diagnostic systems, but they are not well known and thus rarely used. But as far as coding and official names for disorders are concerned, ICD should take precedence. Sundayclose (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose and Looie496: I agree that the ICD should be the default. Is there a reason to standardize info boxes on articles that talk about specific psychiatric diagnoses? It looks like some effort had been made previously. Some disorder still only list the ICD-9-CM's equivalent in the DSM-IV (e.g. bipolar I disorder says ICD-9-CM 296.7), but most articles were updated at some point to list both the ICD9CM and the ICD10 codes (e.g. bipolar disorder says ICD-10 F31; ICD-9-CM 296.0, 296.1, 296.4,296.5, 296.6, 296.7,296.8). If there's a good reason to standardize the info boxes, IMHO we should delete the ICD-9-CM codes completely and only use the ICD-10 codes.

As a separate thing, the DSM is the international standard for research for now, so the vast majority of peer-reviewed sources that are cited in articles covered by WP:PSYCH will refer to the DSM, so I think there's a good argument to use the DSM in a consistent way across psych articles. IMHO it's important to clarify which articles are about conditions that exist in the current version of the DSM (and therefore also the ICD) vs articles about terms that are used colloquially or by pop psych writers who coin buzzwords for book sales. I think the articles on lovesickness and obsessive love are good examples. Note: I did update some of the phrasing in both leads a little bit recently. I liked the way the previous version of lovesickness said in the first sentence that it was informal terminology. I'd want to tighten up obsessive love in a similar way, but I haven't done that yet, because that's kind of part of this question. Permstrump (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • FYI there's actually an active proposal initiated by someone on WP:MED about moving the current standard infobox on med-related articles (which includes a lot of articles that fall under psych too) from the top to the bottom of the page. They're not talking about deleting ICD9 codes, but figured I'd point it out since it's kind of related. I guess the WP:MED people must have been the ones that standardized the infobox on a lot of the psych articles like bipolar disorder since I think this project is a branch of WP:MED. Permstrump (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This project is independent of WPMED, but psychiatric disorders are an area of overlap for the two. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor comment: I wouldn't agree entirely that DSM is the international standard for research. The actual alphanumeric codes are rarely used in research. The verbal descriptors of disorders may or may not conform more to DSM rather than ICD. I would agree that a lot of research uses DSM terminology, but I wouldn't say that DSM is the "standard" for research worldwide. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I should have worded the segue into the second paragraph better, b/c when I started talking about the DSM being the international research standard, I didn't mean the codes. I only meant the terminology and criteria. Maybe standard was a strong word, but the DSM criteria are used the majority of the time for research so that researchers can use the same tools for measurement as people in other countries and be able to compare their findings. I can't find the exact article, but this one says the same idea. My point was mainly that for the people who actually like to read the original source that was referenced in an article, it would be easier for laymen to understand if the language in wikipedia was consistent with, or at least explained the difference in, the terminology used in the sources cited within that article. Permstrump (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: Nations and intelligence

Please comment on Talk:Nations_and_intelligence#rfc:_Lead_section. --The Master (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please visit and help

Hello friends. The following articles could really use some neutral input:

Many, many, many, and I mean many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifying Autism spectrum diagnosis

I occasionally review the list and categories of people with autism spectrum disorders, to verify the items that are added to them. I remove an entry if I find evidence that it is based on something that is plainly not an expert diagnosis. For example, I remove people who self-diagnosed.

This is what I recently did at Gary Numan. There are two relevant citations in the article. In one, Mr. Numan says that he has an Asperger syndrome diagnosis and "it makes a lot of sense." But what sort of diagnosis? The other source gives more detail: Mr. Numan's wife suggested to him that he had the syndrome, so he took online questionnaires and then announced to the world that he has it. That is self-diagnosis, open and shut. He could, hypothetically, have obtained a separate expert diagnosis. That's something he can clarify, and until he does, it's mere speculation against his own words. I removed the category, but other users have restored it, claiming that the former source contradicts the latter. They don't contradict, they are just separate statements that give different details. I believe that the category should be verified from all available information, not part of it.

Question (for discussion on the article's talk page): Is it proper to remove an autism category because a person has publicly admitted self-diagnosing? Or should that admission be ignored because it wasn't repeated on another occasion? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure if it's better to cite WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP for that one. Permstrump (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pica comorbidities

The lede paragraph of Pica (disorder) included the sentence

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and they often have psychotic comorbidity.

The writing is awkward. I think what was meant is that pica often has psychotic comorbidity, not that the mental and emotional disorders do.

I have rewritten it as

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and often has psychotic comorbidity.

But this should be checked by someone with the relevant medical knowledge.

Also listed at Talk:Pica (disorder)#Comorbidities and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Pica comorbidities. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ulysses syndrome

Hi, I have just joined this WikiProject. I've been editing the article on Ulysses syndrome, but have noticed that there seems to be two different definitions of the syndrome.

1. A set of symptoms experienced by migrants following migration:

2. The ill-effects felt by patients due to a wrongfully diagnosis:

Would it be more appropriate to split this article into two articles in order to address the two different definitions? I am not an expert in this topic, perhaps the definition regarding symptoms experienced by migrants refers to a wrongful diagnosis of a disorder. That's what this article seems to suggest in the bottom paragraph of the second page. Thanks! LoudLizard (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that we should have an article with this title at all. For the first use the only sources PubMed finds are two articles in Spanish from 2005 and 2006; for the second use the only things found are two articles in an obscure journal from 1992. The other sources listed above are not compatible with our guidelines for appropriate sources for medical articles, as laid out in WP:MEDRS. There are no signs that the term is actually being used, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Psychiatry

I was just clicking around Democratic Psychiatry and some of the other articles that Hoary mentioned above and found myself on the Anti-psychiatry page and... it's a mess. The first 2 sources I checked randomly had nothing to do with anti-psychiatry. From a quick skim, I'm pretty sure it's going to need a serious cleanup. I got the sense from the talkpage that there's a lot of poorly sourced information backing up ideas about psychiatry that stem from scientology. Permstrump (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The article keeps banging on about Szasz, who seems pretty radical; yet the article on Szasz says "He served for most of his career as professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York [and was a] distinguished lifetime fellow of the American Psychiatric Association [... who] maintained throughout his career that he was not anti-psychiatry [...]." I infer that anti-psychiatry doesn't seem to mean any one thing. If I'm right, this wouldn't make an article inappropriate or impossible, but it would bring a need for subtle exposition and careful organization. Where some WP:FRINGE ideology has demonstrably had a real world effect, I suppose that it must be written up, but I'd hope that the article wouldn't aggrandize any pseudoscientific or cult beliefs. And sorry, but I can only observe this from the sidelines. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I only heard the term "antipsychiatry" yesterday for the first time myself too, but from the couple of articles I read, I think you summed it up perfectly (my understanding of it, at least). It's confusing, because, like you said, a lot of people who were labeled "anti-psychiatry" had widely different views from each other. I get the impression that in the 60s and 70s, the term was used as a kind of catchall snarl word for anyone who criticized Establishment Psychiatry, so there were practitioners, patients and laymen who opposed things like frontal lobotomies and longterm involuntary commitment in asylums that were labeled as anti-psychiatry and lumped together with legit mental illness deniers like scientologists and Szasz (to an extent). If anyone's interested, Szasz's obituary in the NYT helped me make sense of how his views fit into the big picture and RationalWiki has a pretty good, but snarky, article on Szasz too (obviously RationalWiki isn't RS, but it was a good read for getting a understanding of the forces at play). Permstrump (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's clear that there was also quite a bit of rancour among some of the various factions which, rightly or wrongly, have been widely called antipsychiatric, with one faction claiming that the opposition of another to conventional psychiatric practice was spineless or meaningless, etc. Complicated further by alliances with this or that political creed or organization (and raising questions such as that of the meaning -- in relevant contexts, not recent US federal politics -- of terms such as "libertarian"). And the somewhat cultish regard for certain figures, who had spokespersons who may or may not have misrepresented what those figures actually thought or said. Urghhh. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The article "Thinking critically about scientology, psychiatry, and their feud", cited in the article, is a bit of an eye-opener. Here's how it starts: For many Americans who gain their information solely from television, all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists, [...]. The mass media has been highly successful in convincing Americans to associate criticism of psychiatry with anti-drug zealots from the Church of Scientology, the lucrative invention of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. That was published seven years ago and things may have changed since. But so far as it's true ... neither American nor a watcher of TV, I'm amazed (and appalled). No wonder the cult has its toehold in that article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Basaglian psychiatry

[Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, as suggested by Ozzie10aaaa] Over at the apparently sleepy page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, I've posted a request about the article Morire di classe (a book coedited by Franco Basaglia) and a couple of questions related to "Democratic Psychiatry" (founded/championed by Basaglia). If you know anything about this kind of thing, please take a look and respond there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hoary I'm responding here because even though this wikiproject is slow, the WT:Medicine/Psychiatry task force looks dead-dead and some of what I have to say ties into the conversation we're having below too, so it just seemed easier to keep the conversation on the same page. I haven't read the entire Morire di classe article yet, but so far it looks really good. I'm up to the section on book design.
It looks to me like the editor(s) who contributed a lot to the articles on Democratic Psychiatry and Franco Basaglia didn't speak English as a first language. "Democratic psychiatry" is clearly a direct translation of the Italian phrase into English, but it might not the best translation. I have a hunch that it's equivalent to the concept of "community psychiatry" that was popularized in the 60s, that refers to similar reforms that Basaglia was arguing for: deinstitutionalization, humanization of patients, civil rights for people with mental illness, etc. I tried to start a thread on wordreference.com to ask for input on the best translation, but no one responded. It's probably too jargon-y, like, even as an English-speaker, I never heard of "community psychiatry" until I started working at a clinic called Blah-blah-blah Community Psychiatry and I didn't know it was tied into the psychiatric reform movement of the 60s until yesterday. Maybe there's someone on Wikipedia to ask who would know the best translation?
I can't exactly tell what the democratic psychiatry article is supposed to be about, if it's about the organization or the movement. I think that's your question too, right? From what I've read, it seems like Basaglia is usually considered as part of the ill-defined antipsychiatry "movement" and so are a lot of the people you listed as contributing to Morire di classe (Goffman, Foucault, etc.). But like we were saying in the thread below, a lot of people who were labeled as antipsychiatrists rejected the title, so that probably partially explains why the Basaglia article is categorized as anti-psychiatry yet the editor was trying to distance Basaglia from the term. I think another reason might just be the current state of affairs over at the Anti-psychiatry article. I wouldn't want to be associated with that either. :-P Permstrump (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the question. Imaginably psichiatria democratica is a term that's only used by members of, and other people close to, Società Italiana di Psichiatria Democratica; while the concept is actually close to that of community psychiatry. Conceivably the meanings are near identical. But if they can be teased apart, well, [analogy] probably only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's readers are interested in any difference between "free software" and "open-source software"; but there is a difference, and informed, energetic editors have been able to write it up coolly. True, for most people a desire not to be mistaken for a "scientologist" would be reason enough to avoid any label that's also applied to that bunch, but I think that avoidance of the term predates much awareness of "scientological" comments on psychiatry. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hoary: I finished reading the Morire di classe article yesterday and I don't really have any suggestions at all. I thought it was really well written and concise and the discussion of issues re:psychiatry and the people involved was clear and accurate. It made me want to take the book out of the library. :) Permstrump (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

See Talk:Bipolar_disorder#RfC:_Is_the_happy.2Fsad_mask_in_the_infobox_section_appropriate.3F Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Permstrump (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of people with mental illness and other disabilities: Comments requested

Comments requested at 2 ongoing discussions:

Permstrump (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Misfortune"

The usage and topic and primary topic of Misfortune is under discussion, see talk:Misfortune (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplication in articles on consanguinity, incest, etc.

Participants in this project may be interested in a discussion I have (hopefully) started on the WikiProject Law's talk page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

I have the feeling that the new article Structure of Temperament Questionnaire might benefit from the attention of someone in the phychology field! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to those who jumped in and helped. But wait: there's more! Activity-specific approach is from a related editor methinks. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hypercorrection

Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in the following discussion: Talk:Hypercorrection#Adding hypercorrection section for psychology. Expert help would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on my Individual Engagement Grant talk page about my proposal for Guided Checklist for Health Topic Experts

Hello everyone,

I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of new health topic expert recruits does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health articles on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.

My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Additionally, because many of the health articles are shared, I'm inviting people who are active in WikiProject Psychology to comment and participate. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page on Meta. Or endorse if you support the idea. Going forward, I'll keep this project updated on the proposal. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help with Samuel Slavson article

Hi everyone, I just finished translating the article on Samuel Slavson from German to English. I've done all the translation proper, but need someone to proofread it. Additionally, I've been having trouble finding English-language sources relating to Slavson and his work on the internet, so it would be great if anyone here with access to a college library or anywhere else with large archives of psychological work could dig up some more sources for the article and expand some of the sections. This is also the first article I have ever created or edited on Wikipedia (yay!) so I'm bound to have forgotten or messed up some of the technical things relating to article categorization and so on. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at that and fix it. Please bear with me, I'm still learning the ropes around here. Thanks! Commissaress (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be asking the same favor soon, so I want to pay it forward. :-P I'm not sure when I'll have a chance though, but this project isn't super active, so I wanted to at least say a little something so you knew someone saw this. P.S. I've never created an article before either, so the most I can offer is probably a second pair of eyes for general editing . You'd probably still want to have a more experienced editor look at it. If you know of any specific articles behind paywalls, tell me the titles/authors and I'll check my work database. I'd probably be able to get almost any journal article, but it's less likely that I'd be able to find ebooks for most book sources. PermStrump(talk) 01:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :) I don't actually know of any specifics since psychotherapy isn't really my field, and I didn't know much at all about Slavson and his work before doing this article - I just thought I could help with the translation. But some general editing would definitely be helpful. Commissaress (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I made some minor tweaks and put some invisible comments in a few places where I wasn't quite sure what it was supposed to mean. I can't read the original sources, so I don't know if all of the statements come from the existing sources or if some of it still needs to be sourced. Once it's properly sourced though, I think it will be good. PermStrump(talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Behavioral Genetics

Hi all, I'd like to add Behavioral Genetics as a "Basic Type" to the sidebar on the psychology page. I've initiated a discussion on the talk page for the psychology sidebar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Psychology_sidebar . My take on the sidebar is that BG is as basic a type of psychological inquiry as are many of the other basic types already listed, including differential, evolutionary, cultural, personality, cross-cultural, etc. BG has as rich a history as these other subfields (starting with Galton, a founder of several areas in psychology). Please let me know. If I don't get any responses soon, say within a week, I'd like to go ahead and add BG to the sidebar. I'm also working on expanding the behavioral genetics page, to have better representation on wikipedia. Vrie0006 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As a professor of psychology at a major research university, I also agree with this. Behavioral genetics is a key area of inquiry in behavioral sciences, is well represented in the major journals of psychology, and is a funding priority for NIMH. It's frankly surprising that it isn't there already! --Mckeller7 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it is surprising it is not there already, given its prominence in journal publications and in grant funding. It is a subarea of psychology in a number of top research universities in the US and internationally. Nf003 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Barnaby B. Barratt

Dear psychologists: Is this draft about a notable psychiatrist, and are the references appropriate?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we reply here or to the old conversation about it from 2013? I didn't see a more recent conversation in your link. Am I overlooking something? Permstrump (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is in mainspace now. Sorry I didn't see the reply; in any case I couldn't find another posting about this page besides this one. Thanks anyway.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"

The usage and primary topic of Disturbed is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. Disturbed (band) → Disturbed Disturbed → Disturbed (disambiguation) would dislocate the dab page direction to Mental illness In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Highly sensitive person (HSP) legit?

Hi guys, I'm not part of the ASP or the Psychology task force, but sometime ago I came across the Highly sensitive persons article and it's haunted me ever since. Upon googling it I found many others online asking; Is this legit, or a scam? I nominated the article for deletion but it didn't stick. Most of the sources for the article cite Dr. Elaine Aron; the creator of the concept (who has specifically avoided it becoming a diagnosis, preferring to keep it as a personal concept of hers [which she occasionally claims "sensory-processing sensitivity" is the true scientific name of).

It just seems to my skeptical brain that she has fairly open criteria for declaring people "HSPs", including anyone who is "overwhelmed by such things as bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens nearby?" - is "bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes." - "annoyed when people try to get me to do too many things at once." - or anyone who tries hard to "avoid making mistakes or forgetting things." - or who tends to be "very sensitive to pain" and the suggested cure to these symptoms seems to be buying one of Dr. Elaine Aron's books or seminars from the store front page of the official Highly Sensitive Persons website, run by Aron or to perhaps buy some merchandise from the website for SENSITIVE: THE MOVIE a feature length film on the topic. The incredible trailer for which has a testimonial from the singer Alanis Morissette. Dr. Elaine Aron also runs horse retreats for Highly Sensitive Persons to meet Highly Sensitive Animals.

Anyways, I'm fine with someone having a cash cow; I'm just not fine with Wikipedia being used to legitimate or promote that cash cow. Any feedback or help or even dissenting opinions are welcome. I'd just like to bring the article to wider attention and see what others want done about it. Thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Highly sensitive person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jobrot: It's legit in the sense that it seems to have enough notability to warrant an article. But is it a legit condition? I don't think so and I don't see anyone else in the field taking it seriously, just lay coverage in Huffington Post, etc. I doubt the people studying sensory processing disorders are using the terms synonymously. She must have had a good marketing team. I guess I don't see it getting deleted, so probably the most that can be done is making sure the tone and weight are in check à la WP:PROFRINGE. PermStrump(talk) 18:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) characterizing HSPs is definitely considered a legitimate concept by reliable sources. It is monumentally frustrating and needlessly time-consuming to deal with Jobrot's persistent pursuit of the above reddit-inspired WP:PROMO conspiracy theory, still pursued despite his having garnered exactly zero editors to endorse his failed AfD. Partially echoed above, hIs AfD's comments demonstrate his pervasive misconceptions, and the AfD was launched based on his personal suspicions supported by exactly zero reliable sources. Besides abundant lay sources, hundreds of journal articles study, accept, use and even extend the HSP/SPS model (not "just Huffington Post etc" coverage as PermStrump wrongly claims): HSP/SPS is far from a fringe theory. I urge informed editors to contribute here, to put the conspiracy theory to rest, once and for all. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually the outcome of the AfD was "...cleanup to remove promotionalism, and consider merging with Sensitivity (human)". - which in my view is a clean up that should be done with WP:PROMO (obviously), WP:PROFRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY in mind. I think it would also be good to create an article on SPS and merge HSP into it, or failing that merge HSP to Sensitivity (human) as per the recommendation of the AfD. PermStrump Thanks for your advice. I hope all reading this thread take it in WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cziko AfD

There is a deletion discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Cziko if you would like to weigh in on this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Prenatal and perinatal psychology

People might be interested in this AFD for the article Prenatal and perinatal psychology. The article is basically an arbitrary mix of statements related to prenatal or perinatal something, so it's hard to tell if there is actually a unified subject worth talking about. I think there might be a fringe group, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for an article as the terms are so broad that it's hard to google. PermStrump(talk) 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Photographic memory vs. eidetic memory

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help assess a draft at AFC

Is User:Lukendo/sandbox/identity The Self Perception Questionnaire a notable topic? Do sufficient acceptable sources exist? The current draft is quite promotional, so if it is worthwhile developing it will need quite a bit of work to get it into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment there. —PermStrump(talk) 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New Wiki-GLAM Project at the Wellcome: focus on Psychiatry & Mental Health

The Wellcome Library and Wikimedia UK are jointly supporting a Wikimedian in Residence, and the residency will focus on the history of Mental Health and Psychiatry. Please consider getting involved WikiProject Psychology members!

Ways to get involved include:

  1. suggest pages to be created or developed at editathons
  2. attend editathons here at the Wellcome or host a satellite event somewhere else
  3. suggest or plan events / talks / activities that could happen in conjunction with editathons
  4. … or something else – feel free to suggest things!

Thousands of images from the Wellcome have already been uploaded (take a look at the project page to find them), and the residency coincides with a project to digitise historical records of key UK psychiatric institutions and personnel, so there should be lots of material to inspire your editing.

In addition, if you are in / near London over the coming months, there are Wellcome exhibitions running which may inspire wiki-content: States of Mind: Tracing the edges of consciousness and Bedlam: The asylum and beyond.

Please get in touch via the project page or my user page if you'd like to get involved in any way.
Zeromonk (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject: Bullying

Hello!

I would just like to inform you about Proposal for WikiProject Bullying. If you have any comments on this matter, either use my talk page or use the proposal page. Thanks,

East Anglian Regional (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at Articles for deletion § Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture. —PermStrump(talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New Wiki Child Project?/"Altered states of consciousness"

Hello WikiProject Community,

we are a group of students working on articles about methods that induce altered states of consciousness (ASC). We did some organisational work already and think about starting a Wiki Project.

The proposed scope of the Project is:

  • induction methods (pharmacological and non-pharmacological (~100 methods))
  • accidental & pathological causes
  • research methods (questionnaires, subjective experience report)
  • history
  • models of ASC
  • philosophy of mind

We would love to know your opinion about it. Would we be a good fit as a child project? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante Aum (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I very much welcome this. I've been going through some of our unassessed articles (we have more than 2,600) and often there is another Wikiproject's assessment, and copying it over will save time and give us a better overall picture of the state of psychology articles. Are there any objections? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No objections - I agree.--Penbat (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I have another more far reaching idea for a bot. It looks to me that in general Stub cats are more reliable than Stub class assessments. As an article gets developed any Stub class assessment, and to a lesser extent a Stub cat, tend to get left behind. On balance, it would improve things if any Stub assessment not supported by a Stub cat could get changed by a bot to Start class. To extend this further all unassessed classes could be updated by a bot so the class is changed to Stub if there was a Stub cat, otherwise it could be changed to Start class.--Penbat (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I could handle that too, but I might have a better idea that could upgrade articles based on size (to account for articles that never received a stub template). I'll reply later tonight after I have a chance to tinker with a tracking category. ~ RobTalk 16:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I get impression that it is not common for articles to wrongly not have a Stub cat and obviously size is not always an accurate determining factor. But you could incorporate a low minimum number of words as a prerequisite safeguard for automatically updating the class assessments as I suggest to try and weed out such cases.--Penbat (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Large Stub-Class psychology articles is now set up so that any articles that are more than 2,000 bytes that are tagged as stubs will appear there. 1,500 bytes/characters is the usual unofficial cutoff for stubs (as used at DYK). I'm not 100% sure if the category will automatically fill up or not. Sometimes, the Wikimedia software is funky with if statements triggered by something other than an edit to the page that the if statement appears on/is transcluded on. In this case, the if statement on the talk page is triggered by the size of the article page, and I don't know if those will properly update. Null edits to the talk pages would definitely do the trick. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Rob. Since we have one agreement (thanks Penbat!) and no objections, I've formally requested auto-assessment. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just recording here for future reference that there are 2,902 unassessed articles in advance of auto-assessment. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And post auto-assessment, there are 1,405 unassessed articles- that's a huge improvement! Thanks Rob! MartinPoulter (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration on Proposed New Entry: Belief Perseverance

Friends,

On June 25, 2016 I submitted my first article for consideration. The topic is Belief Perseverance (BP), and you can see the submission, and the reason it was declined, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Belief_perseverance

It was declined because it’s written more like an essay than an entry in an encyclopedia

The reviewer, Omni Flame, later suggested that I incorporate the article into the Confirmation Bias (CP) article, making it part of the Confirmation Bias entry. I feel CB and BP are distinct, though overlapping. I feel moreover that not having a BP entry in Wikipedia is a glaring omission.

So, here is my request. I don’t know yet how to make entries more encyclopedic. Can someone help me revise this draft to conform to the guidelines? Better still, is anyone interested in taking this project over or collaborating so that this important psychological concept finally receives its own, belated, entry?

Thanks, Brachney Brachney (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Brachney: Hi and thanks for taking on this topic. Belief perseverance, backfire effect and attitude polarisation seem tightly intertwined, and the sources are frustratingly unhelpful for demarcating them. A lot of what you'd call the belief perseverance experiments are also listed in textbooks as attitude polarisation experiments. Still, I think your draft could become really good, and Wikipedia needs summaries of these experiments.
I can give a couple of bits of advice about encyclopedic style. 1) "after the fateful day came and went,"- that's a journalistic style rather than encyclopedic. It's not wrong, it's just colourful in a way that Wikipedia style tries to avoid. Better would be to say what the cult predicted, what the scientists predicted about their reaction to disconfirmation (which wasn't just that they would continue to believe), and what happened when the prophecy failed. 2) "Belief perseverance bears upon the centuries-long dispute involving human irrationality." This is true as far as it goes, but it's too vague to be encyclopedic. "bears upon" could mean all sorts of things. "Dispute" between who? etc. If the sources say that belief perseverance is an example of human irrationality, or something like that, then it's better to put that. As I said, there is a place for this article on Wikipedia, but there needs to be a lot more spelled out about each point and each experiment. The Confirmation bias article is a Featured Article i.e. at the top of the quality scale, so it's an example of the style to aim for. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Can Draft:Belief perseverance be accepted into mainspace in it's current condition? It is now one of the oldest pending drafts at AFC, we'd really like to get this taken care of sooner rather than later. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Attention to recent changes at Limerence

I reverted several edits at Four horsemen of the Apocalypse and Cybernetics by an IP editor that didn't seem constructive. This editor also recently made a series of edits to the article Limerence that at the start looked okay, but eventually ended up in territory where I'm unsure. Could someone take a look?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I'd noticed it on my watchlist for the past few days, but like you said, the first few edits were innocuous so I started ignoring it. I just restored to the version before the IP edits b/c they introduced way more neutrality/tone problems than they fixed. Though there were definitely pre-existing wording issues, which I guess was why I had it on my watchlist to begin with. The whole article feels UNDUE, but I haven't put in the effort to really look into it yet. —PermStrump(talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Category move for discussion

There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here [1] (at CfD). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Phobias

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Category:Phobias. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

Those skilled in the art are invited to comment here. Эйхер (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete proposal - expert advice sought

The following article has been nominated for speedy deletion: Accelerated_experiential_dynamic_psychotherapy It might be senisble for people with a wider specialist knowledge to comment before that happens --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Helping Give Psychology Away workgroup

Hello, I am part of a group whose goal is to build small groups to improve the information about psychology on Wikipedia. We aim to make it at the level of the best college textbook on the topic and helping clinicians, clients, and educators each find high quality resources quickly. Check out this page here for more information! We are excited to have researchers, clinicians and students to help out with this project. Ongmianli (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are all of the articles for improvement about ratings scales and why is it required to publicly post full names and email addresses in order to participate? Also, why is this workgroup not part of this project? —PermStrump(talk) 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Great to see you using WP:MEDMOS as your template. Please promote the use of review articles and major textbooks aswell. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect to emails, this is a reflection of one of the differences between Wikipedia and academic culture. I am happy to see the transparency personally and my email is easy enough to figure out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Permstrump: and @Doc James:, thanks for the interest around this! I agree with Doc James that this is a reflection of one of the differences between Wikipedi and academic culture. However, I also want to respect potentially interested Wikipedians who may not want their email to be public to everyone. We have switched over to a Google Form. This will allow people to continue to submit their name/email (so we can reach them easily), but keep their name/email private (only we will know). Also, our group is interested in putting the best rating scales up on Wikipedia. We decided that it would be best to limit our scope to this for now. Ongmianli (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts

I just learned about article alerts so I wanted to point out WP:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts in case other editors didn't know about it either. If you add it to your watchlist, you can get notifications whenever things like AFDs or RFCs are created for articles that fall within the scope of this project (as long as the template is on the talkpage). Right now there are a bunch of open AFDs for articles on obscure Greek terms for various Specific phobias that could use some more participation. —PermStrump(talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Free access to The American Psychological Association books and journals now available!

Hi all. The Wikipedia Library is happy to announce that we have just opened signups for free access to APA! If you don't already have access and would like to use their resources on Wikipedia, please apply! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Under your scope?

Hello. Just found the page Guilt-Free Consumption, which may possibly fall under your jurisdiction. It's in need of some pretty major help, but a lot of effort seems to have gone into its creation, so it may be worth improving. I'm not a member of this project, nor do I know anything about the topic, so I figured I'd inform someone better qualified to handle it. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@2ReinreB2: I moved the article to guilt-free consumption per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and I've noted some problems with the article at Talk:Guilt-free consumption#Suggestions for rewrite. Biogeographist (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

UNC opening access to library resources for Wikipedian interested in evidence-based assessment

Hi WikiProject Psychology,

The Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) wants to help an experienced Wikipedian improve the quality of articles related to evidence-based assessment in clinical psychology.

UNC is committed to improving public knowledge of clinical psychological science and will provide full access to its library's resources (databases, ebooks, etc.) in exchange for a commitment to bring some of the articles you work on to B-class or better. This is a remote Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position open to editors anywhere. For more information see the UNC Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, you can ask on my talk page (or email if you prefer). If you know you're interested, head to the application form. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Somatic marker hypothesis

It mas mainly written by IP editors in 2005 and second take in 2011. Since then no serious editing. There are 2-3 occasional clarification requests in talk page, but the article remains difficult for understanding, both for subject itself and for its place/recognition within the field. Basically it is one big advert for the hypothesis and it is unclear for non-experts whether it is sourced only from supporters of the hypothesis or there are independent sources as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Split homelessness discussion

The article homelessness is very long and probably should be split. Please join the discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Alternate title for Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir

At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Carl Jung or Carl Gustav Jung

The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Psychology/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Research on the effects of violence in mass media

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. PMID 27765289.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.
  3. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

'Psychologist', an article of Top Importance to our Project, has Multiple Issues. Let's improve it!

The article, Psychologist, has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Also please see: Multiple Issues - Improve Quality to Clearly Satisfy B-Class Criteria, also on the article's talk page.

  • The article needs additional citations for verification.
  • The article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.
  • The article may contain too much repetition or redundant language.
  • The article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines.
  • The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten.

Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Answered Questions

I checked all of the citations that were given and I was able to click on the links and they worked ! I did not recognize any plagiarism in this article. I also checked the information and I did not see any that as out of date but I believe that more information should be given about the subject and with more information comes more citations. Everything in this article was related to the topic and never went off on a tangent. Maglicel097 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Emily Maglich 1/29/17

Donald Trump

There's tons of speculation that Donald Trump may or may not have certain psychological conditions. But it's just that: speculation. He does not have an official diagnosis of anything, and none of the people who are claiming he has these conditions has studied him personally. Thus, it is not a medically relevant diagnosis. Be on the lookout for people addding Trump to articles as an example of said disorders or to add information to the Donald Trump article directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Avoidant Restrictive Feeding Intake Disorders (ARFID)

-Any ideas on expanding the types to new diagnoses? Adding ARFID, types of food selectivity and diagnoses?

-Any contributions on the influences of family food repetoire and how that impacts the child's habits as well as parent training post-intervention?

(IvanaPorcic (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

Malignant narcisissm

The article Malignant narcissism lists Trump as an example. I have brought up issues with this on the talk page. I would like outside analysis of this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That inclusion is a WP:BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, many psychologists I know take an issue with attributing psychopathology, both because such diagnoses are given outside any acceptable context (the individual has not been assessed) and because of a mistrust to psychologicalization of political ideologies, policies, etc. Ngyi1983 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about psychology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

From a quick scan of the list, I could do Thurstone equal-appearing intervals and Transference. Ngyi1983 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Authoritarian Personality Method Summary

I have started working on a summary of the methodology and findings of The Authoritarian Personality. Please have a look and comment, at User:Ngyi1983/Methodology of The Authoritarian Personality —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that the authoritarian personality study was subject to a good deal of criticism on methodological grounds. For example, items making up the A-S, E, and F scales were all written in one direction, opening the instruments up to the problem of response sets such as acquiescence. The sample was unrepresentative of Americans, even if the sample comprised White, non-Jewish adults, it was unrepresentative White, non-Jewish U.S. adults. Individuals in the sample had to be members of at least one organization, thus omitting from the sample individuals who were not members of an organization. The researchers also used the TAT, a projective test, which is of limited or no validity. Interview data were coded by coders who knew the interviewee's questionnaire responses, thus opening the coders' interpretation to bias. That the scales were correlated with education and IQ suggests that what the scales were, at least in part, measuring was worldly knowledge. In addition, the study was partly built on a good deal of psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo. I nevertheless believe that Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) were on to something important despite the methodological limitations of The authoritarian personality. Iss246 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I just finished adding the Methodology section. Virtually all of your points have been covered. What is missing is a description of the TAT procedure and more references on the psychodynamic background of the study under a critical viewpoint. Thanks! Ngyi1983 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

April editathon on psychologists at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's
April 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Biographies, writings, achievements, organizations

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Attentional bias

Hi! I'm a student from LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) who is part of a PS110 course (Foundation of Psychological Science). As part of Project Psychology, which our professor introduced us to, I'd like to contribute to the "Attentional Bias" wikipedia page, which appears to be underdeveloped (as seen in how it is classified as a "Stub Article").

I have some changes I'd like to make, and a log to accompany it (although I know theres a wiki history for each page), but I'm quite new to the editing world of Wikipedia, so I understand if individuals would be worried if I added new content and made changes, so I felt like I should check with the community before making any changes.

Thanks! JohnDT (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@JohnDT: Carry on. Since you are a new user, I will point out that headings in Wikipedia use sentence case, so, for example, the title of your comment here should have been "Attentional bias" not "Attentional Bias". (I corrected it.) Look at MOS:CAPS for more detail on capitalization rules in Wikipedia. There is also an introduction to the Wikipedia Manual of Style that you should read before getting started, so that your work conforms to style rules as much as possible and others will not have to clean up as many style errors. That introduction notes: "The MOS goes into great detail for a great many cases, but one can often get a quick example of what to do by looking at a featured article (especially one on a similar subject), as these must conform to all the style rules." Biogeographist (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Thanks! I made the changes I wanted to make. However I'm curious how the quality ratings work, as I'd ideally like to keep working on the wikipedia article until it surpasses it's current "stub" rating. Once again, thanks for your help! JohnDT (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@JohnDT: I have upgraded the article to start class. Please review my comments at Talk:Attentional bias § Corrections, 3 April 2017. Biogeographist (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC-Borderline personality disorder

Hi, a new RfC request was posted at Talk:Borderline personality disorder that might interest some of this WikiProject's members.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

CBAT (Community Based Acute Treatment)

CBAT is a disambiguation page. It does not list this meaning. I have put some links and quotes at Talk:CBAT § Community Based Acute Treatment (behavioral and emotional therapy), but I am totally incompetent to make even a stub about it. I hope someone in this project can do something for it. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice on an article

I ran across the article Joseph E. McGrath while doing some copyediting on articles with external links in the text. I can easily deal with the external links and grammatical details, but I'm not sure what to do with the rest of it. It is basically a poorly-referenced curriculum vitae with an unsourced poem stuck in the middle. I think it's clear that the book chapters and journal articles, at least, need to be trimmed, but how does a non-expert decide what should stay and what should go? Leschnei (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help with a draft at AFC

Draft:Personal Initiative (PI) is waiting for a review. A subject specialist's opinion about the draft is requested. If you don't wish to, or know how to perform a full AFC Review, please simply post your opinion on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Video game addiction

It strikes me that Video game addiction could use a combing over to comply with WP:MEDRS by an editor with more experience and inclination than I. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Another AFC draft needs a subject specialist review

Draft:Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale needs to be evaluated by someone familiar with the topic area. If you don't wish to, or know how to perform a full AFC Review, please simply post your opinion on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions needed!

Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dignity of risk

I have started the draft, please feel free to participate in developing it further. I have posted a list of sources that I can share on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Parental Alienation

[1]A very important part of Parental Alienation is missing from your definition. That is "the breakdown of previously normal, healthy parent-child relationships during divorce and child custody cases"

References

  1. ^ http://afamilysheartbreak.com/what-is-parental-alienation/

2600:1005:B05C:90FF:91A9:486E:718B:4384 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Psychology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Psychology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Leisure, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Person-centered therapy

Person-centered therapy could use some eyes on it, there is a content dispute that could use third opinions. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Client-centered therapy and Carl Rogers' work is so important yet receives so little attention in most graduate programs these days. So for those of you who recognize the vital importance of the psychotherapeutic principles Rogers and others espoused--and researched extensively--this is a great article to work on. Your contributions will help the next generation of psychotherapists become more effective.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to create a Template?

If you do, would you be so kind as to consider creating one similar to WikiProject Medicine's template, Reliable sources for medical articles? Some resources to consider including in such a Template include Wikipedia Library, How to find sources, Find your source - scholarly books, Find your source - academic journals, Journal sources, Book sources, Free resources, and Partner databases. (That's probably too many, but I'm not sure which ones I would want to remove.)

Btw, if you do not already have access to PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and related APA databases, you can apply for access via the Wikipedia Library on the Partner databases page. Now that's a deal! (Only do it if you edit regularly though--that's one of the criteria.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
Editorial

This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.

Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.

While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.

Links
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New article about pussy torture

Could someone from this WikiProject review and assess Pussy torture? It's a newly created article that did not pass through WP:AFC, so it's yet to be reviewed. I am asking this here beause I found this project's banner on the talk page of one of the articles listed in the "See also" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of teenager

This teen is exhibiting the following behaviors: Isolation, severe depression, aggression, leaving home for days, weight loss, grades failing, has quit activities, i.e., gymnastics, diving team, wants to quit school, all these, among others (seems to hate his parents and siblings, started using marijuana), and no one can get him to talk about what's troubling him.

I believe this child, age 17, has been abused, possibly at school (bullied or worse). Is there any way to get him to talk about what happened? He simply will not talk to anyone about what's wrong but seems miserable and looks disheveled. His parents think it may be a "phase" he's going through. His parents have taken him to many counselors but he won't participate and refuses to take medication. His father is in fear that he may hurt himself.

My question is what kind of professional should be engaged for a person with these symptoms?

2601:C2:4102:B274:C55C:ECF4:5D65:F56D (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you contact an educational psychologist rather than posting here. You are unlikely to get from a Wikipedia talk page the nuanced, professional help that may be required by this person. Famousdog (c) 11:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Visual technology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Conveyed concept

Can anyone recommend any sources that discuss the use of this concept that might be used as references for it? Another user has checked most of the existing references, and has found that none of them actually discuss this term. If it's impossible to find verifiable sources that discuss the concept, the page will probably need to go to WP:AfD.Landscape repton (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Epidemiology of depression, faulty source

Links to first source is outdated(For the picture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.198.235 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump's handshakes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's handshakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Video game rage

Could someone please write an article about rage against video games? (For example, the term "rage-quit" refers to this) These I'd think include yelling at the game, throwing the controller, purposefully breaking the console or game itself, taking violence out on someone else because of actions on a video game (I can think of one specific example in Anderson, South Carolina when someone killed their family member over a video game), etc. I feel like this merits an article like computer rage, road rage, etc. Please and thank you. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Decision-making

There is a requested move at Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2017#Requested move 28 July 2017 which would benefit from a broader input. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Wikimania report

Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing.

Internet-In-A-Box

Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.

Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.

"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.

  • Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Neuroticism

I am having some disagreements with other editors about whether the Big-5 personality trait neuroticism counts as a medical disorder. This is relevant because wikipedia has more stringent sourcing requirements for medical information than for science information.

I am not an expert but I am rather confident in my belief that personality traits are not medical conditions, but if there are any experts in psychology around, could they provide some input? Thanks, --Nanite (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. No one is diagnosed with a trait and the statistics are broad population statistics. Individual pathologies that are neurotic are medical diagnoses. It's like mercury in water. It has broad scientific studies that have natural amounts of mercury and differences between location. Mercury in water is not medical until it manifests itself as mercury poisoning and even then it's individual diagnoses and not broad samples of water. The diagnoses is based on the individual's level of mercury, not the amount in his drinking cup and we don't apply MEDRS standards to water quality articles even though they may be related to a medical condition. --DHeyward (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If this is in relation to the Google memo ruckus, it's worth noting that the engineer who wrote the thing claimed that (1) women had higher rates of neuroticism than men, and (2) this was due to biological differences. In light of the latter, I'd say there's some overlap of WP:PSYCH and WP:MED here. Let's all try to WP:AGF, okay? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 05:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Psychology journals).
  • One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
  • VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST
  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

Editorial: Conservation data

The IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters.

Dorstenia elata, a critically endangered South American herb, contained in Moraceae, the family of figs and mulberries

Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.

ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is anyone able to find a couple of reliable third-party sources about how Intentional infliction of emotional distress can lead to Suicidal ideation please? I would like to add it to both articles but need an RS (ideally more than one!). Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Expert input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy would be appreciated. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Editorial: Annotations

Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing the Anxiety and Depression Association's Wikipedia page

Good morning,

I work at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America's main office. We have noticed that the general information about ADAA is quite outdated. I would like to suggest updating the content to the following to ensure that the public has correct, current information and resources available to them.

The Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) is a U.S. nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing awareness and improving the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of anxiety, depression and related disorders in children and adults. Founded in 1979, ADAA is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to the prevention, treatment, and cure of anxiety, depressive, obsessive-compulsive, and trauma-related disorders through education, practice, and research.

ADAA's mission focuses on improving quality of life for those with these disorders. ADAA provides education about the disorders and helps people find treatment, resources, and support. More than 22 million people from around the world visit ADAA's website each year seeking free educational information and resources includingCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). blog posts, webinars, podcasts and videos. ADAA provides a "Find a Therapist" database that lists ADAA professional members searchable by zipcodes and city, support group listings, screening tools, and clinical trial listings. The organization's headquarters is located in Silver Spring, Maryland.[1]

ADAA is also the only multidisciplinary professional organization in mental health that engages the world’s leading experts who focus on anxiety, depression and co-occuring disorders. Engaging an international membership of more than 1,700 professionals, ADAA strives to improve patient care by promoting implementation of evidence-based treatments and best practices across disciplines through trainings,Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). continuing education, an annual conference, and accelerating dissemination of research into practice. ADAA promotes scientific innovation and engages a diverse network of clinicians and basic and clinical anxiety and depression researchers with diverse backgrounds in medicine, psychology, social work, counseling, nursing, neuroscience, genetics, epidemiology, and other disciplines to advance science and new treatments. ADAA member dues help support the free information and resources that are provided to the more than 22 million global website visitors to Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[2]. Membership dues also help fund the research that will one day prevent and cure anxiety, depression and related disorders.

ADAA is guided by a board of directors, scientific advisory board, and clinical advisory board, and it is supported by donations. The association holds an annual conference focused on the science and treatment of anxiety, depression and related disorders in children and adults. ADAA publishes self-help books such as Facing Panic, Triumph Over Shyness: Conquering Social Anxiety Disorder, in hopes of helping the estimated 40% of anxiety suffering Americans the opportunity to cope with and possibly overcome the disorder.[6]

ADAA offers an Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).English-language online peer to peer support community and a Spanish-language online peer to peer support community for people with anxiety, depression and related disorders.

WPADAA (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Lise Bram, Director of Marketing and Communications, ADAA - October 25, 2017. Sources: www.adaa.org

User:WPADAA: To add more content, we need to cite reliable third-party sources like books, newspaper articles, journal articles, etc. Would you be able to find them to back up the content above please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A most dire and important question

Should the article on Ophidiophobia mention Indiana Jones? Feel free to join in (or just observe) at [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Suicide terminology: "committed"?

Your opinion regarding the proper style of language to use when discussing suicide would be appreciated at the Manual of Style guideline. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017

WikidataCon 2017 group photo

Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

WD-FIST explained

And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi all,

A long time ago I saw that the people watching attachment therapy, attachment theory, and related articles were shorthanded in dealing with this prolific and persistent LTA, so they've been on my watchlist despite it being generally outside of my wheelhouse. It's been a while since I've seen legitimate additions mentioning DDP outside of that article, but given this new user actually engaged on the talk page and isn't citing the same person that the LTA always does, it seems in good faith. As I'm entirely unqualified to vet good faith sourced additions to a psychology FA like this, I hope someone will take a look. Pinging KateWishing since I know she has dealt with this subject in the past. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Psychology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Article on intuition

There is an article on intuition in Wikipedia that may be of interest to this Wikigroup. After all, the radio 4 series "All in the Mind" tonight (December 12 2017) began by talking about intuition.Vorbee (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

A new bibliographical landscape

At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.

Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.

The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.

But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.

More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space.

And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all!

November 2017 map of geolocated Wikidata items, made by Addshore
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Comparison

I have started a draft on the general topic of comparison, at Draft:Comparison. It seems clear that there is a psychological component to this, so any material from that perspective would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial

Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley, Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial, MIT Sʟᴏᴀɴ Sᴄʜᴏᴏʟ Wᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ Pᴀᴘᴇʀ 5238-17, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039505

Superb article that would be great to give to colleagues who do not yet understand the value and importance of creating and editing Wikipedia articles.

HT: Books & Bytes newsletter published by The Wikipedia Library (subscribe to Books & Bytes).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing ! I'll share as well, Cathrotterdam (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This study was evil and an abuse of WP editors, in particular the AfC process. It caused lots of trouble and the articles added weren't particularly good. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_56#A_science_experiment_run_on_Wikipedia_without_notification for deatils. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this controversy to our attention Mark viking. I read the Village Pump archived discussion. I still regard the article as a positive contribution, and I understand there are concerns about how the research was conducted.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Parent-infant psychotherapy

Could someone have a look at Draft:Parent-infant psychotherapy and see if it should be accepted as an article? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AOT and whether or not it benefits the majority of severe mentally ill

I have two perspectives on this controversial topic. I am a former Assistant Behavior Analyst (studying and making plans for youth with behavior or mental problems). Secondly I have managed my own Bipolar Disorder though medication, therapy, education, advocacy, family and peer support fairly successfully for many years.

I understand the problem of the jails and prisons being used to house the seriously mentally ill (SMI), often, however for very minor crimes. (80% of prisons are treating mentally ill/substance abuse patients) These people are often poor, have few housing or employment choices, and have little family support. This includes people receiving SSI or SSDI which does not cover basic expenses. I hear that there is a minority of SMI that clinically are unaware of their illness due to their brain disorder. There are also a minority of SMI that have anti-psychiatric view because of either bad experiences or conspiracy theories that the industry is "out to get them".

With this in mind, I view AOT as a negative. We would do better to de-criminalize the mentally ill and attempt to get them voluntary services with the help of a Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS). Someone who has been in a similar situation or had a close family member in mental or substance abuse treatment is more empathetic. The patient is often more willing to listen, trust, and follow-up with care with someone who has "been there" and join with the treatment team. FACT teams work if given a chance and with quality caregivers.

GSBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayle, S (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Metadata on the March

From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.

SVG pedestrian crosses road
Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore

Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New peer-reviewed paper about "psychology of belief in histories of science and the occult"

I recently came across this paper when surfing PubMed. I am posting about it here because it seems to be generally pro-parapsychology, and more specifically, because it includes this quote: "To say that the occult entanglements of modern psychology, and the sciences in general, have been squarely written out of public and disciplinary history is certainly not an overly melodramatic statement. [Begin footnote] Regarding public history, see, for example, the hair-raisingly biased Wikipedia entries on parapsychology and psychical research. [End footnote]" I was interested in what members of this project (of which I am not one) thought of this paper and this accusation specifically. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Intersectionality article - Will you take a look?

I just added a POV tag ("The neutrality of this article is disputed.") to Intersectionality. I suggested on the article's Talk page, under Neutral point of view?, that we work on integrating critiques of this theory into the body of the article. The goal is balance, fairness, and objectivity. Please take a look to see if you might be able to help. [Note: I want to attract editors who are committed to civility, fairness, and a scholarly approach, regardless of political ideology. The objective is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.] Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate some more qualified eyes on Pointing

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub

One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.

Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Satoshi Kanazawa contains a link to the DAB page health and intelligence. I don't want to guess the solution; can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Cognitive epidemiology is the correct link, concerning "causal relationships between intelligence and health outcomes"; notice that Satoshi Kanazawa is mentioned in Cognitive epidemiology § Substance abuse. Biogeographist (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Many thanks! Now fixed. Narky Blert (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Milestone for mix'n'match

Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.

Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.

These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more.

For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.

Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite!

3D printing
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Arm-chair

Is there existing WP policy that prohibits speculation on psychological diagnosis of WP bio subjects by psychologists who never examined the subject in person? (APA prohibits it, yes?) And does it matter living or dead? (My Q is for a bio of subject who died in 2008.) Thx. --IHTS (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I am not aware of any "WP policy that prohibits speculation on psychological diagnosis [or assessment] of WP bio subjects by psychologists who never examined the subject in person". The most relevant part of the APA Ethics Code is Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments which states:

Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

I see at least two connected issues here: quality of the psychological assessment and due weight. Regarding quality: If the source we are consulting does not "document the efforts they [the psychologist(s)] made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations" then I would not consider the assessment worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. If the source meets those criteria, and we mention the assessment in the article, then it would be very important to mention the date of the assessment (since the assessment was based on the knowledge and techniques that were available at the time) and the limitations of the conclusions. A poor-quality psychological assessment would be approximately equivalent to a fringe theory, and we want to avoid placing undue weight on fringe theories about the subject. All of this would apply whether the subject is living or dead. Biogeographist (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential new task force

I wanted to gauge whether participants in this project think that it should create an Intelligence/Psychometrics task force. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if there are enough active editors willing to commit to such a Taskforce. I would suggest making it Psychometrics, as IQ tests would fall under that rubric. Would you (Every morning) join such a task force if it is created?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right on. Count me in.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I have created this task force. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychometrics task force. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I concur with the creation of the task force, but I propose renaming it to either Differential psychology (or Individual differences which I take to be synonymous), or Intelligence research. Psychometrics is today a different field that deals only with measurement of psychological phenomena, not necessarily related to cognitive ability (e.g. a lot of work has been done on IRT for personality traits). Historically, it was also used to refer to much of intelligence research due to the fact that intelligence researchers also invented psychometrics which they needed for their studies (i.e. work by Pearson, Spearman et al). Deleet (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be okay with it being renamed to "Differential psychology task force", since if we're intending for it to cover intelligence research, that name might be a more accurate description. @Everymorning: what's your opinion? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Is the intention to cover research on intelligence? If so, why do we need a Task Force on that specific topic?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The intention is for it to cover all aspects of differential psychology, which includes both intelligence and personality. As for the reason, these articles have a history of attracting people whose understanding of differential psychology is based entirely on what they read in newspapers and/or blogs. The goal of the task force is for these articles to be maintained by a group of people who are committed to representing these topics the way they're represented in the professional psychology literature.
Part of my inspiration came from Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, which has consistently ensured that Wikipedia's articles about dinosaurs accurately represent the professional paleontology literature, even though those articles have always been a magnet for poorly-informed edits. My hope is that Wikipdia's articles related to differential psychology can eventually uphold the same standard of quality and sourcing that its paleontology articles do. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the rename proposal doesn't seem to be gaining much traction, so I'll go ahead with requesting something more important that needs to be done. Everymorning said here that in order to properly tag articles within the scope of this task force, it's necessary to edit Template:WikiProject Psychology so that it can include the relevant tag. But he and I don't have the ability to edit protected templates, so this would need to be done by someone who has that permission. Can anyone else here make the necessary edit to that template? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Do we have any citations, which contradict the references immediately below, and which support the assertion that the meaning of psychometrics has changed in very recent years? The following are all direct quotations from Oxғᴏʀᴅ Eɴɢʟɪsʜ Dɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ (3rd ed. 2007):

psychometrics, n. - The measurement of mental capacity, thought processes, aspects of personality, etc., esp. by mathematical or statistical analysis of quantitative data; the science or study of this; (also) the construction and application of psychological tests. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/238072

psychometric, adj. ... 2. Of, relating to, or of the nature of psychometrics; employing or obtained by psychometrics. ... http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153911 ... SPECIAL USES: psychometric test n. ... (b) a test designed to provide a quantitative analysis of a person's mental capacities or personality traits, typically as shown by responses to a standard series of questions or statements. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153911#eid51885562

psychometry, n. ... 2. The measurement of mental capacities, states, and processes; psychometrics.
1879     F. Gᴀʟᴛᴏɴ in Brain 2 149   Psychometry..means the art of imposing measurement and number upon operations of the mind, as in the practice of determining the reaction-time of different persons. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153914

An additional reference:
Peter Molenaar, What Is Psychometrics?, Psychometric Society, (“Psychometrics is the approximation of latent psychological processes by means of stochastic analysis at both the individual and population levels.”) https://www.psychometricsociety.org/content/what-psychometrics

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Psychometrics historically was also used to refer to much of differential psychology, and in particular intelligence research. Now a days, the use is along the lines you outlined above, i.e. measurement of psychological phenomena. I am primarily interested in differential psychology and in particular intelligence research, not in the more arcane matters of theoretical psychometrics (see e.g. recent entries in Psychometrika ), though I maintain an interest in applied psychometrics (e.g. practicalities of factor analysis/IRT for practical use of scoring subjects in research). Per the current use of psychometrics, matters of intelligence research and differential psychology are largely outside the scope of the term. Deleet (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments regarding faith healing and pseudoscience

I would like to inform members of this project that there is currently an open request for comments regarding whether faith healing is a form of pseudoscience that members of this project might be interested in participating in. Since faith healing involves a belief that God can heal both mental/psychological illness as well as medical illness, I figured this project should have been notified in addition to the medicine project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

The 100 Skins of the Onion

Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.

Red onion cross section

From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Psychoacoustics

The Psychoacoustics article contains this text in the lede: “Psychoacoustics received its name from a field within psychology—i.e., recognition science—which deals with all kinds of human perceptions.” A quick search finds nothing to indicate that “recognition science” is a real field. Could we find an editor with relevant expertise to review this? Thanks much —- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Longitudinal study

An article which may be of interest to this project—Longitudinal study —has been proposed for merging with Long-term experiment. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

ScienceSource funded

The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

A medical canon?

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

OpenRefine logo, courtesy of Google
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi, I hope someone can review my article on a personality inventory, Mapa ng Loob. The article is in English, but it is about an instrument in the Tagalog language. Maybe someone from the new Differential Psychology group? Also, I declare a conflict of interest since I am one of the authors of the inventory.Ajgalang (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Xenophobia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Draft:Visual Antipriming

Input invited about this draft. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Admitted hoaxing

A user has claimed that he wrote Ontological hermeneutics as a hoax (the user is the primary contributor), per Talk:Ontological hermeneutics#Article needs to be deleted. Any assistance from project members in this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been deleted as a blatant hoax. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rejection Sensitivity as a stand-alone article

Hi all, just looking for some opinions - I found Social rejection#Rejection sensitivity whilst looking for an article relating to "rejection sensitivity" or "Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria"[1]. I've been researching RSD recently, and although widely mentioned (especially in relation to ADHD[2]), there are only a few scholarly articles on the condition. I'm aware that this wouldn't meet criteria for inclusion.

I am, however, interested in creating a stand-alone article for rejection sensitivity, as it appears further research has been conducted, and possible links[3] to other conditions and behaviours[4] have been made.

I had a look at what to write about, but I'm still not sure that the notability/coverage of this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I would value some further opinions from the WikiProject and other interested editors - TNT❤ 10:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if rejection sensitivity should be a stand-alone article. Wherever it goes, I think the contributor should mention that it is one of the diagnostic criteria for depression with atypical features. Also don't be fooled by the word "atypical," atypical features are common in individuals who meet criteria for a diagnosis of depression. Iss246 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Section references

References

  1. ^ Davidson, Jonathan R. T. (1 May 1982). "Atypical Depression". Archives of General Psychiatry. 39 (5): 527. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290050015005. ISSN 0003-990X. PMID 7092486.
  2. ^ Dodson, W.W., 2000. ADHD and bipolar disorder. ADDvance Magazine, 5.
  3. ^ Rubeis, Jannika De; Lugo, Ricardo G.; Witthöft, Michael; Sütterlin, Stefan; Pawelzik, Markus R.; Vögele, Claus (19 October 2017). "Rejection sensitivity as a vulnerability marker for depressive symptom deterioration in men". PLOS ONE. 12 (10): e0185802. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285802D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185802. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 29049292.
  4. ^ Mozley, Michaela M.; Modrowski, Crosby A.; Kerig, Patricia K. (5 January 2018). "The roles of trauma exposure, rejection sensitivity, and callous-unemotional traits in the aggressive behavior of justice-involved youth: A moderated mediation model". Aggressive Behavior. 44 (3): 268–275. doi:10.1002/ab.21749. ISSN 0096-140X. PMID 29315619. S2CID 4637310.

Tie signs

Tie signs is a newly created by student editor as part of a WP:WIKIED class project. I believe the article might fall under the scope of this WikiProject, so I've add the project's banner to the talk page. Would someone mind taking a look at it and assessing it? The article is also in need of categories and might need some other cleanup as well, so any help with those things would also be welcome. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Respecting MEDRS

Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions.

Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter.

This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.

Evidence pyramid leading up to clinical guidelines, from WP:MEDRS
Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hysterics and structuralism

Hi all,

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to discuss this.

I was recently reading the wiki page on hysterics and while it seems to do a decent job discussing the feminist critiques of the psychological diagnosis, there doesn't appear to be any information about the use if hysterics by the structuralists and it's re-interpretation as a social symptom.

For instance, from Costa's "Hysteria today, why?" [1]

″As change is a characteristic of progress and of the advance of times, symptoms may have acquired different meanings or even appear in different manners. Hysteria as a social symptom is possibly not as recognized today as it was in the past. Nevertheless, contrarily to its widely discussed disappearance, it is still present (Melman, 2003; Quinet, 2005).

″Charles Melman (2003), a French psychoanalyst and a disciple and collaborator of Lacan, states that hysteria is still a clinical issue that fits the description of what he calls "New clinical forms in the beginning of the third millennium",2 such as depression, drug addictions and psychoses. Quinet (2005) confirms that statement by suggesting that, although it was expelled from psychiatry through its door, hysteria is coming back to daily life in many different manners, through many windows.

″Melman affirms that hysteria in its classical form has become rarer, being replaced by phenomena more related to the theatre spectrum, more suitable for the cultural inclination towards spectacle and superficiality. The phenomenon would then be more characterized as a current social symptom.

″The social symptom is formed from the dominant discourse of each period of time. According to Vorcaro (2004), the social symptom is a metaphor for a truth of civilization, which is recognized not by statistical incidence but by the inscription of this discursive articulation in the field of the social. It indicates the universal discontent common among subjects, a "shared metaphor of discontent, through a modality of jouissance inscribed and stimulated by the dominant discourse of a certain time" (Vorcaro, 2004, p. 42). For Greiser (2008), the social symptom exists when the bond with the Other of the unconscious is somehow annulled.″

This is a topic further addressed by structuralists like Lacan[2] and more recently Zizek[3] [4] and represents, in my opinion, an important and subtle re-deployment of the term.

I do not feel qualified to make these changes directly, but I think this subject informs the topic and use of the Hysteria in an important and disregarded way. I suppose I could attempt to pull together some refrences, but this section of Wikipedia seems to be well curated and I presume there is a better method for getting this added to the article than any amateurish attempt I might make.

Thanks for taking the time to read, and please let me know if I should address this concern elsewhere.

~~data.kindnet~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Data.kindnet (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Costa, Dayse Santos; Lang, Charles Elias (2016). "Histeria ainda hoje, por quê?". Psicologia Usp. 27: 115–124. doi:10.1590/0103-656420140039.
  2. ^ "English Studies in Canada".
  3. ^ "Slavoj Zizek - Hegel with Lacan".
  4. ^ "Slavoj Zizek - Ideology I".

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Plugging the gaps – Wikimania report

Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources.

Hackathon mentoring table wiring

Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume.

If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online".

Plugbar buildup at the Hackathon
Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Arrested Development

Hi all, I was wondering if I could get a little bit of a consensus regarding the article Arrested development, and if the pysological condition is indeed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or if the article could be Dabified. There is already a dab page at Arrested development (disambiguation), but as all of the media is actually at least a parody of the condition, or takes it's name, and the short length of the article, perhaps it would make sense to combine the two, and explain what the condition is.

There's also an argument regarding the TV series being the common name for this; not least due to the article's standing as a GA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee Vilenski. It's a nuanced question, I have to say. Obviously Arrested Development (TV series) is the much more (yes, ironic wording) developed article (indeed, the psychological article is pretty underwhelming, being barely more than a stub--which sadly says quite a bit about the priorities of our editors, though if we get started down the line of discussion of the emphasis pop culture topics get over scientific ones, that's a functionally inexhaustible source of depressing subject matter). But I would argue that the current state of an article should never be utilized as the guiding metric for what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is; there are lots of reasons the more justifiable primary topic may nevertheless be the less developed on at a given time. Indeed, the guideline in question completely eschews such a standard in favour of two other primary tests:
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
I can understand how some might impressionistically feel that the show qualifies for the first point, but I'd argue that is an effect of the cognitive bias known as the availability heuristic and that, taking all reliable sources (and/or general usage) together, we'd find that the underlying term (from which the show, as you note, surely takes its name) is in fact the dominant usage if we contemplate it across all contexts and for all people, rather than just fans of relatively recent quirky American sitcoms about privileged families. If the move is contested that presumption may need to be tested with more substantial analysis via google analytics or some other objective measure, but I have to think it's true. As to the second litmus test, the underlying psychological concept clearly blows all of the pop culture usages out of the water on that one. On the whole, I think your initial instinct is probably the correct editorial approach here. Snow let's rap 08:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Ophidiophobia badly needs work

Ophidiophobia (fear of snakes) is pretty much a disgrace. It's not just a micro-stub, but it cites no reliable sources for anything other than that Indiana Jones is fictionally afraid of snakes. It's also making a non-credible claim that 30% of the population have ophidiophobia (when in reality 30% of people just think snakes are creepy, a normal mammalian reaction, not a phobia, which is an irrational and overwhelming fear that manifests even in the absence of the object of the phobia, e.g. simply from pictures or from thinking about the object).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Trypophobia needs work and watchlisters

Trypophobia seems to be wracked by "slow editwarring" between two parties, and it veers around in its material from subjective claims about the experience of the problem, to dubious psychiatric, evolutionary, and other claims; the latter stuff is subject to WP:MEDRS sourcing guidelines, but they are not being applied. Both kinds of material could be present but need to be separated, including not misusing vernacular senses of "phobia" in an article where this has a specific and very narrow psychology/psychiatry meaning (a problem also affected the fear of snakes article, mentioned above, though trypophobia is not presently well accepted [yet?] in scientific material as an actual phobia). There appears to be a fair amount of WP:OR going on, especially if you review the talk page and the kinds of arguments presented here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For backstory on SMcCandlish's description, see here and here. The article has undergone recent cleanup that has it mainly sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing with regard to its overall design. The article does not call trypophobia a phobia, and instead notes that it may be classified as a specific phobia under certain circumstances. The sections are appropriately sourced and use appropriate language. For medical articles, our Society and culture sections usually do not need to strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Also take note that trypophobia is not a recognized medical condition, although some researchers state that it does seem like a phobia for some people. Regardless of whatever WP:OR there is on the article's talk page, there is no WP:OR in the article. The "slow edit warring" mentioned above has concerned WP:Copyright, WP:Plagiarism and summarizing in our own words, and the WP:Copyright, WP:Plagiarism and summarizing in our own words issues have been handled on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a run-down the main ToC entries is enough to indicate how much of this article is subject to MEDRS (without much sourcing that could qualify): 1. Classification; 2. Signs and symptoms; 3. Causes; 4. Treatment; 5. Epidemiology. This is not "society and culture" material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering that, with the exception of the Society and culture section, the text is supported by book sources that are indeed MEDRS-compliant, two primary sources (primary sources are not completely rejected by WP:MEDRS as long as they are used with caution and sparingly), and one review, I fail to see what issues with the sourcing you have. You are apparently going by a higher standard that even WP:MEDRS doesn't go by. And it was my idea to design the article based on the WP:MEDSECTIONS format since it is about a topic that is considered a phobia, or one that closely resembles a phobia (because of the fear and anxiety it incites in some people), without officially being recognized as a phobia. Yes, in my opinion, it is the best format for the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the talk page over there is dominated by you and one other editor circularly arguing about the sources and – most importantly, how they are used – is why additional eyes on the matter are needed. This isn't about me, it's about the article and the dispute it is mired in.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The talk page has only recently become "dominated by [me] and one other editor," and it is due to WP:Copyright, WP:Plagiarism and summarizing in our own words issues. I'd already started an RfC on the matter, and invited others to weigh in by posting at relevant guideline or policy pages. If others want to weigh in on the sourcing or format of the article as a result of your post, I welcome it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Two-Track Model of Bereavement

Another editor created Draft:Two-Track Model of Bereavement, but the draft was rejected. Please consider improving the draft so that it can be published as an article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology/Archive_8&oldid=1189629564"