User talk:Counterpoints

Welcome!

Hello, Counterpoints, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credentialism

"I'm sure my scientific credentials far exceed yours."

I'm amused by this assertion, but I rather doubt it. ;-)

More relevantly, it's not important: Wikipedia doesn't go in for credentialism (and, as it happens, neither do I). If that seems like a congenial idea, then Citizendium is that way and would doubtless be happy to have your help. Alternatively, you are free to start your own encyclopedia.

If you prefer to stay with Wikipedia, though, then you (and I, and all of us) have to work within (or try to improve) its policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (who cheerfully refuses to edit in her area, or even to identify it, because being "just another editor" reduces the temptation to look for an expert opinion instead of relying on the relevant reliable sources)[reply]

I think my scientific background, (which is rather high-level), is relevant in the context of a discussion about scientific credibility; I've certainly been exposed to the debates surrounding reliable sources. So I don't need to be educated in this respect. :)

Overall, I'm against strict editorial rules. There will often be important exceptions to such rules. In my opinion, a quality article, above all, provides researchers and readers with useful information. Most of Wikipedia's guidelines were likely devised with this intent. For instance, journal articles will more often contain reliable information than other sources. But in some cases, these guidelines, if strictly followed, will decrease the accuracy and usefulness of certain articles -- especially those pertaining to new research where 'expert opinions' are rapidly changing. This is why Wikipedia has 'guidelines' and not strict rules, if I understand correctly. Good intuition should be applied over blind rule following.

I feel particularly strongly about this in the case of the POIS article. In this situation, depriving readers of certain 'unreliable' information may result in needless extended (and severe) suffering. Only a few sentences about the forum could give peoples lives back to them; one person found the Naked Science UK forum after being seriously and consistently affected by POIS for over 30 years (!), and is now mostly recovered, as a result of the information there. Others with POIS who were on the verge of suicide have subsequently been helped by the information there. (As an aside, note that the Wikipedia article on 'suicide' contains a link to the 'American Foundation for Suicide Prevention'). Aside from that, the forum is notable in any discussion on this topic. Almost all known cases are being reported there.

In the end, this is a cost benefit analysis, applied to a very specific situation. In this situation, what is the benefit of strictly following guidelines, and what is the cost? The benefit seems small, and the potential cost seems enormous.

Counterpoints (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt your scientific credentials for even a minute. I only doubt your baseless assertion about how they compare to mine.

Wikipedia is not written for patients, and it is not a web directory, but even if a person affected by POIS found this article, it will doubtless occur to him (or her) to ask Mr Google for more information. At some level, we have to assume that our readers are not so stupid that they can't use the internet to find information.

If you want to increase the likelihood of an affected person finding the article, by the way, you'll want to put some effort into building the web. The POIS article is very nearly an orphan. Also, since it has several synonyms, those should be identified (sourced) and worked into the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to credentials, it was a decent a priori assumption :). Thanks for your links and suggestions. Counterpoints (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that you were playing the odds, which will probably only trip you up once or twice in a hundred cases. I'm just one of those cases. ;-) Good luck with your editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]