Even if you are experienced on Wikipedia, I suggest you read our beginners guide, as we do a lot of things differently on the Psychology Wiki.
It is important to understand that the pages of Wikipedia reproduced here are used as placeholders. We expect 2/3rds of them to be substantially editied or rewritten so do feel free to change them markedly to fit the needs of the site.
Tip: you can sign your username on talk pages (like this one) using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name, date and time-stamp. Three tildes will just produce your name.
If you have any questions, please contact one of our Administrators.
I'm assuming this is you. Is that correct? Feel free to create an article or articles in your area(s) of expertise. (The founder, Dr Joe Kiff, has several.) When you're satisfied with it, let us know, and we can protect it for you. (Maybe you'd like to let people know about it at a forum, like the general discussion forum).
BTW, have you ever heard of the Tree of Knowledge System, by Gregg Henriques? You might find that interesting. Also, if you're interested in cultural evolution, you might find dual inheritance theory interesting, as well. Have a good one! Jaywin 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Chat & ForumEdit
We have a Psychology Wiki chat and an evolutionary psychology forum. If you're interested, you can request here that an evolutionary psychology channel be added to the drop-down menu at the Psychology Wiki chat. Jaywin 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I could not follow your comments and discussion when interspersed, so I noted that and restored the page to it's previous state. It would be much easier to follow if you would put your comments and requested information after each indented section and indent one more. In other words, put your comments after the signature and have your related comments be indented one additional level. I hope you understand. I'd like to see us get this article in a good state and believe we can. Generally, we need sources, references, and citations that are verifiable and reliable. thanks for your understanding here. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the mess, I had to pull a whole bunch of ref tags out of your quotes to even get it to display.
- "Generally, we need sources, references, and citations that are verifiable and reliable."
- While I appreciate these needs, the wiki lawyers are in the process of wrecking Wikipedia by insisting on these at the expense of the articles being well written, clear, and useful.
- I think there are two approaches to an encyclopedia. The one used in print was to find experts on the topic and have them write the articles with the help of copy editors. Wikipedia used to have a lot of articles of this type. A lot of them have been deleted or edited into nonsense. The other way is "whips and chains" rules which *in theory* allows people without a hint of knowledge about a subject to write an encyclopedia article.
- In practice it's a disaster. The result is often so full of cites or requests for cites the articles are unreadable. Take a look at [] (a good article written by people with knowledge and likely to be deleted) and [] stuffed with 122 references.
- And the bickering is driving people who actually understand the topics away.
- Will at least clean out the red in the article.
- I agree that Wikipedia articles can be captured by zealots and fringe groups. I also think that adhering the APS standards regarding citations and references (see APA Publication Manual, 5th Edition) is just good practice given the content and focus of this site. I think that having people identify themselves here keeps the approach more civil. I also think that, given the specific focus of this site, that an adherence to scientific principles, the use of evidence to support statements, and the use of generally accepted standards (APA Manual, and standards used in journal reviews) will help avoid the disasters you so eloquently point out. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)