User talk:WormTT/Adopt/Tylas

Hi Dave. I am reporting for duty!~ty (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! I hope you enjoy your time here :D  Worm TT( talk ) 15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Well if this is an enjoyable journey I am more excited!~ty (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: "Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view." Does this mean that every POV about DID should be presented as being equal no matter how few references actually point to it's validity, and even if no one in the field of DID agrees that it is a mainstream idea?

For example: A very small minority of researchers are determined that DID is caused from watching a TV show back in the 70's, trying to please their therapists so they act as if they have alters. All in the field, even those in this camp above agree that only a small minority still believe these things.

Mainstream consensus is that DID is caused from childhood trauma.

Should these 2 arguments be given equal weight on the article? I do agree they should both be presented, but not throughout the entire article going back and forth between the two. This simply confuses people and they are left still not having a clue about what DID is. They are left thinking it's just a battle ground where no one can agree on anything.~ty (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My goodness no! The most important phrase there is "due weight", but WP:FRINGE goes into this more. Any point of view must be significant to go on a page, and if it's only a small minority then it should not be included at all. The problem is that people who believe the fringe theory may believe it is more prominent than it actually is, and actually removing it may be difficult. I do discuss methods for discussing and deciding solutions in a later module, but effectively it's all about getting more eyes on the matter.  Worm TT( talk ) 08:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh a voice of reason! You are wonderful! It is a minority that believes this stuff (it's tied to covering up severe child abuse), but some of those are researchers in the field of DID. They are certainly not considered to be highly respected researchers, but none the less, they do have this title and they do publish in respected journals. The top researchers in the field of DID argue with them tooth and nail. The problem is that this argument is then brought to WP and instead of making a solid encyclopedic page to explain what DID is, the page is lost is this crazy debate rather than debating the real issues of the matter - the things that the top researchers struggle with figuring out. I know this in a way sounds like I have a POV, but I don't. Some things just muddle reality.~ty (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another question on source credibility that I have. Medscape, I think, is usually considered to be a good source for WP. I do have a MS and have done the normal research and thesis required for this, but the procedure on WP is different and I get this - to a point, since it seems that many editors have a different grasp on what good research means when it gets down to the nitty gritty of it all. One current issue is that some feel that because a group of professionals cited quite a bit of pediatric material (being pediatricians for a good part) rather than current DID articles, that they are not qualified as a reference for the DID WP page. I don't understand this. DID is a mental disorder that begins in childhood - I would hope that pediatricians are interested in the subject and know it well - in fact in many ways they are experts in ways that those who simply do research are not - they work with the patients. Grad level text books are getting the same 3rd degree - if they cite older literature then they are considered invalid more or less - where in reality an expert always cites the best literature out there no matter the age of it. They don't do a simple search like we do on WP and just grab the newest stuff. They are experts and thus they can and do this as general practice. Where the average lay person is not an expert on a subject and on the research history, so it's best they do use current review literature - as is what we like to use on WP, but there is only so much of this out there - especially in a small field like DID. So - this is my other problem with understanding what references should be used on a DID page. There seems to be a way around using just about anything except a review article that is within the last 5 years (which I agree are best to use), but other references such as medscape, merek, grad text books should be used.14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One more point of confusion. On the DID page, editors will cite articles that totally disagree with the point they are citing, just because the article mentions that there is controversy about something. This makes it look like there is a bunch of support for their POV where there is not. Is this the way that WP works?~ty (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Things are not as black and white as the guidelines make them seem when there is conflict on a page, as I am sure you know all too well. So, this feeds my confusion. Thank you so much for taking the time to help me with my conflicted mind. ;) ~ty (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need more eyes on that matter for sure! I am looking forward to the future module, once I can get past the obstacles, created by working on a controversial article, that I have on this one. It's hard when there are so many with different ways of interpreting WP rules - as you said above, and a couple do strongly believe the ideas spread by popular culture and media and they do believe their POV is more prominent than it actually is. A couple of such believers have almost entirely written the article in question, so I am getting WP educated big time there, for better or worse.~ty (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know I will be looking at this as soon as I can :)  Worm TT( talk ) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good Morning Busy Dave! No hurry. There is plenty of time and it takes a while for things to sink in with me anyway. In the meantime, I find myself faced with another WP reality and that is that many editors do not have a basic understanding of a subject they are editing. Again, since I am working on the DID article, I use this for an example. On this page I find the editors there are trying very hard to make the article what they think it should be, and although WP correct as they percieve it, it is done without understanding the basics of the encyclopedic subject they are writing about and mis-interpreting research articles written for those that do have a correct understanding of the basics of this subject. Instead their lack of the very basics is swaying their view.


 * I see it like trying to write an article on the advanced play of chess without knowing the basic rules of chess. One is left to simply go to articles written for expert players and without basic knowledge of the game, they paraphrase bits and pieces of the advanced play strategy, but to the person that is an advanced player it is simply hogwash. Worse is when an editor has played a game of chess with someone that did not understand the game and now is editing with that set of rules as their basis and even an editor that has played Chinese checkers, but he thought it was chess, and now he is trying to edit a page on the advanced strategy of chess. I hope I am making sense. If I try and explain basics on the talk page when a direct question is posed, then it is called soap-boxing and calling other editors dumb. I find myself frustrated - totally knowing what is going on, but with no way of fixing it. Once I get past these points of confusion, I should be able to, and want to do those tests of yours, but until then, I am confused - by the basic rules of WP. I do not want to be playing the wrong game here. ~ty (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, well, I can help you a bit on that. Wikipedia is based on a crowdsourcing model, rather than an expert knowledge model. It's a difficult concept to get your head around, especially in the field of medicine, where expert's views count a lot more than the everyday man's. It does mean that someone like me, who doesn't know much about DID can come in, read sources, evaluate them and then join in the conversation. You're right, there is no way of "fixing" it, because it's the very structure of the system... There are other systems out there (eg. Citizendium), but the simplicity and open environment of Wikipedia is part of the reason that it's as big as it is.  Worm TT( talk ) 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I do understand this, but at the same time it only makes sense that those contributing to the article would try their best to understand basics rather than pushing what they believe to be true based on various things from their past. I am not a content expert on the subject of DID, (although I know some that keep me in the correct direction of the subject) but I do grasp the basics. I think in this case, because DID is a subject so swayed by popular media that it all goes back to the first paragraph on this page where we discussed "due weight and WP:FRINGE issues and the problem that people who believe the fringe theory may believe it is more prominent than it actually is". ~ty (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)