Psychology Wiki

Lifeartist Old Archive 2

aka A Fandom User

Your PapersEdit

Had a read and did the structuring they needed. Very interesting, look forward to meeting you in person to discuss. Mostly Zen 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

degrees/credentials Edit

added most of the degrees/credentials of psychologists over to here. i know they were all very confusing to me at first, so i hope this helps others. JoeSmack 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly Zen Back OnlineEdit

Hi Joe,

I am finally back online!!! After several problems with the New wireless network card I am back online again. Got your directions for your workplace and will see you Friday. Haven't heard from Emma yet but will explain to her how the Wiki works at present. I am mostly settled in my new house now and will show the Psychology wiki to my housemate Rebecca who is another Psychology undergrad with ambitions of clinical work.

Speak to you later Mostly Zen 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

easy way to hit red links Edit

i found out today that the psychology wiki was missing Charles Darwin. that hurt. anyways, a really good way to eliminate prolific red links is by going to the most linked pages page and listing them by 500s (like so) and looking for the items still in red. check it out. JoeSmack 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that really better than the most wanted pages, which lists the red ones only, starting at the "top"? Robin Patterson 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Planning on Contributing Edit

Greetings! I just stumbled upon this website, and wanted to let you know that I am looking forward to becoming an active member. I have done some editing on Wikipedia throughout the last month or so. I am an aspiring psychologist, still working on my undergrad. degree. I can't get enough PSYCHOLOGY and think that contributing to this site is a great way for me to get more exposure to a variety of topics, etc.

I will be leaving for Mexico on Wednesday, and will be out of the country for about 2 weeks, but look for me then!

I look forward to talking to you soon!

Sonrisasgrandes 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)  :)

Hey JoeEdit

Didn't see that you were online. I've uploaded my Brain Injury project at Brain_injury:Recovery and have just finished uploading all the pictures there too. I am really pleased to be able to add this project to the site as i got 80% for it (never, ever done that well for anything at Uni before) and it would be a real shame to have it decaying on my hard-disk, never to see the light of day again.

In fact I am thinking we could use this as an example article for the Psychology Wiki, putting an advert on various Wikipedia pages (for ABI, TBI, Brain Injury, Brain, Headinjury etc...) as an initial advert. I still think we should stick to our Depression article plan though. I am going to concentrate on the Depression article and then recruitment/marketing/awareness for the next few weeks until we meet again (August 18th). Good night. Mostly Zen 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoeEdit

I work at Wikia and I love what you're doing. Let me know how we can help. I was thinking of a couple things:

1. Showcase your site on the home page at some point 2. Get a quote from Jimmy Wales about what a great mission we have working together 3. Do a press release announing the new wiki and try to get bloggers to point to it to raise your google ranking 4. Reach out through our PR firm to prestigious Psychology journals, to raise your credibility when you send emails to folks in the future.

What do you think?


Also - FYI, I got this warning when editing your user page. You may want to create an "old talk" page to store some of the content on this page :-) "WARNING: This page is 32 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections."

10th July UpdateEdit

Here's what I've sent out today. I suggest you archive your talk page because it has become too big! Zen :)

Hey there,

Just to let you know that the Psychology Wiki is continuing to grow. Check out our:

Hope you can help us building the community. Otherwise, please let other people know about us as much as you can, or log in and vote for us to be a featured Wikia here: Vote


Mostly Zen 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Gil didn't say but apparently he is the CEO of Wikia and one of the investors (it says so here: Wikimania is some kind of conference they are having. If it was in the UK, I'd suggest that we went along. I can't really afford to jet off to Harvard! :) Mostly Zen

Outed :-)Edit

Yes - I'm the new CEO, I just don't think titles are important, it's what you do with the resources you have :-) Thanks for the note on Jimmy's page, I am talking to him as well about a manifesto/quote for the psychology wiki and I talked to the partner at our PR agency about getting you some targeted PR. Here is my latest plan:

  • You suggest some ideas for a quote/manifesto by Jimmy and we'll work on it and post it on the site after getting your approval in August.
  • We will reach out to the publications you suggest (ideally in the US and UK) via our press agency and perhaps some others that cover Wikia
  • If there are bloggers you suggest, we can reach out to them as well
  • We would need a way for journalists to reach you and learn about your mission (phone & email)
  • I saw your request for a nomination on the home page. I'll wish you luck with that, although I try not to influence the outcome. It's important that it's user driven
  • if one of you want to come to Wikimania, I'm willing to subsidize the trip by $500  :-) Jimmy would love to meet you in person for a few minutes


Off to Harvard Edit

I'm taking up Gil's offer of a subsidy for the trip it makes the difference for me to be able to go assuming I can get a cheap flight. We should try and firm up the stuff we want Jimmy to say, get the blogger list sorted. I'll do the journal list tonight. I feel the energy growingLifeartist 08:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic. Wish I could come along! I still need to find some kind of temporary work to keep a roof over my head! Mind you it is very good that one of us can go to Wikimania as it looks like it will mostly be the Wikia staff and admins from other Wikia. Its a good opportunity.
Here's my ideas:
  • I was thinking that if you sort out the journals and publications... and the journalists/press. (As a clinical Psychologist you will be taken more seriously I think! :)
  • I can work on the blogger list and internet/wikipedia/wikia based side. I'm good at this part.
  • Manifesto wise, lets get this sorted out on our About page. This is the best place for it and is kind of a manifesto anyway. We can link to all the other stuff from there, such as legal disclaimers, funding model, clinical disclaimers etc... The about page is the best place for it as there are already many links to it, including the very bottom of each page.

I think thats it for the time being, speak to you later Mostly Zen 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the medal I have given to User:Bri_bri they use these things on WP and I think they are a good way to reward our good contributors. Mostly Zen

Fabulous Edit

  • Lifeartist, it will be great to meet you. We're trying to schedule a dinner for our team with prominent wikians. It will be either friday or sat night during the conference. Let me know when you're planning to arrive/leave and I'll make sure you're invited.
  • I'm excited by how enthusiastic you and Mostly Zen are and it's nice to hear that we can help you achieve your mission. At the end of the day, that's really what Jimmy and I are all about - empowering people to become superhuman in their impact on the world and the communities they care about.


User Experience Edit

I have a user experience that I would like to add on my userpage. Please message me there for details for following the site rules properly. Anon Psych Victim 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with this, moved his message from your user page to your talk page, and I left messages on his user page... Mostly Zen 10:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Dr JoeEdit

See you there. i'll bring my notebook to take your details for the subsidy!


Good luck!Edit

Seems I picked a great week to browse back in. Best wishes! Robin Patterson 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Community PortalEdit

Just done a total redesign. Removed and deleted all the innappropriate Wikipedia stuff, as I felt it was not appropriate for a new and emerging Wiki to try and follow all the same paths as Wikipedia. We will do better to create our community naturally as we go along. All the dead links and innapropriate pages were like a labyrinthe of confusion, and made our Wiki look more dead than anything else. Its better to have a living village than a dead city.

It might seem a bit drastic, but it really will be less work in the long run to decide for ourselves and create the site structure as we go along, rather than trying to get everyone to learn the arcane workings of wikipedia, which have accreted over several years and through many thousands of contributors. Makes us look distinct from WP also

Mostly Zen 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea, lets contact these peopleEdit

Good idea. Any time we find something useful and technical like this we should email the creators. For example, the creators of the podcasts are clearly good technical people that want to contribute to Psychology Knowledge over the internet. These are the people we should be contacting to tell them about the Psychology Wiki, as they are potentially more likely to contribute to it. Mostly Zen 10:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I think it would be a good idea to add these things to the Current Events news, every time we add something new and significant, lets put it there, as it links from the Current Events tab under the main page tab (below the logo). This will also appear on the community portal as the Bulletin Board is there as well as under current events. Mostly Zen 10:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! the group mind at work - its a wonderful thing that Im really coming to appreciate doing this. Lets do it. I think we should also look to do podcasts of our lectures, of our discussions about the wiki and maybe do an editing video - all this to come

Our VisionEdit

Hi Joe,

Just finished writing the manifesto that Gil suggested we complete. I'm really pleased with how its come out. Have a look at it and let me know what you think. I'd prefer if we could discuss changes first, because for a discrete inspirational type speech thats supposed to attract contributors, constantly changing each others words might not work best. I think I've managed to communicate what you were originally inspired by though.

Its best if your name goes at the bottom. Dr just sounds better.

Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right that the details of the paper purchasing get in the way in the manifesto itself. I have explained that better and in more detail in the 'details' section below (on the about page).
  • I put the paper purchasing stuff in the manifesto to make the point of looking to the future. People will possibly wonder how we are going to be able to link to all papers, full text, when various other databases have failed to do so, hence the point about papers being sold differently in the future and then made freely available. I may be wrong about this of course, but that is what has happened with music in the mp3 format. We can discuss this elsewhere.
  • Yes I think the message of what you are saying is more to the point than my version, which deviated talking about the papers. I will write a version 3 now, with exactly the same message as yours, which I think is fine, just re-wording it to make it sound better
  • I got Sannse to read it last night and she said she doesnt like the term 'service users' I am going to change this to 'people using psychology to improve their own health and wellbeing'
  • Changed 'restrictive nature of the Journal-Subscription model' to 'restrictive nature of journal-subscription'
This says the same thing, avoids saying 'model' too much and sounds better, less words...
  • Next two paragraphs I completely re-wrote. We were kind of repeating ourselves twice, first about bringing the knowledge together and then about bringing the references together. Also we were saying about how these 2 solutions can help to sort out Psychology, but this is really well explained in the paragraph which starts, 'We envisage...'

Best to see the redraft really, its here: Template:Psy_Wiki_Vision(3).

Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its much better now, says what you said, but re-worded so we dont repeat ourselves.

Wall Street Journal ReporterEdit


  • I hope this is ok - the Wall Stree Journal (similar to the Financial Times in the UK) interviewed us this week about Wikia and they are hoping to talk to you about your psychology wiki. Would you mind emailing me your contact information? Phone or email if possible to Gil - at -
  • If you're not comfortable, they've learned how to use wiki discussion and can chat with you on your page, but they'd prefer phone if you're willing to take the call. Thanks!

Gil P.S. I love the new logo!

New logo? I'm sure it was around earlier. Well Joe this is good news. If we get the Manifesto finished we can give the journalists some proper quotes to work on. I think your last edit of my first draft made it better, and my version 3 link (above) makes it pretty much done, but if you think we need to add to it, let me know. We've just had an anonymous person say it was 'cool' and they wanted to help. We NEED to get this finished and then I can start marketing. Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the Last Wall Street Journal article that they ran on Wikia, back in March 2005. It should give you an idea of what they are after doing. Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zen's recent ideasEdit

Later on, after my job hunting, I will:

  • Change the Community Portal talk to a Forum (like the admin forum)
  • Copy over and individualize all the help pages we need, organise them and link them to the Comm Portal and Help:Contents
  • Agree with you a final Manifesto, then we can give this to Gil and Jimbo (I've already shown them the first draft, but they've not commented on it yet). Then hopefully at some point Jim Wales can give us a mention, which will attract many thousands of wikipedians to have a look at our project.
  • I can give some info to this journalist as well if you like
  • Once the manifesto and interview and info with Gil is sorted, I can start emailing the Bloglist, forum list, psychologists web-sites and various other Psychology Internet things. They can pass the message on to others.
  • We can have a grand - launch, after your August Wikimania meeting. The Psychology Wiki will be 6 months old soon right?

Speak to you later, let me know whats going on. Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes OK, lets meet up. As you say the manifesto is likely to change after you come back from Wikia. I think I'm just very eager to start the marketing phase, as I'm finding doing so much of the structuring to be very tiring, (or it could be the heat!). The delay will give us even more time to make it more user friendly and structured before we get lots more contributors.

I really think a mention from Jim Wales will be more important to us than the Wall Street Journal article, although the article will be very important to Wikia as a whole. We just want to make sure we are mentioned in a positive light in the article, because we can then use that as a reference to back up our publicity (the Wikipedia article about us for example, is demanding Wikification, ie references and the like, and this article will be read A LOT after Jim mentions us).

Let me know when you next want to meet up. I am still going to visit you on August 18th, but would you like to come down here to visit me before Wikia? We could work on the manifesto then.

Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unvalidated therapiesEdit

Hi Joe. I am interested in editing here. I would like to make my contribution to unvalidated therapies. I have some listed, including power therapies, but also some others. Follow my contributions, and tell me if you have any suggestions. ATB Doc Reason 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Lifeartist. I noticed you have included NLP article. The version you have now is actually extremely well sourced. It is far better than the current NLP article on Wikipedia which seems to be pretty frought with promoters and devoid of scientists. I guess thats why so many sources are missing from their version. I do have some more I can add to it also. There are some more recent review papers that can clear up some issues. I also have some info on other power or alphabet therapies. Looking good! Doc Reason 12:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Link QuirksEdit

Thanks for helping correct the capitalizing of the links, etc.  DDS  talk  (David) 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently Mostly Zen has...Edit

  • Fixed all the templates to display as a browsebar with the specialisms underneath
    • Try looking at a few random pages and you will see how much neater they should look on a smaller monitor.

Working On:

  • Repointing the Browsebar topics towards the appropriate category pages
  • copying over all the relevant index info to them
  • redirecting as required
  • Working on a plan for the Index tree

Yes, I know, i've messed up my sleeping patterns...Edit

Just found the easy way to draw tables though (hope this works)

{| class="wikitable"
! A table
! Looking
! Like this
| might
| have
| an appearance
| closely
| resembling
| this

gives you a table like this:

A table Looking Like this
might have an appearance
closely resembling this

First blog postingEdit

I spent last night contacting more wikipedians. The night before I had contacted 26, and last night I contacted another 20. Some of them sounded very interested, and an Admin gave me some advice about future promotion there. One of them posted something on one of the Blogs for us!

I'll continue with the wikipedians, but that avenue is nearly exhausted now. I've contacted:

  • All Psychology Wikipedians
  • All Psychologist Wikipedians
  • All Wikipedians with a relevant PhD
  • Any wikipedian with "I am a psychologist" in their userpage
  • Am about 1 page into doing the same for Psychiatrists

Hopefully our Google ratings, users and contributors should start increasing now...

Tom Michael - Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Years in history of psychologyEdit

Hi Joe,

Check out the following link and the associated discussion, and tell me what you think: 1879. Jaywin 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Joe,
I thought that you might like the significant, watershed event in the history of psychology that I added to 2006. Jaywin 06:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen gone to get some workEdit

Lack of money (cant pay rent or buy food!) has meant that I am going to stay at my sisters house, where I can get some work as a Labourer, helping my brother in law who is a builder. At my sisters house they have NO internet. I might be there for a week or two, or possibly longer if there is lots of work up there.

I've asked Jaywin to look after things until you get back from Wikimania, and I've put a sign on my userpage to say I am away for a while. Hope you had a good time in the states and im sure you'll be full of ideas when you get back.

A couple of things I think you can do that are really important are:

  • Sort out structure and help pages instead of copying more material
  • Quality, rather than quantity of material will attract more contributors at this stage
  • As the founder and an Admin, these are certain tasks that you can do that newcomers cant
    • So leave the easier stuff for the newcomers! If you do all the easy stuff, and leave the dull or difficult tasks to them, they wont want to help... I'd say copying info is the easiest at this stage.
  • Best task at the moment is trying to make these pages Category:Guidepage look absolutely beautiful and full of relevant info about the Wiki. This task is a priority at the moment, as these need to be spot on before we can start to attract more contributors.

Once I get back I'll see what else I can start to do.

Speak to you later on

Tom Michael Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured WikiaEdit

Hi! Did you see that Psychology is the Featured Wikia this month? Would you like to fill out the blurb for the ad, and we can update the main page? If you need assistance, please let me know (talk page), but i'd prefer that the content come from you or other active participants on this Wikia. Thanks! --CocoaZen 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Greetings, I wanted to say "Hello" and also ask you a question... I just did a bit of work removing red links from Sigmund Freud. If there are links that are red, but good--ones that we hope to someday turn blue--should I leave them or remove the link? For example, Sigmund Freud Archives, Freud Museum, or Jacob Freud? I realize that "ones we hope to someday turn blue" is very subjective. I'm not sure if the goal would be to have a separate article about his Archives/Parents/Museum. Thanks for your insight. I hope you're well! Andrew Schramm (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Structure and Psychology WikiEdit

Hi Joe,

You asked a lot of good questions, so I am cutting and pasting a little to make sure that I don't miss too much for now:

Here we can go into more academic details as much as we think is useful, not only for the casual general reader but for the professional worker in the area, for people who have the condition and their clinicians.
I agree, and I think that this is absolutely essential. At this point in synesthesia research (in particular), we are really just fumbling about, simultaneously discovering whole new questions, and rediscovering that these same questions were big topics between 1880-1920. So, there is currenly a lot debate, and a lot of need for a method to discuss, and explore technical questions. Admittedly, there are probably only about 50 of us in the world. More generally, I think that a large database of shared knowledge is very valuable.
So could you see using this wiki to draw all this evidence together in public as it were, which could benefit people outside the 50. All papers before 1936 are now out of copyright and should be made available for Open access.Could you put your relevant papers up? This could be a living database of your area with different pages for each area and the discussion pages full of active discussion. Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So the first question is what is the structure of knowledge in the area? How could this be thoroughly examined in a series of linked articles so that each research question has its own page, with all relevant papers cited, linked to fulltext where possible.
In fact, the structure of current knowledge is that we are rediscovering this phenomenon. Many of the first modern experiments focused on simply demonstrating that it was real by showing that it has measurable behavioral and neural consequences. Other research on prevelance is starting to get good. Now questions like how it relates to abilities/disabilities are becoming forefront, as their seems to be a big community demand for this type of resarch (from the synesthesia community itself).
So can you see how you can use this wiki to go into more detail in your area than you can on WP. Our idea is that working collectively on a collaborative forum really opens the door to better communication, clearer thinking etc. We would be interested in exploring the limits of this with practising researchers, eg how much do you want to share? building careers is important and getting credit does mean judicious use of private thinking. But why shouldnt we have an up to date account of research in the field, with all papers fully referenced and linked to full text where possible? Wouldn't this provide a proper grounding for your group of researchers. So rather than 50 of you all constructing these databases individually, you can share the work and centralize the existing knowledge base and build on it as your work develops.. This is potentially a new form of communication for academics and it needs some vision to see how it could work.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth having pages coming of the main synesthesia page for each of the combinations of modalites sight-sound, sound-smell etc? Each one of those with a genetics page, a neurophysiology page, each collecting together all the literature.
At this point, there are only a few types that have been studied enough to merit their own seperate pages (grapheme-color is by far the most studied form). As far as genetics, we know that within families, not all members experience the same forms of synesthesia, suggesting that whatever genetic factors there are do not necessarily lead to a specific type. Current data suggests an X-linked MOI, but the genetics screens are still in the early stages. Similarly, my hypothesis is that the same neurophysciological mechanisms are at work in different forms, but that they involve different brain regions, thereby leading to the different pairings seen in synesthesia.
So could you see a structure of pages linked to the synesthesia page covering all aspects of your area? A page for each hypohesis? A page for each genetic line of enquiry? All fully referenced?Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
To us we are building am academic tool for thinking in our science. trying to be specific about what we know, about the hypotheses we are exploring, in a way that can be routinely updated (adding new pages as they become appropriate, keeping the literature references updated as new findings are published etc). This has never been possible in public before. I guess small groups have tried to do this informally , but with wikis we can make this the bedrock of a coordinated current account of our science. We think this will lead to fresh thinking, the generation of better hypotheses etc.
I think this is a very worthwhile project. The idea of sharing our knowledge with the general public is what led me to wikipedia, and then to this Psychology wiki. I think the biggest thing is to reach a critical mass so that people don't feel like their too isolated, talking only to themselves and a few others.
Absolutely right. So will you join us and try to pursuade some of your collegeues to help you build your area up. The pages on genetic concepts and neuroanatomical features are here for you to use as tools. We will make you feel part of a warm family!! Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If we each build up our own areas citing all papers, linking them to full text we then start to rebuild the research record of our science in the public domain, giving open access to researchers, professionals and thinkers around the world. The way to do this is to copy your article links to a page off your user page and for you to keep this up to date.
I think that this is already happening, in part with the advent of open access journals like PLoS and the open access articles in PNAS. I routinely place all of my articles on my websites, and share them freely with others who maintain "link farms". The biggest thing for me would be the professional aspect of it.
Could you put your reference list and the links to your papers up on your user page here as a start of integrating your work into the wiki.? I feel that Plos and PNAS are going down a bit of a cul-de-sac in that the charges are escalating PLoS is up to $3000 per paper, which is OK when you can get it covered in grant money, but is prohibitive for most of us. In the long run (some way down the road) the wiki software should enable a cheaper alternative solution. Our idea is that we need a centralised solution where the links are related to information about the material which can be updated in a comprehensible way. Obviously the search engines have been useful, but they are not precise enough to cope with the burgeoning amount of information. Are you confident that someone looking for your papers would find them?
Perhaps there is something here I dont understand. The system of linkfarms and institutional self archiving and papers on the websites of individual academics, simply isnt fit for purpose. Perhaps it works if you are inside a community, but often the sources are inpenetrable to people on the outside who dont have the contacts to know where this stuff is kept. What linkfarms do you use? Could you start a list at Psychology linkfarms Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As you can see we are seeking to go beyond WP and develop this technology into constructing an academic and professional resource of tremendous power. I would be very interested in your feedback, particularly if you can see other uses for what we are doing. This is still early days and we are trying to clarify the potential and the possibilities, and to negotiate with academics and professionals to see if they could, would engage in such a task.
I am very excited about this idea, but I don't know how many other people I can get on board. I have been talking to some people in my lab group about the main WP site, and we might start to work on some good entries there. Of course those entries would be ported over here, too. I think that the publicity that WP has been getting, for example from the Nature article (which exhorted us to get involved), and the subsequent comment by Jimmy Wales about quality over quantity have been important for changing the average academic's impression of WP. I think a site like this will move it even further in that direction.
I think the thing to grasp is that an academic, scientific wiki is different from Wikipedia. Obviously we would be happy to have the work that you are doing over there, but as you can perhaps see, from what has gone before, that there is a great deal of potential to be explored with this software that will take academic knowledge management to another level. Would not this site be a more appropriate focus for your efforts?Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
One thing that I see increasing over time at WP is the need for experts and professional editors, if only to help set guidelines, visions and goals. Perhaps this will also become necessary here, but for now, I assume that, with a small community, we would need to be more concerned about grass-roots than hierarchy and structure.Edhubbard 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this is why we are talking to people like yourself to try to encourage you to lead the way in your area. David Stretch is going to lead on the statistics section. Gregg Henriques has started to contribute an expert article see Jaywins talk page. Bit by bit we hope to attract expertise, and hopefully people who can then watch over their area and build it up. Please think about joining us. Even if you just laid out the structure for the synesthesia area we could start importing the references etc it would give us a base to build onDr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We met at Wikimania... Edit


You might recall me - we spoke on Monday about a method for inserting large numbers of articles to the psychology wiki. I just wanted to make contact so you know that I'm still willing to help with it.

I noticed that you listed your MBTI, and I was wondering if you had any idea what I might be from the way I was in person... (Probably quite silly to ask.) Then again, based on most of the people on the internet, it's probably an easy guess since we're dramatically more represented online than in the general population.

In any case, it was nice to meet you and I look forward to the project. --Eric 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded to response here. --Eric 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Process Edit

I was wondering if Psychology Wiki had a deletion process since Intelligence (trait and Intelligence (trait) have exactly the same content. Also, why is the article not just called Intelligence anyway? --Chemica 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Joe! Welcome back! It's funny someone asked about the deletion process. I just copied a template, (called "proposed deletion"), and created a category, Pages proposed for deletion. I also added a link to this page on my user page. Perhaps all of us administrators should do this. Jaywin 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Economics mistake on my part?Edit

Hi Joe. I just deleted the economics article because there was an introduction to economics article. I then looked at the history and realized you just put it there today. Oops. Which one should we keep? I don't think we should have both. That would just be redundant.

Then again, I've noticed a lot of redundant articles. Using "economics" as a concrete example, I'll see things like (1)"economics," (2) "introduction to economics," or (3) "economics article." We should probably pick one style. I think (1) for most articles and (2) for some foundational articles, (though what "foundational" is is somewhat fuzzy). Personally, I don't care for (3) very much. But maybe they should all be (1). Comments? Jaywin 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More on categorizationEdit

O.K. Thanks for the info! I straightened out the "economics" article, (i.e., no "Introduction to" in the title). We're making progress!

I don't think "economics" should be a sub-category of something like industrial psychology, isn't! If anything, industrial psychology is an interdisciplinary approach combining psychology and many aspects of economics, thus industrial psychology is more like a sub-category of both disciplines and not the other way around.

Another question: I agree with the reasoning of making an article begin with "Introduction to" if it's the same name as a main section. Using "Biopsychology" as an example, which should we use for the main article:

  • (1) Introduction to biopsychology
  • (2) Biopsychology:Introduction to biopsychology
  • should we use "biopsychology" or "biological psychology"? I'm just asking these questions because I've noticed some inconsistencies in categorizations, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, (pardon the pun!) (Link to my talk page) Jaywin 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for straightening out the "biological psychology" question. However, I was also curious to know if the main article should be called:
(1) Introduction to biological psychology
(2) Biological psychology:Introduction to biological psychology
I'm curious to know because I've seen variations on how to name the main article of a section, and I just want to remain consistent. Jaywin 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen is backEdit

Hi Joe,

I am back from building houses for a couple of weeks, I will be away again for the first week in September to do a driveway, and I might also have some work between now and then. Am back for the meantime though.

I was thinking we should make the Tree of Knowledge System our next featured article, as Clinical depression is far too large a topic for 3 of us to do justice to. The ToK is a homegrown project too, started and written entirely on this Wiki.

Hope your back is OK and will talk to you later tonight, Im still available to meet up again on friday if you want to.

Tom Michael Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly QuestionEdit

What does "N" before an entry mean on the recent changes list? Andrew Schramm (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Something wrong with the search engine?Edit

I've noticed today that when I type something into the search engine, and if the page doesn't exist, I get the following message:

"Sorry, an internal error occured while trying to process your search: couldn't connect to host"

Do you know what's going on here? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Working fine now, it seemsEdit

Thanks for your response on the search engine question. It seems to be up and running again, though, and even better than before! Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Testing Edit


I decided to do some testing. So far I have: 1) Opened to the Main Page; 2) Gone to My Watch List; 3) Gone to your User Page; Gone to your Talk Page and am now leaving a message.

So far each of these steps has taken 2 minutes each to complete.

I'm going to try and log off then on again to see if that makes a difference.

Also, although I have the option selected, I am not being informed by e-mail of changes made to pages.

I will e-mail you when I am finished with this experiment.

And the beat goes on…


Trouble creating a forumEdit

Hi Joe,

I tried creating a ToK discussion forum, but it doesn't seem to be working. (Of course, it doesn't help that I've never done this before!) For example, it won't add new topics. Could you check it out when you get a chance? (I've asked Tom about this, as well). Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On your ToK questionEdit

I noticed your ToK question at Forum:The question of meaning. This is an important question. However, there are a couple of technical problems that need to be resolved first:

1.) There is no record of your edit here: Forum:Index

2.) There is no record of or access to your edit here: Forum:ToK discussion forum

How do we fix these problems? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki