| |
|
  |
 Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? - New York Times |
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:21am)  QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:04am) QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:47am)
I don't support anybody having a "right to their profession" in the sense of being able to use the legal system to suppress anybody else who might threaten the monopoly of you and your friends over whatever field of practice you do.
Fail Now you're giving pass/fail tests like Mensa? If you were a licensed psychologist, you could make a more detailed diagnosis of me. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Let us both give thanks that the legal system in most civilized countries prohibits me from even trying to do that — at any price. Ja Ja (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 10:07am)
The Rorschach blots are routinely used for very questionable purposes (read up on the history of psychological testing as a means to restrict freedom sometimes, it's very interesting), and it's almost without doubt that at least part of the campaign to include them on Wikipedia is driven by one of the many campaigns against dubious psychological testing.
The American Psychological Association has, of late, been waging a very determined war to keep its profession from being subjected to public scrutiny. Why this might be is certainly a matter that could be discussed (but probably shouldn't be) but the point here is that this has become one of those "battleground" issues, and the Rorschach blots is just one of the fronts on which this battle is being fought, and Wikipedia is just one of the theatres in which this war is being fought.
I think we're all for public scrutiny of all the professions, all the time. Is psychoanalysis really dead? Maybe so, maybe not. Is Wikipedia the theatre to decide its worth? I don't think so … Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:07am)
The Rorschach blots are routinely used for very questionable purposes (read up on the history of psychological testing as a means to restrict freedom sometimes, it's very interesting), and it's almost without doubt that at least part of the campaign to include them on Wikipedia is driven by one of the many campaigns against dubious psychological testing.
The American Psychological Association has, of late, been waging a very determined war to keep its profession from being subjected to public scrutiny. Why this might be is certainly a matter that could be discussed (but probably shouldn't be) but the point here is that this has become one of those "battleground" issues, and the Rorschach blots is just one of the fronts on which this battle is being fought, and Wikipedia is just one of the theatres in which this war is being fought.
There are certainly some very dark chapters in the history of psychology. Currently, however, psychologists undergo accredited university training, publish in peer reviewed journals, are licensed under laws that permit public input (including some non-psychologist members) into the criteria, and provides the public with a system of professional responsibility and a grievance process that oversees and punishes abuses. They are also not subject to blanket immunity for their misdeeds and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice. Contrast this with Wikipedia... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:17am) Currently, however, psychologists undergo accredited university training, publish in peer reviewed journals, are licensed under laws that permit public input (including some non-psychologist members) into the criteria, and provides the public with a system of professional responsibility and a grievance process that oversees and punishes abuses. They are also not subject to blanket immunity for their misdeed and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice. And if a psychologist gets you declared mentally incompetent, then you aren't allowed to bring civil suit against them or otherwise avail yourself of all of the above, because that psychologist has arranged to have you declared a nonperson. Sadly, this still happens, and of late it's been happening more. The pendulum swings, as always. Wikipedia is just one of the battle grounds on which this broader battle is being fought. Fundamentally, this issue isn't about Wikipedia, except insofar as Wikipedia is a great forum for issue advocacy. But we knew that already. Yawn. Move along, nothing new to see here. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:23am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:17am) Currently, however, psychologists undergo accredited university training, publish in peer reviewed journals, are licensed under laws that permit public input (including some non-psychologist members) into the criteria, and provides the public with a system of professional responsibility and a grievance process that oversees and punishes abuses. They are also not subject to blanket immunity for their misdeed and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice. And if a psychologist gets you declared mentally incompetent, then you aren't allowed to bring civil suit against them or otherwise avail yourself of all of the above, because that psychologist has arranged to have you declared a nonperson. Sadly, this still happens, and of late it's been happening more. The pendulum swings, as always. Wikipedia is just one of the battle grounds on which this broader battle is being fought. Fundamentally, this issue isn't about Wikipedia, except insofar as Wikipedia is a great forum for issue advocacy. But we knew that already. Yawn. Move along, nothing new to see here. I'm certain that you are aware that their are elaborate safeguards, including free appointed legal counsel, guardian ad litems and a right to an independent evaluation. Currently the system is more likely to dump the untreated on the street (and then on to jails) than to falsely determine someone to be mentally ill to the extent that they need to have their civil liberties curtailed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:30am) I'm certain that you are aware that their are elaborate safeguards, including free appointed legal counsel, guardian ad litems and a right to an independent evaluation. Currently the system is more likely to dump the untreated on the street (and then on to jails) than to falsely determine someone to be mentally ill to the extent that they need to have their civil liberties curtailed. Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights? But I really don't want this thread to turn into an indictment of the public mental health system in the United States; that's neither here nor there. The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 10:46am)
Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?
The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:46am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:30am) I'm certain that you are aware that their are elaborate safeguards, including free appointed legal counsel, guardian ad litems and a right to an independent evaluation. Currently the system is more likely to dump the untreated on the street (and then on to jails) than to falsely determine someone to be mentally ill to the extent that they need to have their civil liberties curtailed. Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights? But I really don't want this thread to turn into an indictment of the public mental health system in the United States; that's neither here nor there. The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already. I think it is true that the threat of commitment often is used to coerce people into treatment and that only a minority of cases involve any process whatsoever. I'm puzzled over whether the pendulum was swinging again as it seems to me that no one is making expensive treatment resources more available either n the form of institutions or community based services. In mental health generally no but perhaps in the area of seniors whose families raise concerns about dementia or other conditions effecting mental faculties associated with aging. The potential of abuse here is great. The early appointment of a GAL, which most judges do liberally if anyone, including the subject of the proceeding, raises any concerns about the matter is probably the best path to protecting rights. Once this happens it is likely that the GAL, who is charged with doing what is best for the person not their desires, will insist that a attorney is appointed to protect the individuals wishes if that conflicts with how she sees the best interests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
