959:: Thanks for more information. I've been somewhat involved with launching the ASA initiative, which sadly seems to be a failure (as in - I am not aware of a single lasting series of Knowledge (XXG) edits that originated thanks to it). Compared to it, APS is as you've pointed out much more successful. Yet ASA initiative was also promoted in similar ways to your description of promotion for the APS initiative - it was endorsed by its leadership in speeches/newsletters, there is a webpage and a portal both modeled after APS ones, WMF had booths at two ASA conferences (at least in 2011 and 2012, I haven't heard if we had one in 2013); I helped manned the two former - we passed leaflets, held a workshop, send invitations for the Education Program, etc. So on the surface the projects look very similar - why is it such a success for APS, and a failure for ASA? I can't help but think that APS did something more (or better) compared to ASA, and understanding that something is a key to working out the best practices for such projects. --
528:
building a relationship with the
British Psychological Society and contacting individual psychologists for pointers. Educational projects are the only real grounds for optimism about psychology on Knowledge (XXG): if you find a psychology article which cites decent scientific sources, then it's probably been written by a student assignment. Though a minority of educational activities have had a bad press, I don't think Knowledge (XXG) can fulfil its mission without them.
622:
172:
128:
118:
756:
but it is making a huge, huge, improvement over what was there before. When you find an experimental psychology article with a lot of citations to reliable academic sources, it was most probably created in a student assignment, and most probably one encouraged by the APS. A great many articles related to memory were improved by a
Canadian university course (not part of the APS program) and there are some
292:
university I have access to a university library with very good holdings about psychological research, and I have been a participant in a graduate seminar ("journal club") on behavior genetics and individual differences psychology at that university for the last four school years. I have not contributed (yet) to any of the good articles or featured articles followed by WikiProject
Psychology, but I take
276:
Writing about psychology is also an opportunity to write about the scientific method. Although my PhD is in philosophy, my academic interests have always straddled psychology and philosophy. Improving
Knowledge (XXG) articles has been a great opportunity to develop my expertise, get feedback from other people and to make my writing more accessible. A weak article straddling psychology and philosophy was
44:
138:
98:
148:
108:
929:
under the APS-initiative. This class focused on biographical articles about psychologists, rather than articles about psychology, so it didn't have the impact discussed here. Beyond the normal stresses inherent in any student-program on
Knowledge (XXG), some good content was added and students were
755:
APS program has generated a great volume of content which is reliably sourced, thorough and reflects an academic view of the subject. The content could be made more accessible for a lay audience, and there could be less duplication between articles. So it hasn't produced a lot of top-quality articles
461:
The most helpful sources have been actual physical textbooks. Whenever I feel that distilling the topic down into an article is impossible, I remind myself that if there can be an academic textbook on a topic, there can be an encyclopaedia article. I have a huge advantage working in a university and
380:
effects relate to each other when the academic sources themselves often don't say. There is also a lot of folk misconception and "pop" psychology about. There are some tremendously informed
Knowledge (XXG) editors, but there are also contributors who push decisions about psychology articles based on
311:
I don't think of myself as a member of this project, but I watch it because of its overlap with neuroscience. I'm writing here because it would be wrong to discuss this project without mentioning Lova Falk, who has been doing much of the maintenance for some time, and has been tremendously helpful
978:
I wouldn't worry too much about "imperialism" by the philosophy project Martin. Like some other wikiprojects they had one or two people who went banner-crazy a few years ago. In reality I think they are just as sensible and undermanned as most other wikiprojects, including this one by the sound of
275:
Psychology deals with questions of human bias and error, of happiness, of social interaction, and other things that are extremely useful or important to understand. So a central way a 💕 can benefit the world is to raise awareness of what reliable, scientific knowledge there is about these topics.
527:
I sense a bit of friction, or maybe friendly rivalry, with the philosophy wikiproject. They claim many psychological articles in a way that seems a bit imperialist. Psychology hasn't been a subdiscipline of philosophy for a long time- let it go! I'm more keen on external collaboration. I've been
404:
editing dispute was resolved in a way that displays all the test items, along with interpretive information. (The test is no longer under copyright, but some psychologists don't appreciate the item content being shared with the general public if they still use the test clinically.) That's not my
379:
I agree with WBB above: a large proportion of psychology articles are an embarrassment. Psychology itself makes things hard because there is often a lack of expert consensus on terminology and theory: too many researchers come up with their own "laws" or "effects". It's hard to explain how these
291:
I have had a personal research interest in the psychology of education and the theory and practice behind IQ testing for more than twenty years as a lawyer, a homeschooling parent, and a consultant on gifted education. My higher education degrees were in other subjects, but through my alma mater
367:
article started out with another editor's expert-attention-needed tag from
October 2012, but once I did a massive expansion of that article, another editor tagged it as too technical. It's an art to write about a topic for which there is much detailed expert analysis and still communicate with
769:
article got improved to GA. Personally, I wish there were more attempts to engage the existing
Wikiproject infrastructure, and to put more information on Talk pages about who is improving them and over what time period. Then again, as my colleagues and I say above, there aren't enough active
357:
from any author. I knew these topics would be controversial to work on, as I began as a
Wikipedian in 2010, from reading the article talk pages and from my own experience in online discussion of these issues that goes back to 1992. So my first approach for a few years was mostly to compile a
425:
article is as comprehensive as it is. It's amazing that, not long ago, adults showed other adults inkblots to identify if they were homosexual (among other things). The story of how a profession fell into this error, and how the scientific approach exposed it, belongs in a
352:
Most of the articles about human intelligence and IQ testing are an embarrassment. The articles are challenging to write or edit, yes, because almost everyone thinks they know something about those topics, but in fact many popular views on those issues are not supported by
559:
I would love to see more editors who are well informed about psychology take looks at any and every article that pertains to human intelligence. Most of those are badly in need of revision, and I've already done the spadework of finding a lot of good current secondary
362:
on those topics, sharing what I found in the university library with other
Wikipedians, and linking to that list from the talk pages of many of the articles that badly needed revision. Sure enough, as I began more actively updating articles this year, I found that the
511:
I think there is informal cooperation through overlapping memberships of editors. I will have to look for more opportunities to collaborate. One thing I do now is remind editors working on articles on topics for which there is medical literature to refer to the
490:
without resulting in a redirect clash. Many wikilinks, a few templates, and much article text will have to be updated just to take into account that change in DSM-5 terminology. I made sure to check DSM-5 before writing about low-IQ persons in my expansion of
323:
Absolutely. Lova Falk is an incredibly hard working and exemplary Wikipedian, and does a lot of necessary maintenance and article development. We're all greatly in her debt. Only speaking up for her because she's on a wikibreak and not likely to answer
420:
My impression is that, while psychology is a huge and diverse subject, the number of very active editors is small, and our interests are also diverse, so there's not much overlap. This is worrying. As my interest is bias and error, I'm really glad the
930:
introduced to editing. Initiatives like these are great cover for those of us trying to bring Knowledge (XXG) in front of the generally-hostile faculty. I wish every association representing an academic discipline would hold similar initiatives.
296:, a featured article contributed to by other project editors, as a model article and an example I strive to emulate in editing other articles. The articles I work on most pertain to IQ testing, and some of those have been subject to very extensive
835:: Thanks for the correction. I'm not very familiar with how the APS encouraged participation because I don't follow their internal communication, but the initiative has been publicised in their internal newsletter and web site. Cheers,
335:
I too agree that Lova Falk has been a consistent contributor of good content to many of the articles watched by project participants, and furthermore has been very encouraging to new editors, as I recall from when I began editing in
37:
Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Knowledge (XXG): This week, we spent some time with the minds behind WikiProject Psychology. The project was created in March 2006 and has grown to include 14 Featured Articles and 43 Good
814:: thank you for the answer, it's very interesting. Do you know what APS has done to attract people to this project? It would be a very interesting case study. (Also, I think you mean APS not ASA in your opening sentence?) --
779:
to be done, but I'd rather have an article that needs cleanup or simplifying than no coverage of the topic at all. It's when educational activities cause disruption that they get talked about on noticeboards or here in
707:
571:
It's true for any subject, but more watchlisting by more editors would be good, since too many articles are the work of just one person or aren't being worked on at all. Keep an eye on us and keep us honest!
203:
516:. Whenever I look at an article, I look at the article's talk page (perhaps that is one defining characteristic of a Wikipedian), and when I do that, I note which WikiProjects follow the articles I watch.
676:
609:
600:
681:
661:
245:
666:
500:
Does WikiProject Psychology collaborate with any other WikiProjects? What could be done to improve communication between the projects that cover the various social sciences and medical professions?
312:
to new contributors, even to the point of burnout. She is apparently on vacation and might not be able to respond before this interview appears, but it would be a shame not to mention her role.
297:
656:
651:
592:
543:
recently sponsored a Knowledge (XXG) initiative that resulted in a number of university classes doing Knowledge (XXG)-writing assignments. Some of the results were painful, but some were good.
84:
447:
400:
I don't have a general impression of which subdisciplines are best served at present by Knowledge (XXG). I have heard from friends who are clinical psychologists that they are angry that the
264:
What motivated you to join WikiProject Psychology? Do you have an educational or professional background in psychology? Have you contributed to any of the project's Good or Featured Articles?
646:
792:. And of course we are giving undergraduate students a real experience of publication and all the other great educational benefits. I used to despair about psychology on Knowledge (XXG)
639:
431:
Have you found any resources that are particularly useful in sourcing articles about psychology? Are there any resources that would be helpful if an editor could make them available?
1002:
633:
63:
52:
539:
There is cooperation with WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Neuroscience, largely through shared membership. There has also been cooperation with the Education project. The
757:
731:
program. Was it useful? Was it trying to engage the WikiProject? What was done good, what was done badly, what was improved, what could be improved? A similar project by ASA (
280:, which I rewrote and took up to FA. Psychology still has the feel of a "frontier": it's rewarding to find a core concept of psychology which lacks an article, and start one.
341:
How detailed are Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about psychological concepts? Has it been challenging to write articles that are substantive yet accessible to the layperson?
244:. The project was created in March 2006 and has grown to include 14 Featured Articles and 43 Good Articles. WikiProject Psychology is home to three task forces and a
1055:
926:
21:
1030:
443:
359:
1025:
1020:
213:
389:
Are some branches of the discipline better covered by Knowledge (XXG) than others? Is applied psychology treated the same way as theoretical aspects?
1015:
495:. I suppose there are many more articles that are affected by changing views of psychiatrists and psychologists as reflected in the DSM revision.
728:
540:
849:
Not sure if this was related to the APS efforts but one of the schools that contributed created a great deal of copyright infringement per
368:
members of the general public who have never checked what the experts say on the topic. I will be practicing this art for years, I think.
240:
189:
1010:
903:
621:
57:
43:
17:
462:
having access to paywalled research, but that shouldn't be restricted to people like me, and I advocate open access whenever I can.
760:
that were created or overhauled by final-year undergrads in the University of Southampton, UK (predating the APS initiative).
988:
971:
945:
912:
873:
844:
826:
805:
746:
865:
852:. As there are few long term Wikipedians in the topic area much of it still sits on Knowledge (XXG) making us look bad.
27:
784:. That's understandable, but it's easy for us to ignore, or just not hear about, the very much greater amount of
1036:
938:
869:
409:
improve Knowledge (XXG) articles, not trusting the Knowledge (XXG) editorial policies as actually implemented.
384:
Knowledge (XXG) articles (which are just as bad) or on a Google search (when the best research is paywalled).
840:
801:
487:
765:
The APS has also encouraged academic members to contribute directly, as well as students: that's how the
896:
554:
506:
477:
437:
395:
347:
330:
286:
249:
850:
230:
956:
932:
952:
836:
811:
797:
566:
522:
483:
456:
415:
374:
318:
270:
253:
513:
101:
984:
965:
820:
766:
740:
703:
492:
364:
293:
277:
131:
887:
891:
861:
582:
As with all academic topics, the most urgent need is for more people to write good articles.
111:
354:
141:
422:
401:
222:
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the
796:
getting any good, but the arrival of educational assignments has lifted that despair.
1049:
577:
534:
306:
257:
161:
980:
961:
920:
832:
816:
736:
121:
732:
151:
853:
548:
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
886:
If Wikiproject Psycology has any articles they would like to nominate over at
194:
514:
Knowledge (XXG) guideline on reliable sources for medical-related articles
588:
405:
beef, but I get the impression that some psychologists self-select to
193:
has been significantly expanded and is seeking editors interested in
758:
really interesting articles on the psychology of self and identity
468:
62:
482:
The project has looming before it a messy process of renaming
620:
246:
collaboration with the Association for Psychological Science
170:
42:
734:) as far as I know resulted in noone (but me) caring. --
471:
result in any changes that the project had to cope with?
719:
712:
692:
446:
are useful, as are most of the resources shared in my
79:
Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Knowledge (XXG)
28:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Psychology in The Signpost
770:
Wikipedians in this area to do all that needs doing.
587:
Next week, we'll head to the stomping ground of the
238:
This week, we spent some time with the minds behind
890:, we can work together to improve their quality. --
717:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
442:Yes, essentially all of the resources shared in my
591:. Until then, find unity in the diversity of our
448:source list on human biology, race, and genetics
727:I'd love to hear more on how effective was the
8:
872:) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
1056:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2013-09
444:source list on IQ and human intelligence
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
720:
696:
78:
962:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
817:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
737:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
729:Association for Psychological Science
541:Association for Psychological Science
204:WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
36:
7:
925:I served as Campus Ambassador for
467:Did the recent publication of the
64:
35:
702:These comments are automatically
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
1003:putting together the next issue
888:Todays articles for improvement
713:add the page to your watchlist
1:
989:13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
972:06:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
946:05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
913:04:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
874:18:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
845:16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
827:16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
806:14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
747:03:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
1072:
300:over the last few years.
488:Intellectual disability
217:could use your feedback
710:. To follow comments,
625:
613:"WikiProject report" →
241:WikiProject Psychology
175:
47:
624:
214:proposed WikiProjects
190:WikiProject Invention
174:
46:
706:from this article's
605:"WikiProject report"
957:User:Chris troutman
200:A new issue of the
953:User:MartinPoulter
927:a Psychology class
812:User:MartinPoulter
697:Discuss this story
677:Arbitration report
672:WikiProject report
626:
484:Mental retardation
197:and related topics
176:
76:WikiProject report
53:← Back to Contents
48:
788:that is going on
767:Stereotype threat
721:purging the cache
682:Technology report
662:Discussion report
493:IQ classification
365:IQ classification
294:Confirmation bias
278:Confirmation bias
248:. We interviewed
208:has been released
58:View Latest Issue
26:(Redirected from
1063:
1039:
1001:needs your help
968:
944:
941:
935:
924:
908:
899:
894:
858:
823:
743:
724:
722:
716:
695:
667:Featured content
644:
636:
634:4 September 2013
629:
612:
604:
555:WeijiBaikeBianji
507:WeijiBaikeBianji
478:WeijiBaikeBianji
438:WeijiBaikeBianji
396:WeijiBaikeBianji
355:reliable sources
348:WeijiBaikeBianji
331:WeijiBaikeBianji
287:WeijiBaikeBianji
250:WeijiBaikeBianji
231:WikiProject Desk
228:
182:WikiProject News
180:
177:
173:
164:
150:
149:
140:
139:
130:
129:
120:
119:
110:
109:
100:
99:
70:
68:
66:
65:4 September 2013
31:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1035:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1006:
995:
994:
970:
966:
939:
933:
931:
918:
911:
904:
897:
892:
854:
825:
821:
745:
741:
726:
718:
711:
700:
699:
693:+ Add a comment
691:
687:
686:
685:
637:
632:
630:
627:
616:
615:
610:
607:
602:
236:
235:
234:
226:
220:
184:
183:
179:Your source for
178:
171:
169:
165:
159:
158:
157:
156:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
91:
88:
77:
73:
71:
61:
60:
55:
49:
39:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1069:
1067:
1059:
1058:
1048:
1047:
1034:
1029:
1024:
1019:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
997:
996:
993:
992:
991:
975:
974:
960:
934:Chris Troutman
916:
915:
901:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
815:
772:
771:
762:
761:
735:
701:
698:
690:
689:
688:
684:
679:
674:
669:
664:
659:
657:Traffic report
654:
652:News and notes
649:
643:
631:
619:
618:
617:
608:
599:
598:
597:
586:
584:
583:
573:
572:
562:
561:
550:
549:
545:
544:
530:
529:
518:
517:
502:
501:
497:
496:
473:
472:
464:
463:
452:
451:
433:
432:
428:
427:
423:Rorschach test
411:
410:
402:Rorschach test
391:
390:
386:
385:
370:
369:
343:
342:
338:
337:
326:
325:
314:
313:
302:
301:
282:
281:
266:
265:
221:
219:
218:
209:
198:
185:
181:
168:
167:
166:
155:
154:
144:
134:
124:
114:
104:
93:
92:
89:
83:
82:
81:
80:
75:
74:
72:
69:
56:
51:
50:
41:
40:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1068:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1038:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1004:
1000:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
973:
969:
963:
958:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
942:
936:
928:
922:
914:
909:
907:
900:
895:
889:
885:
884:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
857:
851:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
837:MartinPoulter
834:
830:
829:
828:
824:
818:
813:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
798:MartinPoulter
795:
791:
787:
783:
778:
774:
773:
768:
764:
763:
759:
754:
750:
749:
748:
744:
738:
733:
730:
723:
714:
709:
705:
694:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
635:
628:In this issue
623:
614:
606:
596:
594:
590:
581:
579:
575:
574:
570:
568:
567:MartinPoulter
564:
563:
558:
556:
552:
551:
547:
546:
542:
538:
536:
532:
531:
526:
524:
523:MartinPoulter
520:
519:
515:
510:
508:
504:
503:
499:
498:
494:
489:
485:
481:
479:
475:
474:
470:
466:
465:
460:
458:
457:MartinPoulter
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
439:
435:
434:
430:
429:
424:
419:
417:
416:MartinPoulter
413:
412:
408:
403:
399:
397:
393:
392:
388:
387:
383:
378:
376:
375:MartinPoulter
372:
371:
366:
361:
356:
351:
349:
345:
344:
340:
339:
334:
332:
328:
327:
322:
320:
319:MartinPoulter
316:
315:
310:
308:
304:
303:
299:
295:
290:
288:
284:
283:
279:
274:
272:
271:MartinPoulter
268:
267:
263:
262:
261:
259:
255:
254:MartinPoulter
251:
247:
243:
242:
232:
225:
216:
215:
210:
207:
206:
205:
199:
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
163:
153:
145:
143:
135:
133:
125:
123:
115:
113:
105:
103:
95:
94:
86:
67:
59:
54:
45:
29:
23:
19:
999:The Signpost
998:
917:
905:
855:
833:User:Piotrus
793:
789:
785:
781:
776:
752:
671:
647:In the media
640:all comments
585:
576:
565:
553:
533:
521:
505:
476:
455:
436:
414:
406:
394:
381:
373:
346:
329:
317:
305:
298:edit-warring
285:
269:
239:
237:
223:
212:
202:
201:
188:
1037:Suggestions
786:improvement
704:transcluded
360:source list
967:reply here
822:reply here
742:reply here
90:Share this
85:Contribute
22:2013-09-04
1031:Subscribe
856:Doc James
708:talk page
195:invention
38:Articles.
1050:Category
1026:Newsroom
1021:Archives
906:contribs
866:contribs
782:Signpost
775:There's
603:Previous
589:Java Man
578:Looie496
560:sources.
535:Looie496
324:herself.
307:Looie496
258:Looie496
224:Signpost
211:Lots of
162:Mabeenot
132:LinkedIn
112:Facebook
20: |
981:Johnbod
921:Piotrus
898:Penguin
790:quietly
777:cleanup
593:archive
358:growing
122:Twitter
256:, and
142:Reddit
102:E-mail
1016:About
870:email
469:DSM-5
382:other
336:2010.
16:<
1011:Home
985:talk
979:it.
940:talk
893:Nick
862:talk
841:talk
802:talk
794:ever
751:The
611:Next
152:Digg
753:ASA
486:to
426:💕.
407:not
160:By
87:—
1052::
987:)
955:,
868:·
864:·
843:)
804:)
601:←
595:.
260:.
252:,
229:s
1005:.
983:(
964:|
951:@
943:)
937:(
923::
919:@
910:)
902:(
860:(
839:(
831:@
819:|
810:@
800:(
739:|
725:.
715:.
642:)
638:(
580::
569::
557::
537::
525::
509::
480::
459::
450:.
440::
418::
398::
377::
350::
333::
321::
309::
289::
273::
233:.
227:'
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
