Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Index · Statistics · Log


Draft:Barnaby B. Barratt[edit]

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)

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

Wikipedia Library owl.svg 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)

Need help with Samuel Slavson article[edit]

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)

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Behavioral Genetics[edit]

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)

Highly sensitive person (HSP) legit?[edit]

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)

"Disturbed"[edit]

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)

Gary Cziko AfD[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Mentioning bipolar diagnosis in BLPs[edit]

Please comment at WT:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. PermStrump(talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

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)

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

WellcomeWiRImageCollage-SMALL.jpg

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[edit]

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)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Collaboration on Proposed New Entry: Belief Perseverance[edit]

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[edit]

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)