User talk:A.Spotted.Owl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello all.. I've been around a bit, so don't need greeting.. but will undoubtedly continue to need help in the fine points of wiki mark-up if i happen to end up doing an edit. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bipolar spectrum
Hi, I've been reading your post on BP spectrum's talk, and I may say that I agree in every single point. Now I've finished BPD for the spanish wikipedia, and is a FA candidate. Next one will be Bipolar Disorder, which is now in documentation stage. I need some advice on general approach, so I would be grateful if you can help me on this point. In addition I would like to know your opinion about BPD being a part of Bipolar spectrum (maybe one of the extremes, being the other unipolar depression). Thank you in advance. --Gustavocarra (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Please write me in my talk page at the spanish wikipedia: Talk:gustavocarra
[edit] Approach to unsourced dubious content
You may find these quotes from Jimbo interesting:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[1]
–Jimmy Wales
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone. I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)[2]
–Jimmy Wales
Addhoc (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how often I read a peer-reviewed medical or psych journal, research or such, and while they have a list of references a MILE LONG. So how am I to know who really said what? The one who swiped facts and didn't credit (spelling is wrong) or go to the original sources - all 30 or so of them, and read them all?
After all, as Zeraeph has pointed out so many times in more recent times, if she can't find it on the WWW, then in her estimation, it is not worthy of being included. Damned shame that I use databases, with long abstracts or entire articles --- and not a one of them give credit where credit is due.
I have been studying psychiatry since I was 28 or so, and was a psychology major before that, did two rotations in psych nursing (my choice) and worked closely with my husband, a psychiatrist... He listened to books and articles on tape - I read the expensive books and piles of journals that came home. All peer reviewed, all of the authors still well regarded. But not even they footnoted and annotated.... just put up a long bibliography in the vast majority of cases.
Frankly, I was never ever requested to do a proper research article, fully footnoted, since I was in high school under a brilliant English teacher who was one of the more inspiring people I have ever met - because she DID demand so much of us ---- but then we had a LIBRARY with all the material she wanted at the end of the hall and we had hours and hours to spend there.
As for me, I have to drive some 40 miles to the university with a graduate psychology department since this county does not, as I have previously experienced, a inter-library loan with graduate universities of professional training. Now THOSE were the days....
I'm glad you have such an extensive library at home or a huge city or university library within a short drive. You are so very lucky... 209.166.73.19 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
