This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
There's a lot more I found on MM that I didn't include, but this is a reasonable summary. I was on the fence about whether or not to include the part about Larry Froistad, but decided it was relevant as it was included in Schaler's book. There is unquestionably enough information on Froistad that he could have his own article - between the legal reviews on the issues of online confession and the online bystander effect research it was included in. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. I don't see how the Froistad scandal, though interesting, is relevant though to the central focus of this entry. Perhaps the whole introduction should be shortened to get to the actual description of the program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.107.209 (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what the purpose of the information on Froistad's online confession. What purpose does it serve for moderation management, I feel it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinamSmith (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)</span[reply]
Other than the reasoning given above, Schaler cited the lack of MM in response to Froistad as part of the reason why he cut ties with the organization. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bias
I noticed that User:Kasira added a bias template to the top of this article. Unfortunately, there is no indication of which pieces she(?) takes exception with. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Kasira's reasons, but the part in the history about Larry Froistad doesn't seem to belong and seems rather biased. It seems to be there mainly to cast a poor light on MM, especially the alleged molestation. What relevance to his case does it have that he was a member of MM? That he confessed and people reported it is a good thing. I don't see why it's notable or relevant that "only 3" notified authorities or even that there was some disagreement among the list members. Only 1 needed to report it. Why is there no mention in the AA article of the Paul Cox case- from the same New York Times article? The Paul Cox case is even more compelling because the confidentiality/secrecy/religious aspects of AA are at issue, and bounced around the courts for years. (See http://www.peele.net/faq/confession.html) 75.85.48.138 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
