User talk:Mindsite

Your query

As far as pointing you to the main users, I've already pointed them to your thread at the Schizophrenia article. As I said, the Psych area of Wiki is very weak, but in terms of those of us who write featured articles, Eubulides (talk · contribs) works on autism-related articles and many others, Casliber (talk · contribs) works on schizophrenia and others (he is currently working to bring major depressive disorder up to speed, so your crosspost there wasn't needed), I work on Tourette syndrome and others, Fainites (talk · contribs) works on reactive attachment disorder, etc. I've put out the word, but unless the Psych Project miraculously gets stronger, WP:MED will be a good, central place, and I've already posted there.[1] If that doesn't yield something, I'll point you in some other directions tomorrow. I'm not on the West Coast, so it's past my bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reviewing the content on your website, Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) is tied in to the pharm Project and is an excellent editor who also works on medical articles, Casliber is working on bipolar disorder, ADHD on Wiki is a wreck (just like it is elsewhere on the 'net, I think it's an attentional thing :-), and you can generally see the state of psych articles on Wiki by looking at WP:FA (look in the bio category and the psych category) and WP:GA. As you'll see, besides what I mentioned, there is work to be done. By the way, it's excellent that you approached someone instead of just beginning to add your site, and that you've divulged your potential COI; had you just started adding the link, you could have gotten off on the wrong foot and ended up on the spambot, COI list :-) More tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindsite, I have your page watchlisted, so we can communicate here. Your proposal should go in a subpage, which can be transcluded to other places. If you give me a suggested (brief) title, I'll set the page up for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV proposal

Also, you may want to examine these two categories:

along with a description of the assessment ratings:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting a long list of links that are already available on your website isn't the most effective way to get feedback; it only clutters the page, adding little, making it hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy thanks - I'm still learning the ropes. Any new page would be fine - what about DSM-IV proposal? I'll look at your other links a bit later. RE: the redundant links, I was thinking that we could add comments or potentially relevant other wiki articles where they could be relevant. Any recommendations or best practices are appreciated. Thanks for being patient while we get used to the editing features. Mindsite (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, isn't there one page on your website that contains all the links you've given below? That amount of talk page clutter will only discourage discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, I could set up a subpage of your userpage and move all of that to there, and link back to it. I would need your permission to do that, since I shouldn't move your talk page posts without your permission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delays. I setup a separate page for the proposal and separated the redacted index to another subpage as well. I've also put a link to it from the Mindsite profile page; anything else? I will review the pages that you recommend above. Mindsite (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice; that's much more effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the pages above - its interesting how things are organized behinds the scenes here. There are quite a few psychology pages that I think we could improve with better references to the full DSM-IV text. Hopefully some people will be interested in helping out - along those lines, I invited some additional users from the Psychology project to provide some input too. Aside from waiting on the APA nod, what else do you recommend at this point? Mindsite (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you'll get much help in the psych realm; sorry, that's the sad state of affairs on wiki, and most psych article are magnets for inferior edits. In terms of improving them, you'll be mostly on your own (other than the articles and editors I've already pointed you towards). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Fvasconcellos

Hi there, and thank you for your message. There are several points I'd like to see clarified:

Can you provide an explicit, externally published source confirming that you have indeed licensed this content, such as a statement from the APA?
Can you provide evidence that our linking to this content would not constitute a copyright violation?
Wikipedia is very serious about fair use. Any additions of fair use excerpts to articles would probably have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure they meet our criteria for inclusion of non-free content.
Please note that role accounts (accounts meant for use by more than one person or by an organization) are not permitted in the English-language Wikipedia; if this account is used by more than one person, explicitly or otherwise, it may be blocked at any moment. Editing would probably be fine as long as
- (a) Mindsite has a "Wikipedia liaison" who would be the sole person responsible for editing from this account, or
- (b) new accounts are registered for other employees who wish to edit.

Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos, I have updated the Mindsite profile page to indicate that I am an individual; thanks for clarifying that role accounts are not permitted. WRT an explicit externally published source confirming our license, I'm afraid that I can't point you to that right now. We intend to issue a press release with the APA. If you want read about our DSM-IV copyright issues further, SandyGeorgia started a thread on the the subject here. WRT providing evidence that linking to our site would not be a copyright violation, can you clarify the question? Mindsite (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot knowingly link to copyright violations on Wikipedia, so my second concern is basically an extension of the first—there shouldn't be any links to Mindsite in Wikipedia articles until we can be sure your website is not violating any APA terms. It's not personal, but I am really not comfortable with this until you can provide some more concrete evidence of your licensing rights :) (such as a joint press release as you noted above). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FV, sorry, but you got it backwards. We can link to Mindsite unless somebody proves they have a copyright violation. Paul Gene (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said shouldn't instead of can't, Paul :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Casliber

Interesting. I think the what is best for wikipedia is being able to list the criteria here (under Fair Use) on the respective wikipedia page on the article, and then referring to the reference for more information. The descriptive body of text would not be needed but can be referred to I guess. Sorry, I have been busy with other things and not read teh discussion so far. I will try to get up to speed above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, thank you for your comment. Mindsite (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Fainites

Jolly useful. I think all of your suggestions for use above have their place. Fainites ^barley 23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, thanks. I added a header to your note, since I almost missed your comment. Mindsite (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't much of a comment! I agree with the others below though about adding TR. These things are particularly important in the somewhat more obscure areas where misrepresentation by design or through ignorance is common. Fainites ^barley 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - we are working on that now. Mindsite (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Eubulides

I made this change to try out using citations to Mindsite from Autism (instead of to Behavenet, which has just the diagnostic criteria). Here is the sample citation. Note that it cites just the diagnostic criteria, not the whole page:

{{cite book |title= Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders |edition=4th ed., text revision ([[DSM-IV-TR]]) |author= American Psychiatric Association |date=2000 |isbn=0890420254 |chapter= Diagnostic criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder |chapterurl=http://www.mindsite.com/dsm_iv/autistic_disorder#diagnostic_criteria |accessdate=2008-07-09}}

Here is what it looks like:

American Psychiatric Association (2000). "Diagnostic criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder". Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision (DSM-IV-TR) ed.). ISBN 0890420254. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Does this look good? Any further suggestions for citation format?

Anyway, some comments:

Thanks a lot for making this stuff freely readable.
Are the "#diagnostic_criteria" tags stable? The abovementioned change relies on them.
(A quibble.) It bugs me a bit that the URLs say "dsm_iv" rather than "dsm_iv_tr". It at first led me to incorrectly think that this is the DSM-IV, not the DSM-IV-TR. Usually this doesn't matter but in some cases (e.g., Tourette syndrome) it does. Perhaps this could be changed?

Eubulides (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an important distinction on Tourette's; it says DSM-IV, but the text is DSM-IV-TR, and everyone who speaks Tourette's knows how significant the difference is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good pick-up guys. I agree (hopefully) this is all DSM-IV-TR, which is technically the current classification, and that DSM IV per se is historical. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll add it to RAD in a mo. Fainites ^barley 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides, linking directly to the diagnostic criteria is great, although since they are commonly found in wiki and elsewhere, it may be more helpful to link to the full discussion or primary URL. I think that it would depend on the context of the reference though. Also, while the criteria tags are stable, the 'more stable' link would be the primary URL since it is difficult to anticipate future changes, if any. Also, I'll take your comment on the URL under advisement; you and the others make a good point. Cheers Mindsite (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Paul_Gene

Being a laissez-faire person, I added your site to the External Links list for the MDD article. It will stay there unless we hear from APA that your use of DSM-IV-TR is not legitimate. Also, as other people here noted you would want to make it explicit on your site that you are using DSM-IV-TR. (It implicitly follows from the copyright dates.) Good luck! Paul Gene (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Paul. I just filed a ticket improve the clarity on site, so that it is more clear that we are using the DSM-IVTR. We may also update the URL as recommended above. Mindsite (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding anything to the featured articles, I'd rather see more concrete clearance from the APA, and for Tourette syndrome, clearing up the DSM-IV-TR, as it was one of the few conditions specifically impacted by the Text Revision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Steve Carlson

My biggest concern about any edit to an article is whether the articles benefits from said change. This concern is intensified in reaction to the idea of a whole program of edits, particularly one whose stated goal is to integrate content from a single third-party source instead of to improve these articles. I'm not saying these goals are mutually exclusive, but the interests of wikipedia should be primary. Merely acknowledging your potential WP:COI is not enough, I need to be convinced that this is not a veiled advertising campaign, a practice which very much ruffles my feathers here on wikipedia. Also, as has been pointed out above, I have yet to see a fair use statement and, in fact, your terms of use seem to forbid reprinting of the material licensed from the APA.

That said, I do think that citing Mindsite as a reference instead of BehaveNet or the DSM itself would benefit articles on psychopathology, because providing a link to the text in addition to the diagnostic criteria may prove useful to someone who wants to dig deeper without having to shell out $$ for the DSM. However, generally speaking, the text itself is too technical for a general audience, and I would balk at the idea of blockquoting even short bits of it. It is better for an editor to take the time to digest and restate the material for a general audience. Steve Carlson^Talk 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Steve. Let me do some reading on the links off your profile related to COI issues (advertising, personal agendas, and sock puppetry) and I'll chew on this. I'd also like to re-review our own TOS and do some more digging around on the fair use subject. Finally, I'm new to Wiki editing and the community working behind the scenes as of this week. Already it is abundantly clear that there is quite a lot of work to be done, to improve Wikipedia articles related to mental health information. David. Mindsite (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The mental health articles are in bad shape, particularly the pathology ones because they don't see enough traffic from knowledgeable editors to stem the tide of anecdotal contributions from people who suffer from those conditions (or people who love someone who does). I don't want to discourage you, as we clearly need the help, I just want to prevent you from running afoul of policy. I don't think that you need to worry about the sock puppet policy, because you're not using multiple accounts to create the illusion of consensus, or even WP:NPOV, because the content in question is the currently accepted diagnostic system (at least here in the U.S.). However, what would raise eyebrows is replacing already sufficient references with links to the same content on your site - it could be interpreted as an attempt to drive traffic to your site. See the section of WP:SPAM entitled "Source Soliciting" - your current effort could be interpreted as advertising under this guideline. Now, if your site adds something above and beyond what the previous references did (and it seems to), great, and assuming fair use, we should use it where appropriate. It would make me feel a whole lot better if non-invested authors made most of those changes though. Steve Carlson^Talk 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links on the COI - I've reviewed those and will keep those in mind as we move forward with helping Wikipedia. In reference to your comment about our Terms of Use, I've re-reviewed our material and it should not be a problem, provided that we keep in mind the Fair Use standards and general guidelines are followed, such as using brief excerpts. Mindsite (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV Index and Wiki Links

I've updated the DSM-IV index with a list of related Wikipedia articles here. Please check this out and edit directly. Mindsite (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confused

Your site and the list of disorders seems to be about psychological disorders. So I wonder why the sleep disorders are included. They're mostly not psychological? IIRC the circadian rhythm disorders were removed from psychology sections not so long ago (except for SAD, which got left behind). --Hordaland (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of overlap between mental health issues and sleep. As for sleep issues being psychological as opposed to physiological, it probably depends on who you ask. Mindsite (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DSM-IV-TR, the diagnostic handbook of clinical psychologists, which incidentally is where most of Mindsite's content comes from, has a whole section on sleep disorders. They are included because they often have psychological contributing factors, although it is also very possible for a sleep disorder to have an organic cause. Sleep disorders encompass a lot more than just hypersomnia and insomnia, too. Think about sleep terrors and sleepwalking and things like that - try and convince me that those don't have psychological causes! Steve Carlson^Talk 02:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that most or all sleep disorders previously were thought to have psychological causes. (Over the decades, I was send to a dozen psychologists who were of no help. Finally, the revelation: Delayed Sleep-Phase Syndrome (DSPS), a life-changing and maybe even life-saving, event.) Lately, ADHD diagnoses have been falling like flies as sleep diagnoses such as DSPS and apnea are made -- and the disorders treated. Sleep medicine is still new, and I'm sure that many more disorders will have their causes uncovered in the years to come. --Hordaland (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV -> DSM-IV-TR

We've updated the page layout at Mindsite to better reflect that we are hosting the text revision. Mindsite (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Copyright Discussion

Updated copyright discussion. Please leave any additional copyright issues on that thread. Mindsite (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Skagedal

Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly your proposal is. Is it to generally prefer Mindsite as a reference for DSM? I think it might be a good idea for mental health articles to use an external link template for DSM references. This could, then, include links to different reliable sources for DSM info, such as BehaveNet and Mindsite. I see there is an attempt at this att Template:DSM-IV Codes, it is however unused. /skagedal^... 11:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]