Talk:Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

Editing references on this page

For those editors who wonder about the references to the papers published in American Journal of Psychology - this is one of the oldest journal in psychology, and not one of the new online journals.Sulisw (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be a case of vandalism that should be reported

The user JzG called "Guy" (Guy) continues deleting the reference to American Journal of Psychology and now launched a discussion for a deletion of the page implies that the neutrality rule was violated. We suggest reading the material first: the authors of the STQ are Rusalov (mainly) and Trofimova (derivative), but none of them are main contributors. Yet, the page on this matter should be submitted by someone who knows the material. This is encyclopedia after all. The user Guy makes cuts and changes without justifying them or commenting anything in this talk page. I am going to revert changes (again!) - if you decide to have cuts please justify your actions. I understand that you want to improve the quality of the Wiki, so I suggest the same quality control over other Wikipedia pages related to psychological tests (much less verified by neurophysiological theories than the STQ). Here is the list for such important checking: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Revised NEO Personality Inventory,16PF Questionnaire,Self-Directed Search, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment,Personality Assessment Inventory,Temperament and Character Inventory,Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, Karolinska Scales of Personality, and other pages on psychological tests. I also suggest to ask the authors of the page Temperament test to rename it as that page is about testing dogs, but the title can be used for tests of human temperaments. Sulisw (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

By "continues to" you mean that I reverted your edit and then self-reverted after cross-checking and finding that you were right. Feel free to report this as vandalism, but with you being a single purpose account and me being an admin, it might not go far. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

1) I found that you indeed reverted the changes, so my apologies for not noticing it, however 2) your last comment sounds like an abuse of power and not very constructive. It doesn't list issues that make the STQ page unfit for Wikipedia. With power comes responsibility. The "deletion" tag is not justified, and the STQ page has significantly less grounds for being deleted, in comparison to the pages listed above. Please review the page again and, please, remove the "deletion" tag. I understand that your position of admin is often stressful, and it is easy to overlook the difference between an informative page and self-advertising. This page is just an information about most distributed test (among psychologists) in Russia that was adapted in Canada, USA and Australia in 1980-90s. However, this test is a professional test, so only professional psychologists know about it, so it is useful for general public to be aware of it. Hopefully it will help to clear the air. Sincerely, Sulisw (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

For discussion of the COI tag

Within several past hours, I've received emails notifying me that Ozzie10aaaa left this tag and also a message from t. The statement from t says that I 1) created 4 named pages and that 2) I was "heavily involved" in their editing. Re: 1) Indeed, when in 2013 the colleagues who used Rusalov's STQ started wondering if there should be Wikipedia's pages on the STQ, Rusalov and also an explanation of the approach, including FET. The STQ is apparently still most used psychological test in Russia, so the significance is similar to the significance of culture-specific object (like Great Wall in China, even though many walls exist in the world). That was the STQ in psychometrics in Russia. Our only fault was that we assumed that Wikipedia, as encyclopedia, employs the same requirements as used in academic encyclopedias (we are all too much involved in academia and not at all in public social media). Many of us wrote articles for various encyclopedias before and we knew that the authors are chosen on the bases of involvement with the subject. In other words, we expected that (similarly to academic encyclopedias) the author of the article should be either the author of the theory/subject/concept or work closely with the authors. Quite opposite to COI (!) but in 2013 it wasn't so clear. My colleagues in Russia knew that I worked in Canada for many years and proposed that it would be me who presents (submit) the pages to English Wikipedia. They did pages for the Russian branch of it without me. At that point, I wasn't the first person to use English STQ, but I agreed to do it, as I honestly thought that my association with the STQ will help the pages to be accepted. Still, there are 20 language versions of the STQ, with many colleagues around the world working on it - if they are prohibited from editing it, please post this prohibition clearly. In 2014 my colleagues put together drafts of these pages and we have contacted Wikipedia asking for permission and approval (without posting the pages). We didn't even know that we simply could post them. After waiting for a year for a reply, we sent another message and waited for another year. I hope Wikipedia has archives of letters. You can laugh now but we just reacted to the words "online encyclopedia" and used our professional expectations for these settings. I was simply chosen as submitting Editor, exactly because I had published on this matter in English, as usually required by grants and other encyclopedias. So, guys, give academicians some mercy - they didn't know that the same words might mean different (even opposite) rules. Anyway, in 2016 my colleagues suggested that I post it from my name. Just think about it - if I would know about the COI at that time - would I agree to it? Especially since the texts were done partially by other people? I would just suggest them to create pages themselves. Now I am not sure how to fix it. I think Wikipedia should give some slack to people from non-English countries, especially from academia, and especially in early stages of development of Wikipedia. A lot of misconceptions were flying around when Wikipedia was being adapted in Russia, and when I was contacted by colleagues to create pages, I had no clue what I was getting into. Even now I barely do editing or know who does it aggressively. Regardless, the pages that we discuss here represent not my personal matter but the achievement of Russian psychophology that the public would benefit from. It is a core science, based on fundamental psychophysiology, so I suggest keeping the pages. FYI, I am not even psychophysiologist so how can I benefit personally in medicine or psychophysiology if I promote psychophysiological theories?

2) Here comes the reply on the second issue. After posting (creating pages) I didn't edit it much - just look at the history. I checked pages maybe once a year. So, I don't agree with the second statement of t.

Plus, none of people who work with the STQ or FET benefits financially from it as the test is free for use. Plus I, personally, am an Adjunct Professor, and our University doesn't pay me even a penny, allowing me to supervise students and participate in exams for residents. So my participation in these pages do nothing for my career too. I am also retired, by Russian standards and will be retiring soon in Canada - so no personal benefits from this even in the future. Still, I am happy to contribute my knowledge for a public good.

I wonder how Wikipedia plans to have pages related to scientific concepts without allowing specialists from academia (who cannot avoid being involved in the subject matter) to edit pages. The Editor should know the facts about the important figure and the nature of this figure's contribution so some familiarity should be allowed. Still, when it comes to Rusalov, I never worked in Rusalov's lab, moved to another country in 1997 after my PhD in 1995. Out of his 200 and out mine 80 publications we only had two joint publications on the very subject of his Approach, and we lived in different continents when preparing it, so the contact was really minimal. Meanwhile, he had colleagues who collaborated with him on many publications and some of them likely edited his pages, probably several times. It is hard to imagine complete sterility in relationships when Editors should be expert on the subject of the Wikipedia page. I saw so many Wikipedia pages where Editors added their theories or results to the text. Should we open this can of worms or should we appreciate how encyclopedias in academia are being written? Iratrofimov (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are not very good at Wikipedia:Expert retention. I hope that you'll stick around despite our problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

See the main discussion of the COI tag on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

The section 17 of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine hosts the main discussion on this matter Iratrofimov (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

deleting additional info only muds up the matter

The Languages-versions section was deleted by Ozzie10aaaa at 09:53, 3 October 2019, and Additional-References section was deleted at 15:54, 4 October 2019 by Doc James, right at the middle of the COI discussion. Perhaps, we should restore these sections, to make the matter of "who are the players" more transparent? Other users, similarly to WhatamIdoing, might want to look for this info, and PubMed can't deliver it as it doesn't keep the history of all publications from 30 years ago. Otherwise, the STQ page and derivatives really sound that it is only me who initiated the whole thing Iratrofimov (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Iratrofimov, and I think Additional References section should be used in the main text, to make clear their relevance. Perhaps people with more background in psychophysiology and psychometrics could do it, as it requires expertise that rare editors have. Language section should also be restored. Sulisw (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)