User talk:Mirafra

Welcome!

Hello, Mirafra! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –xenotalk 12:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

psychological evaluation

I think text books should be fine. I used Gleitman (many years ago). Any editions would be useful. I dont think the article needs to be long. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC

The reason I suggested an RFC on the matter is to gather opinions on whether consensus exists for such a policy, and how it would be tailored. I might suggest perusing User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences and seeing what the comments were there. It's not exactly what you're going for, but it will be useful to see where the community rejected certain aspects of the policy. If you don't want to do the RFC route, you could draft it in your userspace (i.e. User:Mirafra/Protection of secure test materials) and propose it after you've refined it. –xeno^talk 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically, what happened on DD's page was that the same people came over there and the argument recreated itself, along with accusations of forum-shopping. It was hard for the psych types to talk about the proposal itself (which I think had some major problems, but weren't the problems the non-psych types were arguing with) with people constantly yelling that the whole thing shouldn't be done at all or refusing to see that this went way beyond the specifics of the Rorschach situation. It got really tiresome. What I'd really hope to do would be to get psych-types to think through the problem of what we could propose that would serve the needs of the psychological community with minimal impingement upon the otherwise free sharing of information, in something resembling peace and quiet, with some guidance from people who had some insight into how, say, the BLP policy (which leads with the idea of social responsibility) or other successful policy changes had happened.

Also, I find this whole "consensus" thing to be rather mysterious. It seems like a great idea in theory, and seems to largely work in practice, but what it seems to have degenerated to in this situation is something more like mob rule. When I went back over the history of the Rorschach page, it seemed that there was a sort of "serial consensus" -- psych-types would show up, say, "Dudes, y'all shouldn't be doing this," and get shouted at until they gave up and went away in disgust. "Consensus" seems to be defined as "when someone claims that they have consensus and tells everyone else to shut up," rather than any true sense of consensus as defined by, say, the Society of Friends, or other organizations that operate by consensus.

Meanwhile, it seems tricky to figure out how one can let anyone (such as those editors who were making the same point and who gave up, or colleagues who might have been interested in being WP editors but felt there wasn't any real possibility of making a contribution in the hostile environment) know there is a possibility of doing something about the problem without being seen as engaging in meatpuppetry.

Part of what I'm concerned about is that this is touching a very raw nerve with a lot of WP editors, as SPADoc mentioned. We're being seen as outsiders-by-definition, evil controlling censoring shrinky-types. It hasn't escaped my mind that we're talking with a population highly enriched for Asperger's, etc. I want to find a way to make the presentation be as respectful to these raw nerves as possible, but I can't do that if the very act of saying, "hey, let's talk about this," sets off a firestorm.

Overall, I'm nervous about devoting enormous time to this, only to have the effort be completely pointless because there is no actual possibility for dialogue. Mirafra (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On consensus, Floquenbeam made some astute comments at User talk:Xeno#Sorry, I think I made it worse (see the box statement that was really meant for Talk:Rorschach test, but abandoned in exasperation at the situation).

Perhaps it is something that you could develop in conjunction with other editors at WP:PSYCH as you suggested. Perhaps see how the current RFC goes before spending time on it. –xeno^talk 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach images

Did my post offend you somehow? Durova³⁰⁶ 06:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I don't think Mirafra's exclamation had anything to do with you; it was his/her internal conflict of not wanting (or being permitted per APA ethical guidelines) to tell anything about the cards while simultaneously wanting to have an accurate article. –xeno^talk 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Durova, you weren't offensive. I was just boggling at two things. One, the idea that this much debate should go into something so simple. Two, the notion that people who don't even know the simplest things about the Rorschach, like what the cards actually look like, think that it's good encyclopedic practice for them to just sort of sit there and conjecture about what to write about the test. "The scans we have seem to be wonky," quickly morphed into, "Oh, look, one more reason the test is probably invalid, let's make sure to add that to our POV-pushing." Mirafra (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder which remark you managed to paraphrase into that. --LjL (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for reading on too little sleep. I withdraw the remark -- rereading, I think I was misinterpreting things. That is, I still boggle at both of these topics, but the discussion about the scans was not clearly turned into "the tests are broken." Mirafra (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The debate may seem overkill being about something so trivial as faded cards, but you shouldn't be surprised that Wikipedians are perfectionists (and argumentative). --LjL (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the perfectionism and argumentativeness over what are probably trivial concerns from an encyclopedia standpoint are probably not all that surprising (although it's kinda funny). It's the hubris of the entire enterprise that I just can't get over. Mirafra (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)