Jaywin Talk to me here pleaseEdit
Categories & IndexingEdit
Hmmmm....how to better index the site? That's a tough one. Like the ToK shows, since (1) psychology is so fragmented, combined with (2)psychology drawing from the "three great branches of learning" more than any other discipline, an effective index could be tricky, to say the least! How about this for starters:
- (1) Two broad categories: Formal Psychology & Applied Psychology
- (2) Formal Psychology could be subdivided into Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, & Humanities
- (3) Applied Psychology could be subdivided into ????? (I'd have to think about that one some more)
- Would something like this be a good start? Jaywin 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
More on categories & indexing: Interesting diagrams! Whatever categorization scheme we use, we definitely have to account for overlap. The more I think about the "fragmentation issue," though, the more tricky I think this can be. The type of fragmentation in psychology, is at one level, theoretical. The lack of theoretical integration in psychology is enormous. To add to this, there really isn't even an agreed upon definition of the field. For example, you stated that we forget that psychology is a unified field that studies the human mind and behavior. However, a radical behaviorist would take issue with the "mind" aspect of that definition. This alludes to an even deeper problem in psychology: psychology is epistemologically fragmented. We struggle on how to agree on how to think about and approach the subject matter, (compounded by the fact that we can't precisely agree on what the subject matter is!) This is one of the reasons I think the ToK is really cool. Via ToK, we can think of biological psychology, (which itself is theoretically and epistemologically fragmented), as a foundation for psychology that links biology with psychology in a manner similar to the relationship between biology and chemistry via biochemstry. A truly integrated biological psychology, (which would not only be the study of mechanistic and developmental concepts, but phylogenic and adaptive concepts, as well), could be defined as the study of human behavioral investments. Psychology, as a whole via ToK, is basically defined as the study of human bevioral investments plus the interrelatedness of the justification systems of those behavioral investments at the micro level. The social sciences can be defined the same way as psychology, except at the macro level.
I'm not suggesting we model this sight after the ToK, though. I'm kind of rambling here. I guess I'm just exploring the difficulties of indexing and categorization. But then again, I am an INTP, and we tend to be rather annoyingly anal about such things! (LOL) Have a good one! :) Jaywin 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1.) Thanks for the link. 2.) What's an IRC channel? 3.) The link you gave is broken. 4.) Have a good one. 5.) LOL 6.) Jaywin 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have MSN Messenger. (I tried setting myself up with it quite some time ago, but I ran into some problems...I can't remember what they were.) I do have Yahoo Messenger, though. My name there is nysa71. Jaywin 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Years in history of psychologyEdit
- A race, eh? Well, you can try to win! Jaywin 19:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No internet?!? AHHHHHHH!!!!!Edit
- Have fun raking in the dollars...er, uh...I mean pounds. I'll try to hold down the fort until Joe gets back! Jaywin 17:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I just copied a template, (called "proposed deletion"), and created a category, Pages proposed for deletion. I also added the category to my user page. Perhaps all of us administrators should do that. Jaywin 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you back!Edit
Hope you made some good money. As you can see in the above section, I added a deletion template. Some other things that happened:
- Joe & I discussed changing the name of the section "Biopsychology" to "Biological psychology." Joe & I agree that "Biological psychology" would be more appropriate. What do you think?
- I made a bit of a mistake. I noticed that some names of the articles were redirected to the categories of the same name and reverted them back to the articles. For some reason, I thought a mistake was made, and I reverted them back. I don't know what I was thinking then, but I get the reasoning for that now...direct the user to the categories for the main sections and then they can go from there. Sorry about that. Big "oops" on my part!
- I noticed a lot of the articles related to the main sections had duplications. (You'll see a couple of them tagged for deletion if you follow the above link.) Should we name the articles related to the main sections, (e.g., Social psychology), "Introduction to [name of article]" or "[Name of article] article," (e.g., "Introduction to social psychology" or "Social psychology article")? Again, Joe & I think "Introduction to" would be preferable. What do you think?
- I also left a question about the category, "Social processes," at the Administrators Forum here. What's your opinion on that question?
- On the Tree of Knowledge System, I think that could be a terrific featured article! However, may I suggest that all contributers read the paper first before we contribute. I've also asked Gregg Henriques if he'd like to help out with it...(That would be great if he would write the article himself. I couldn't think of anyone better to do it!)
- Quite a bit here, I know. I think that's everything! Whew! I just wanted to make sure you were updated and back in the loop. Later... Jason Bessey - User:Jaywin (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a message I left on Andrew's talk page that you'll be interested to know:
- "This is Jaywin. I thought that you might like to know that I've been having some e-mail correspondence with Gregg Henriques regarding the Tree of Knowledge System. He's very excited about the idea of the ToK being a featured article. As soon as he gets the chance, he's going to send me some material for the article. Who'd be better at writing the ToK article than the author of the original paper, eh?"
- Hi Tom. Check out: Talk:Tree of Knowledge System#ToK article written by Henriques is underway Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
ToK discussion forumEdit
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 Joe about this, too.) Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
ToK article suggestionsEdit
Hi Tom! Glad you like the progress on the ToK article thus far. In regards to your suggestions...
1.) I'm still not sure that having two ToK articles would be the best way to go...(but by all means, let's keep discussing the issue until we arrive at some consensus! There are some important implications here!)
2.) I'm not sure why having the original article would serve much purpose for the reader when they can just read the one written by the author himself, (though it would kind of stink that the work put in it thus far was a bit of a waste! But then again, not a complete waste...I copied over the image and the references that were there and I think that article may have helped to attract Gregg to contribute.)
3.) We could make some kind of "written by expert" template to put at the top of pages like this one. Perhaps something like, "This article originally written by [fill in the expert's name]" to let people know before reading the article that they've probably got themselves a high quality article here to begin with. (The "colored page" idea of yours is quite interesting, as well. Maybe one or the other or both?)
4.) If the article is already of high quality, people will probably have little desire or need to make any significant edits to it anyways. (Of course there's always the chance of vandals, but in those cases we can simply revert the article back.)
5.) With the help of Splarka, I've created a ToK discussion forum where we can discuss issues relevant to the ToK. (A link for it is in the "See also" section of the article Gregg has written thus far. Joe has already asked a question about the relationship of "meaning" to the ToK...good question!)
6.) Maybe we could make some kind of general template to place at the top of articles where there is a forum related to the subject matter of that article. Something like "To join in on debate and discussion relevant to PAGENAME, go to NAME OF DISCUSSION FORUM"
7.) I'm presently on a ToK listserve administered by Gregg where a bunch us engage in discussion about ToK. I'm hoping I can eventually attract Gregg and the other members of the ToK listserve to check out the ToK discussion forum at the Psychology Wiki. (For one thing, it would be a lot easier to deal with than the listserve. Plus I'll bet a lot of those folks would like to contribute to the Psychology Wiki.)
8.) In regards to those science friends of yours that you wanted to recruit, we could could still use their help on general science articles at the Psychology Wiki, (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, biochemistry, etc.) I think these articles would be useful for Psywikians who, for example, wanted to brush up on there basic physics before delving into psychophysics.
- I thought I left a message here last night, but I must have forgotten to save it. I was going to say that I agree with your line of reasoning about two different articles. I'm sold on it!
1.) How would we distinguish between the articles in terms of there names? Something like Tree of Knowledge System (community article) and Tree of Knowledge System (expert article)? We might need a disambiguation page as well entitled Tree of Knowledge System
2.) Perhaps a lighter blue for the color of the expert article?
3.) I'm also curious to know your thoughts regarding The ToK discussion forum, as discussed in statements 5, 6, & 7 in the above sub-section.
Thanks for the link to adjust the forum link, (I changed the link to the forum index). In regards to your concerns about the link, MediaWiki:Sidebar, should we just protect the page for now?
Also, should we change the format of references & bibliography as described on Joe's page? Personally I think the suggested change would be better. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. Question: Should the external link be to the homepage of the university, or to the homepage of the psychology department of the university? The psychology dept. sounds better to me, but what do you think? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The University of Maine at Farmington, (which is part of the larger University of Maine system). Also, I just changed the formating style for references at the Standard Formatting Guide page. But the formatting is still confusing on that page. It lists the format at the end as: External Links, See also, References & Bibliography, External links. (yep, two external link sections.) I was thinking: See also, External links, References & bibliography. Comments? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point on the categorizing. However, I think (at least as far as the U.S is concerned), there should probably be a sub-category for each state. Basically,
- American universities
- Alabama universities
- Arizona universities
It would be a lot of sub-categories, but we've got a lot of universities over here! But then again, maybe "British universities" should be broken down into one more "geographical sub-category". You'd know that better than I would! (By the way, should categories be just "universities," or should they be "universities & colleges"? Personally, I think "universities & colleges" would be better...a little more encompassing.) Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question: Should the article be "University/Newman College" or just plain "Newman College"? Now that we have the categories straightened out, wouldn't "Newman College" be better? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Check out my comments at Forum:University links and Category talk:British universities. Let me know what you think. (P.S. Joe posted a message on my talk page about how you ran into some trouble in trying to set up a "Psychology Wiki chat"...the IRC thing. What exactly happened there?) Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great job guys. If you fancy something else simple it would be good to check the website details for each journal and fill in any easily obtained info. Then I can email the editors. It just shows what a bit of teamwork and fast computers can achieveDr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We had a vandal!Edit
We had somebody erase the main page and write something stupid in its place.
- User:22.214.171.124 vandalized the main page 00:25, 30 August 2006
- I blocked the user infinitely 01:01, 30 August 2006
- I restored the main page 01:03, 30 August 2006
- Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ToK article by Henriques almost finished!Edit
Hi Tom. Could you check out Tree of Knowledge System/Expert article by Gregg Henriques. Gregg sent me the rest of the text this morning. I have to go to a 12:20 pm class in a little while, (I think I'm 5 hours behind you), but I'll be back later this afternoon. Could you check out the article and do some editing where neccessary (e.g., look for typos, add some internal links where neccessary)? I'd also like to add links to all of the abstracts that were in the two special issues for the Journal of Clinical Psychology on the ToK. (I can do that later if that's a bit much. Some links to abstracts and even a couple of full texts are already there.)
I'm hoping we can wrap up this article soon (perhaps by the end of the day), protect it, and make it the next featured article. Presently, I'm part of a ToK listserve administered by Gregg, (with about 40 members). As soon as we get this article wrapped up, we'll announce it on the listserve for people there to come check it out. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
We now have a Psychology Wiki chat!!!!Edit
Hi Tom! "Chat" is now in the "community" box in the sidebar. The address is http://irc.wikia.com/psychology/
Lifeartist talk to me here pleaseEdit
Glad to see you are continuing to think forward. I think doing the help pages will be really useful I've been trying to get clear what we need to say. I think we have been working on a mission statement but there is a lot more to go into a manifesto yet. But that will come. I feel we could do with a face to face meeting to try and thrash this out What we've got needs a bit of work, but in this heat I find that I have to let things settle while I mull them over.Or is that just old age?! Im working to the middle of August idea, and I suspect the mission statement will change when I can meet Gil and others face to face and use their experience a bit. Thanks for the article thats really useful. I will give them your number if they need more. I suspect its more a wikia thing than a PW thing. Emma hasnt showed. I phoned her and she was booking a holiday and said she would ring backLifeartist 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Working seeing people.Will talk tonight if you are around and organise a meetingLifeartist 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that was a productive meeting!Edit
Ive been checking on the browser bar. The only downside is that pages with small amounts of content tend to really shrivel up. Obviously they will just have to be filled with content!!
Ive just stumbled across a copy of the A level syllabus so I am just trying to sort the links out to our material to catch them while they are young!! You might make a note of it when you go to education forums, blogs etc.Lifeartist 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hope this means your back now. We missed you. Unfortunately Ive done my back in and am struggling to sit at the computer and to concentrate. hope to be better by friday, but I'm not counting on it. Been like this for six days now and it hasnt improved. Will try and talk to you on MSN tonight.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone else here please! :)Edit
Greetings, I just got back from Mexico... Did a bit of editing on the How can I help: If I am a user of psychology services page we talked about. I'm interested in hearing what you think about my work. I'm new, so I guess a bit timid to start editing, and also craving some feedback. Have a good day. Sonrisasgrandes 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Good day. Thanks for your comments yesterday. I just did some work on the Personal Experiences page, and wanted to bring it to your attention and ask for your feedback. I saw that you worked on it quite a bit, and hope that you don't feel like I'm stepping on your toes! :) Have a good day, look forward to talking with you more. Sonrisasgrandes 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC) :)
- Copied from the user experiences talk page: Great, I'm glad that you're pleased. Another question: If we have a personal experience for bipolar disorder, why isn't there a link for it as there is for depression? I'm not sure how to do that. Sonrisasgrandes 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) :)
- Howdy. I'm back online, but that link doesn't seem to want to open. Possibly a problem with my browser? Sonrisasgrandes 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it looks like my work has blocked that site. :( I'll check it out when I get home and am on my own computer. Perhaps we can chat then? It'll be in about 6 hours. (I'm not sure what time zone you're in.) Do you have AIM or MSN? Check for my SN on my user page if you do. Have a good day! Sonrisasgrandes 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) :)
- Well, hopefully we can connect sometime tonight. I'd enjoy chatting. I wanted to talk to you about cleaning up the Sigmund Freudarticle. Is it OK if I remove some of the links that are red that seem to just clutter up the article (Such as oxygen, 1980s, or Austrian Empire)? Also, this is the second article that I've found the link taskbar (or whatever it's called) in the middle of the page. That's wrong, right?
- Thanks for your help. I think that if you guide me in the right direction with this article (as it seems to need some work) I can be of use elsewhere. Andrew Schramm (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are totally spot on. We do need to remove the innapropriate red links from articles, and fix the templates etc... Originally many articles were copied from Wikipedia, just as placeholders and to save us lots of work. Eventually we want all articles to be cleaned up to the standard of the featured articles Brain_injury:Recovery and Tree of Knowledge System. We don't want to be like Wikipedia at all. We want full academic referencing.
- PS Jaywin is in the US, and we've not been able to talk to him apart from on his userpage. Perhaps you guys could talk about the project, and look after the american time zone contributors?
- I wanted to ask you about adding a resource to the Psych Wiki that's from Wikipedia. I've found [this] to be very helpful, as it goes into great detail. Is this something that could be added to the tutorial, etc.? Andrew Schramm (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) :)
- Hi there. I did some work on Psychology Wiki:How to edit a page and wanted you to take a look at it. Do we have sandboxes here? I worked from "Examples" up. Andrew Schramm (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Should we delete the table on the left hand side that says "Guidance on Style"? It seems irrelevant. Andrew Schramm (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- We live in such an age of fast communication, huh? :) Unfortunately, I'm unable to communicate via MSN at work. I'm on and off the wiki throughout the day, working on it when I get sick of work. Andrew Schramm (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :)
- Hello again. I did some more work on your favorite page :) and think that I've done it to the best of my ability. I'm not sure what to do with all of the junk at the bottom of the page, nor the table. Andrew Schramm (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have about a million questions about that. I'm not sure I really understand. I wish we could talk on MSN sometime! Andrew Schramm (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. My schedule on Sat is pretty busy. Work is pretty busy today, so I won't be on Wiki anymore. I'll try for saturday. :) Have a good day darnit! Andrew Schramm (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello back & thanks Edit
Thanks for your welcome. The one thing I couldn't copy from my Wikipedia Page was the Sanskrit symbol at the top. I have it on my computer in a program called "Canvas" but I couldn't get it to copy to my clipboard. Incidently, that symbol is the first known rendering of the word "Freedom". I'll keep trying. Now I just need to create a link at the bottom leading to my Talk Page.
Good to be aboard. We can do some good work together.
- Thank you for transferring the Image. I'm not sure I want to know how you did that. I believe the less I know about computers, the less dangerous I am to cyberspace.
- As for going with your 'instincts' in the work, they have always been my guide: I trust my 'self' which is where the instincts come from - but I also trust his motives.
- Be healthy,
I'm struggling here. I'm finding the site very slow to navigate. It took a total of 2 minutes, 6 seconds just to open it. And it takes just about that long to go from Article to Article. I think I'll wait until it speeds up a bit to do any serious work with it.
- Michael David 19:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Come back, come back! :) Hope you're doing well, we miss you around here! Andrew Schramm (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you view my comments on the talk page of Tree of Knowledge System? Also, I've been meaning to ask you if about my signature (Andrew Schramm (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)). I tried to get it to say my screenname (sonrisasgrandes) after my name, but it didn't work. I tried following the instructions you provided, but still ran into trouble. Hope you're well. Andrew Schramm (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm back with a small question. :) On the main page, under "user of psy services" (the rose colored box) I was wondering how to get rid of the line that's on the bottom of the box. Perfectionism? Curiosity? Call it what you may! :) :) Andrew Schramm (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for your help. I'm looking forward to reading the paper. Andrew Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Did you mean the "How can I contribute" section on the Main Page? Andrew Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- When I was doing some work on the main page under the "How do I contribute to the psy wiki" section I think I accidentally deleted something. Now the color from that template is going all the way down to the bottom of the page. I'm not sure how to fix this. Thanks for your help, sorry! (Also on Jaywin's talk page) Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that table. By all means edit away. I'm not sure I like how it looks, but I had to stop playing on here and actually do my job at work. :) Nonetheless, it's an improvement. Have a good day. Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great talking to you last night! Sorry that it involved you staying up so late. I look forward to working on the discussed items. Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Random Question: In the UK is "Seperate" the correct spelling of the word? Here it's separate. Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm laughing. I thought it was a typo, but didn't want to assume without asking about a possible spelling difference. Say Hhhhhherbs (no H) :) Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings. Could you check out this page when you get a chance? Under Using the Psychology Wiki it seems like something is wrong with the formatting, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome Edit
Thanks for the welcome! I'm not a psychologist, but more of a self-apointed coordinator/recruter. If you need me to write any quizes for you, I could also help.--Rayc 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome Edit
Tom, thanks for the invitation! I would gladly help, however am somewhat overloaded at present. Will try to make some contributions a little later in the year.--suidafrikaan--126.96.36.199 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tom, Just wanted to send you a quick note letting you know that school has started, and I am on academic overload! Hope that you're doing well, take care. Andy Schramm Sonrisasgrandes(talk) 01:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Core concepts in introductory psychology The remaining red links dont have any articles on WP so need something written to get us started. List of psychology topicsThis is the main list for articles still to be imported. Its a copy of the WP page of the same name which has red links itself so they are not all available. Hope you can help out. cheers. Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Question on PsychWiki Edit
Hi Mostly Zen, I was wondering if you know anything about the licensing (copyleft or otherwise) at PsychWiki.
I've asked a question on their main page and emailed/messaged the admins, but they haven't responded. I saw something you wrote on Ravi's talk page that made me think perhaps they are keeping PsychWiki not-copyleft, and I thought I'd ask if you knew.
Thanks, Zach (psych student looking to contribute to either or both wikis)
Nice to see you, TomEdit
Two points from your user pageEdit
- User:Mostly_Zen#I_need_help_with... - headings seem to accept standard "color" coding same as text.
- Noting your claim to have copied the DSM codes from Wikipedia, a claim repeated in the DSM... page history, I added the required acknowledgment. You were probably a bit new here when you did that. A note in the page history is generally not considered to be an adequate fulfilment of the "license" requirements, as you probably now know.