Portal talk:Psychology/Did you know/1

Meredith Eaton-Gilden
The statement "Boston Legal actress Meredith Eaton-Gilden (pictured) considers herself a practicing mental health therapist" is misleading. It implies that she is licensed to practice psychotherapy, but there is no reliable source in her article that states she is or ever has been licensed. Either this item needs to be deleted (someone claiming the be a therapist when there is no evidence that she is, is hardly notable), or the statement needs the addition of "although there is no evidence in her article that she is licensed to practice therapy". seems to have some sort of obsession with making no changes to this ridiculous item that never should have been placed in a DYK list to begin with, first insisting that her designation as a "practicing clinical psychologist" be restored with no evidence, and now demanding that "practicing mental health therapist" be include with absolutely no evidence. What Ms. Eaton considers herself is irrelevant. Every state in the USA has laws regarding the title of "practicing" therapist, psychologist, mental health professional, etc. To ignore that is to add inaccurate information to Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified it to take that into account... although you might want to consult this interview to see more. DS (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consult the interview. As I have already stated, Ms. Eaton's stating that she is a mental health therapist is irrelevant to the issue of whether she is licensed as a mental health therapist. I could state that I am a practicing attorney, but that doesn't make me one, nor does it entitle someone to make such a statement about me in a Wikipedia article without providing a reliable source. Some people consider themselves therapists simply because they give advice to their friends. Ms. Eaton's statement that she worked in psychiatric facilities also does not necessarily indicate that she is a licensed therapist. What did she do in those facilities? Did she take social histories from families? That's not therapy. Did she score psychological tests? That's not therapy. Did she organize non-therapeutic activities? That's not therapy. The bottom line is, the source provides no evidence that she actually did or is licensed to provide psychotherapy. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, point taken. I hope the current version is more accurate? DS (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better, but I think the item should be eliminated altogther. An actor having a Master's degree is not notable. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole point of DYK is just to present moderately interesting facts from articles. And in this case, the Glidden article was on the mainpage DYK in 2007; it's being re-used here because it's psychology-related. DS (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have differences of opinion, obviously. I don't think it's "moderately interesting". I think it's utterly non-notable. I have little doubt the item was added by an Eaton fan. Imagine if we created a DYK item for every actor who has a Master's degree. I think it would reduce Wikipedia to a trivia warehouse. If any actor needs a psychology-related DYK item, it's Missy Gold, who has a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, who is a licensed psychologist, and who does practice psychology. There aren't many actors who can make such a claim, regardless of their field of expertise. Singling out Eaton for something so non-notable weakens the DYK component of Wikipedia, which weakens Wikipedia as a whole. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I concur in general, and am willing to concede your point about this not being particularly "interesting" as presented, please bear in mind that this was a vignette for about six hours, over two years ago. I've changed it for the record, but there's no point in being upset over it now. DS (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, although readers interested in psychology are likely to end up at Portal:Psychology, where there is a link to all the DYKs. I'm not personally upset. I just think it weakens Wikipedia to have such useless trivia. Wikipedia has many wonderful qualities, but this aspect of "anyone can edit" with no expert editorial control is one of its profound weaknesses. If I had to battle so much to get this tidbit of misinformation corrected, imagine the problems with important articles that require expertise. That's why I edit anonymously. I was completely worn down as a registered user trying to fight the utterly uninformed zealots who seized control of some scientific articles and made a complete mess out them. And no need to tell me experts are free to edit. That may be true for some articles, but for others why would an expert waste his/her time when he/she is outnumbered by dozens of editors (all with an equal voice) who have no concern for scientific accuracy and are here primarily to promote their personal agenda. But thank you for your comments. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)