![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 86. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pseudoname on December 1, 2005, at 13:44:37
I know a lot of Babblers use Wikipedia – and some love it. How come nobody's put up a Wiki article on Babble?
As a matter of pride, if nothing else, we should have a presence there. The NEW YORK TIMES quotes us*, forgoodnessake! :) There are some benefits a Wiki entry could provide that Google and the background pages here can't.
I think it'd be nice if Wiki had a brief, basic description of Babble with external links to the boards and some CROSS-REFERENCES from other Wiki articles on mental health, e-medicine, self-help, consumer empowerment, etc.
There's an entry for the word "psycho-babble" (meaning gibberishy use of psych lingo), which would need a disambiguation link. There's also a Wiki member now named "psychobabble".
I hope some Wikifans will be interested to do this. I didn't want to start it myself; it seemed presumptuous. If someone's willing to put one up, what do you think the formal Wiki title should be, since "Psycho-Babble" is taken? "Psycho-Babble by Dr. Bob" (from the meds board header)? "Dr. Bob's Psycho-Babble"? "Psycho-Babble Support Boards"? something else?
For those who don't know, Wikipedia is a Web encyclopedia in which ANY PERSON on the Web can start or edit any article at any time, anonymously (or signed) and without any clearance or permission. In theory, if enough people participate, everyone's errors & biases will get corrected & balanced in the long run. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago
____________
*And by "us" I mean "med_empowered" ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 15:15:29
In reply to Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by pseudoname on December 1, 2005, at 13:44:37
hmm...
dare i say...
i'm wary of more publicity
if it means
more lurkers :-((no offence intended to all you lurkers out there... i just worry if people irl are following what i post online)
but...
i think it really is a good idea
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2005, at 10:34:06
In reply to Re: Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 15:15:29
> i think it really is a good idea
It would be interesting, if Babble qualified for an entry. Would someone like to start? I don't think it would have to be anything fancy, since it would be revised and revised, anyway.
Maybe it could be part of the handout for our workshop at the APA in Toronto in May?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20051107/msgs/579471.html
Bob
Posted by rainbowbrite on December 5, 2005, at 10:56:01
In reply to Re: Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2005, at 10:34:06
hmm, I agree with Alexandra
Posted by pseudoname on December 5, 2005, at 13:31:20
In reply to Re: Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2005, at 10:34:06
> It would be interesting, if Babble qualified for an entry.
Wiki frowns on gratuitous, "personal" articles. I think if we open with a statistics-dependent, brief, well-written, WikiStyle, neutral PoV article showing PB's reach & depth PLUS some supporting arguments in the adjoining ":talk" page, maybe mentioning some of our "official" connections, we won't be deleted.
> Would someone like to start?
I'm willing to give it a start, but I wanted to air the idea here first.
For the article name? There are too many other URLs containing "psychobabble" to just use "Psycho-Babble_(Website)". Other choices:
•Psycho-Babble_(support_site)
•Psycho-Babble_(e-community)
•Psycho-Babble_(discussion_site)
•Psycho-Babble_(consumer_site)
•Psycho-Babble_(consumer_info)
•Psycho-Babble_(forum)
•Psycho-Babble_by_Dr._BobThe last, though a little clumsy, is completely unique — but might seem like "personal gratification" to the Wiki police. And the other names would be more descriptive in Wiki's cross-references & disambiguation pages.
If anyone has other ideas on naming, please post here today. Tomorrow, if no one makes a convincing contrary argument (or beats me to it), I'll start an article named
•Psycho-Babble_(support_site)Wiki's current "Psycho-Babble" article will have to be re-named "Psycho-Babble_(speech)".
Posted by pseudoname on December 5, 2005, at 15:44:17
In reply to Re: Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 15:15:29
Alexandra said...
> i'm wary of more publicity if it means more lurkers :-(
> [...] i just worry if people irl are following what i post online.
> but... i think it really is a good idea.And rainbowbrite said...
> I agree with alexandra.Thanks for supporting my idea – with reservations ;)
I don't dismiss the security concerns. But if Wiki brings new people here, I *think* they'd most likely be people like us, who can use Babble and contribute to it. But the number probably wouldn't be very big in any case.
It's easy to forget that Babble's public exposure is already extremely high. Sometimes that's good; sometimes, not so much...
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2005, at 0:16:47
In reply to I'm willing. Article name?, posted by pseudoname on December 5, 2005, at 13:31:20
> Wiki frowns on gratuitous, "personal" articles. I think if we open with a statistics-dependent, brief, well-written, WikiStyle, neutral PoV article showing PB's reach & depth PLUS some supporting arguments in the adjoining ":talk" page, maybe mentioning some of our "official" connections, we won't be deleted.
OK, sounds good!
> If anyone has other ideas on naming, please post here today. Tomorrow, if no one makes a convincing contrary argument (or beats me to it), I'll start an article named
> •Psycho-Babble_(support_site)How about (Internet_forum) or (support_group) instead, since those are themselves entries?
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 8:05:59
In reply to Re: Article name?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2005, at 0:16:47
> How about (Internet_forum) or (support_group) instead, since those are themselves entries?
Good thinking! Maybe (Virtual_community) would capture parts of both of those? Its Wiki entry fits Babble very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community
Posted by zenhussy on December 6, 2005, at 13:01:09
In reply to Wikipedia's Babble entry, posted by pseudoname on December 1, 2005, at 13:44:37
Interesting articles from this past wknd's NYTimes about Wikipedia and the reliability of the information presented. Knowing how Wiki handles erroneous entries is important given the examples from these articles.
Free registration is required at NYTimes to read their online articles: http://www.nytimes.com/gst/regi.html
*******
Growing pains for Wikipedia
Daniel Terdiman, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: December 5, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/9chxf
*******
December 5, 2005
Wikipedia Tightens Submission Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://tinyurl.com/9jqo7
*******
December 4, 2005
Rewriting History
Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
http://tinyurl.com/9uoqs
Posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:17:29
In reply to (virtual_community)?, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 8:05:59
I started a Wikipedia article about Babble. It is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Babble_(virtual_community)It's just what I could come up with quickly, but it's a start. Please, everyone, join in. Correct it, add to it, polish it. It immediately needs Wikifying with internal links. And lots of links back to it from other Wiki articles would be great!
You can use its Talk page for temporary, no-pressure comments & questions about it with other Wiki users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psycho-Babble_(virtual_community)
ANYONE can edit a Wiki article. Registering is anonymous. Wholesale revisions should be discussed first on its Talk page, but don't be shy. Some tips:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_articleand style rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
Posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:37:44
In reply to Wiki article is UP!, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:17:29
The last parenthesis doesn't get in the automatic hyperlink, I guess. Trying a different format:
> I started a Wikipedia article about Babble. It is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Babble_%28virtual_community%29
> You can use its Talk page for temporary, no-pressure comments & questions about it with other Wiki users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psycho-Babble_%28virtual_community%29
Posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:15:44
In reply to correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:37:44
well...
i guess i'm thinking that people who know you access the site...
such as via work internet access...
might want to know a bit more about Babble...
and there it is.
i think i should leave
(it isn't just about this...
it is more generally)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:37:53
In reply to Re: correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:15:44
pseudoname - i really hope you don't take this personally. because from a relatively objective pov i think it really is a terrific idea. and you did good :-)
its just me is all...
because i get into a low place...
and i think my life is worthless anyway
and risk be damned when you are wondering about how to top yourself anyway
and you don't give a sh*t because you just want to curl up and diebut of course...
there it is in the archives indefinately
for anyone and everyone with an internet connection to seeand it is about self control
and the point that i don't really have anythat is why i'm here
(one of the reasons anyway)
but turns out...
that is why i must leave
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2005, at 15:17:41
In reply to Re: correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:37:53
> > that is why i'm here
> (one of the reasons anyway)
> but turns out...
> that is why i must leave...runs screaming from the room....
Talk to us, please.
gg
Posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 16:13:59
In reply to Re: correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:37:53
> because i get into a low place...
> and i think my life is worthless anywayI guess you *are* in a low place. I wish I could return the kind of supportiveness you've repeatedly volunteered to me....
> there it is in the archives indefinately
> for anyone and everyone with an internet
> connection to seeThe body of your work here that I have seen is something to be *proud* of.... Any co-worker who thinks otherwise would be a muffin-brain.
We can explain to anyone that you're only here trying to help the rest of us. Right? You are doing charity work. Or better yet: *research!* for a brilliant book that will make you rich and everyone else envious.
So, don't leave.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2005, at 16:43:54
In reply to Re: correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by alexandra_k on December 6, 2005, at 14:15:44
Alexandra, I honestly don't recall anything you've ever said here that should cause you to want to leave. People might find out a bit more about you, but nothing they should be able to hold against you.
The two people I care about accessing Babble have both promised not to, and if they do then they don't deserve my trust and they deserve to read whatever I've written about them. If anyone else in my life happens across Babble it wouldn't be too hard to identify me. But I haven't written anything in a very long time that I would be horrendously embarassed to have anyone read (or I wouldn't write it). They'd know way more about me than I share in real life, but who cares.
I sometimes worry that my son will violate my privacy and read here, because he's really too young to ask not to do that, and I'm not sure a young person's maturity level is up to the challenge if I did. There are things I don't want him to see. But that's the risks I take, I guess.
Posted by rainbowbrite on December 6, 2005, at 18:14:00
In reply to Re: correct links? –Arrrgh! » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2005, at 16:43:54
I suppose that depends. There are things that some of us have posted that would be truely devasting if others read it, really. How violating it feels to worry that someone is reading what you wrote. I understand that I can't defend this, it is not hidden information. But we all make mistakes. I came here because of the anonimity
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2005, at 4:23:30
In reply to Wiki article is UP!, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:17:29
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2005, at 0:36:13
In reply to Wiki article is UP!, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:17:29
> It's just what I could come up with quickly, but it's a start. Please, everyone, join in. Correct it, add to it, polish it.
I made a few minor edits. Thanks again for getting this started!
Bob
Posted by pseudoname on December 8, 2005, at 8:16:41
In reply to Re: Wiki article is revised, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2005, at 0:36:13
Posted by pseudoname on December 8, 2005, at 8:50:04
In reply to Re: Wiki article is revised, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2005, at 0:36:13
Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 16, 2005, at 15:54:45
In reply to correct links? –Arrrgh!, posted by pseudoname on December 6, 2005, at 13:37:44
> Contributors are also required to agree to an informed consent waiver, which was implemented after contributors challenged Hsuing to submit his project for review by an Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago. Hsiung has since relocated the site on non-University servers, posted a message that the site is not affiliated with the University, and stated that it is not primarily for research purposes.
Is that right Dr Bob? How does that sit with this:
> Some members have discussed participating in person at workshops about the site, accepting an open invitation posted by Hsiung at his site to attend the 2006 conference of the American Psychiatric Association.
And with asking people to participate in research at various points?
Is it the 'primarily' that is crucial?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2005, at 17:02:53
In reply to Re: is this right dr-bob????, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 16, 2005, at 15:54:45
> How does that sit with this:
>
> > Some members have discussed participating in person at workshops about the site, accepting an open invitation posted by Hsiung at his site to attend the 2006 conference of the American Psychiatric Association.I wouldn't consider that research...
> And with asking people to participate in research at various points?
>
> Is it the 'primarily' that is crucial?Yes, I think so.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2005, at 16:02:13
In reply to Re: not primarily for research purposes, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2005, at 17:02:53
> > How does that sit with this:
> > > Some members have discussed participating in person at workshops about the site, accepting an open invitation posted by Hsiung at his site to attend the 2006 conference of the American Psychiatric Association.
> I wouldn't consider that research...
So no informed consent then?
Do you think other people might be inclined to consider it research?Does the APA provide some reimbursement of accomodation / travel costs for 'presenters' then???
> > And with asking people to participate in research at various points?
> > Is it the 'primarily' that is crucial?> Yes, I think so.
Why should it be?
Why... Who is on that ethics committee Dr B?
I think that going through those kinds of boards are fairly much a good thing... Accountability and all...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2005, at 16:06:26
In reply to Re: not primarily for research purposes » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2005, at 16:02:13
I'm still worried...
You see...
People do give consent when they sign up to babble.
Yes, they do.
And I guess the 'informed' comes from their passing the multi-guess quiz.
But...
When people are distressed they are likely to consent to all kinds of things that could be detrimental to them in the long run...
Things like... having sex with therapists... etc etc... consenting to having posts (that they post when they are at an all time low) archived indefinately... etc etc...
and thats where an ethics committee's approval can be a good safeguard... just in case someone decides to sue you for obtaining 'informed consent' from people who are vulnerable etc etc when you have made it clear that you DO understand that there can be consequences along the lines of loss of job, etc etc in some instances...
is this making any sense at all?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.