User:Juice Leskinen/Archive 1

Welcome

 * }

In response to your feedback
Ownership of articles? No one owns an article (unless they created it themselves, but that's another story). Every article can be edited by the public.

Abigail was here :D  Talk to Me.   Email Me.  11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * Without proper Due Process it only works like that in theory. In reality, many people (myself included) are afraid to edit articles where some group have taken editorial control. Juice Leskinen (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If it comes down to this, try posting on the talk page requesting certain edits be made, then at the very least the information can be added. But as Abigail said, you have free reign to edit articles, there shouldn't be any 'group' reverting your edits so the page stays how they want it. Out of interest, can you give an example of an article on which this is happening? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Not cool. Very far from it, and very close to a personal attack. Do not mock or allude to another individual's diagnosis. Though competence is required and wikipedia is not therapy, Tylas' comments are indicative of a strong POV - not mental illness and certainly not enough to merit a condescending cheap shot (never justified) or any insinuation she is not able or capable of editing appropriately. Tylas has a strong but opposite perspective from you. That's it. You and her are both doing the same things - making sweeping claims and failing to substantiate them. She's actually a bit ahead of you in that she's actually provided sources to verify her edits.

Stop it. This pisses me off, is completely unjustified, doesn't help the page at all, and if it continues I'll report it to wikiquette alerts, and if it continues, the administrator's noticeboard.

Comment on contributions, not contributors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, tylas claims to have DID and you seem to believe in the existence of DID. Juice Leskinen (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't justify being an asshole about it. You will disagree with people on wikipedia, but calling out people for having a diagnosis is a great way to get blocked.  If that diagnosis interferes with editing, then you deal with that in terms of disruption to the project.  Tylas' diagnosis does not seem to be negatively interfering with her ability to edit and is indistinguishable from any other editor with a strong POV - like you.  This is why we rely on sources to verify our edits, not opinions.
 * I'm quite skeptical about DID, personally. As an editor of wikipedia, I acknowledge that there is a substantial amount of literature on it, a history going back to the 18th century and a recent explosion in interest and alleged sufferers, many of whom are probably iatrogenic patients.  I also acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of work and publication occurring regarding the traumatic origins of DID.  A tremendous amount.  It's not a tiny fringe viewpoint, there's an entire society with members who are doctors (and patients) with lots of publications under their belts and positions at prestigious universities and medical institutions - they are not quacks (though I find Colin Ross' statement that DID is a result of Project Bluebird more than a little startling).
 * If you want to edit wikipedia, you check your personal opinions at the door. You substantiate the professional opinions of others that are published in reliable sources.  The traumagenic hypothesis will always be part of the DID page.  If the majority scholarly opinion eventually concludes it is a blind alley or dead end, we will document this change in the "History" or "Society and culture" sections, we do not anticipate it.
 * The best way to "promote" your opinion on wikipedia is to find sources that substantiate them and accurately summarize them on the main page. Same rule for everyone - if enough sources support a point, it gets space on the page.  You aren't expected to spend time reading up on something that doesn't interest you (though writing for the enemy is always a good habit and good practice) but you must substantiate, and make room for the sourced opinions of others.  And above all, don't blame others' editing habits on any particular mental illness, disorder or related issue.  Address their contributions, not their character.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of crushing critiques of DID, none which have been successfully refuted at this point it time. The Phlogiston theory is in the same situation. Just because there is a single journal still hanging on to the theory doesn't mean that it is a well supported theory. As has been demonstrated already, it does not appear to be an accepted scientific theory at this point in time. Juice Leskinen (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, put them in this section, or integrate them directly into the article.
 * It's not a single journal article by the way, there's an entire journal dedicated to trauma and dissociation including DID. It very much appears to be an active area of research even if it's already passed through a research "bubble" (per Pope, 2006).  It's quite possible that the J Trauma Diss is over-represented as a source because it's regularly producing articles while other journals with higher readership and impact factors are paying less attention.  This is very hard to deal with unfortunately - so any sources (recent and secondary) you can find will be very helpful.
 * TomCloyd and Tylas are wasting a fuckton of time on the talk page discussing bullshit nonsense and concern trolling, so I've taken to simply not responding to Tom's at least since they're the greatest waste of time. I've done my best to illustrate the appropriate approach to take and they're too busy whining about irrelevant tangents like how mean I am.  Whatever, I could not give less of a shit if I was taking expensive shit-repelling drugs.  Instead I'm going to focus my time on reading sources and integrating them into the main page.  Much greater impact and so long as they're reliable, you pretty much can't get rid of them.  It produces a more referenced, detailed, longer and overall better page, even as it might be one-sided.  But I'll worry about balancing the sides later.  If you genuinely want to have a positive impact and make contributions that can be respected and will be defended by other editors - focus on the sources, not the principles, and add them right to the actual article.  You should also read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS quite closely, they should inform most of your edits.
 * Again, focus on expanding the criticism if that's your interest, don't bother trying to tear down the other side. It doesn't make the criticism argument any stronger and it's seen quite negatively by the community at large.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Balancing the different theories is #1--by far the most important issue in this article. Adding MORE text is easily the worst thing that can be done to the article. It should be cleaned up, and written in the NPOV perspective rather than the current advocacy perspective for DID. So who are pushing the DID agenda here? Well, we have a person who claims to suffer from DID and a person who earns his living on DID. Glorious. To their defense they have a single fringe journal.


 * You claim they have responded to the criticisms, for example McNally's book. Where? Juice Leskinen (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your last statement is referring to. Doesn't really matter, just use McNally's book and it's up to them to respond to the criticisms.  The page should be expanded and updated.  If it gets too long, we spin it out into sub articles with brief summaries and main links in the parent article.  Everything on wikipedia should get bigger and more specific with time, the evidence base for nearly everything in the world is expanding at an astonishing rate.
 * Editing wikipedia well is hard work, particularly on developed pages. It's not enough to simply show up and demand changes - you need to source them and often make them yourself by fairly summarizing reliable sources.  If you're just going to unleash broadside criticisms without providing any substance, you're really not helping the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Editing well is not the issue, at this point in time I do believe that the main goal of any serious editor should be damage control, making sure the articles are doing as little harm as possible. If you believe that a single journal is proof that a scientific field is thriving then we have a serious problem in that regard. If you are going to keep that up, then I can't be bothered. If I cannot reason with you, then there is no hope. None whatsoever. Juice Leskinen (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you aren't willing to edit in compliance with wikipedia's policies, then I agree this is not the venue for you. There's no problem with including the iatrogenesis hypothesis or criticisms of DID - we must also represent the traumagenic hypothesis.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  Sometimes it's an advantage, sometimes its' not.  If you're concerned about your ability to include personal opinion on pages, you may want to try Citizendium instead.  It allows real-name expert editing and a certain degree of original research prohibited here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you WLU. Hmmm... do I really have an extreme POV? I will work on this. I felt I was fighting an extreme POV. I agree with science, I just do not agree with bringing the politics of the False Memory people here. As I have said before, you do have some great qualities and I do see where you are good for the page. This does not make me your puppet! :) ~ty (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably have good intentions and you are probably a lovely person. Same with WLU. However, you guys do a great deal of damage to Wikipedia at the moment. I will let you guys battle it out, it's obvious this article is a waste of time at its current state. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am ready for battle. Thank you Juice. I can be lovely at times. lol ~ty (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)