From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:04:38 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit? Good point Daniel, and I'll go you one better. psychosis doesn't necessarily means schizophrenia, and vice versa. I know 4 schizophrenics personally who are active and productive members of society with almost full-time positions that have a high degree of responsibility. One of them is my driver. I have another staff member who is schizophrenic, and also a gentle, wise, lovely person. The current crop of medications are literally revolutionizing peoples lives. When most people are talking about psychosis, they're talking about a psychotic episode. I've had three in my life, and I'm just plain old bipolar. Even then, violence has a tendency to be turned inward (see Margot Kidder, Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, etc.). Usually it's just random, bizarre actions with no violence attached. Statistically, violence from people with psychiatric disabilities is no greater than the general public, but violence towards the mentally ill is much higher per capita (world-wide). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've seen major depression (a tendency to isolate from the "real world", both on and off Wiki), social anxiety disorder (same thing), Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (endless fiddling with user pages, compulsive copy-editing and wikignoming), sociopathy (harassment of other users), ADHD (me), bipolar disorder (again, me), and paranoia (everywhere). That's just off the top of my head. As Fred said, however, you simply can't diagnose a keyboard. That's the beautiful thing about the Internet, (with all them pipes). It's nuts that there is no article [[Stigma (mental health)]] on Wikipedia. I might stub it this morning. There is a giant hole in the encyclopedia on Mental Health-related topics that I've been meaning to get to. This encyclopedia just doesn't build itself - no matter how much I stare at the screen.:) Nina

On 1/10/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact that you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are many aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond some persons¹ ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a WP editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing Article on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered strong resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this fact. Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven¹t looked back since.

I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed away. I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in the encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand it. For me, the true measure of an ³expert² in something is his or her ability to explain it to someone who isn¹t.

I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia who have suffered from these conditions.

that many some a WP Article strong disease fact. since. Clinical away. the the understand Scientology: the denial system for the ages. questioned. The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions ­ cultural stigma. ³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver. The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.

bell, don¹t push the button :-). encyclopedia My intent here was to enable persons suffering from these conditions to understand they are not alone. However, I agree it would create a citation as well as confidentiality nightmare. Oh well, nice thought. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

KP, I absolutely agree with you. As I said somewhere else, the real test of an "expert" is their ability to explain something to someone who isn't. There are many, many fields I don't have a technical clue about, but I do have the curiosity to want to know something about. Therefore, my questions are going to be very basic ones, and it's a joy to come across a source that has the ability to answer these basic question in terms I can understand. In Wikipedia, if an Article is written by an "expert" in the field, and it cannot be understood by someone who is not, it should be edited by another "expert" in that field with the ability to make it understood.

The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH) which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex. It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions ­ cultural stigma.

³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the professional caregiver.

The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again) edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.

If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the bell, don¹t push the button :-).