Hi Thank you for your contributions. However it is important that you understand that this is a site aiming to develop a professional and academic review of areas of psychology. This requires a certain tone and a conscientious quotation from sources when statements are made. I have rolledback some of you work where I feel it is not professionally relevent. Dr Joe Kiff 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Thanks for contacting me about this article. I not clear at this stage that it is a relevent article from a professional point of view as it does not reach academic standards and is not based on the scientific literature. Clearly where religious traditions cause people to feel guilty about masturbation then this will affect their behavior, attitudes etc and an article like this can attract a great deal of opinion. The key on this site is to ground what we say in the papers that have been written within the professional literature, quoting references carefully to substantiate the points made. Please do have another go if you have access to the approprite sources I will try to assist. I am sorry to take such a tough line but we are currently negotiating academic and professional support for the site and it is time to tighten up our standards in order to take the site to the next level of credibility. Dr Joe Kiff 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. If you will tighten the standards, why not make something about almost 14.000 articles copied from Wikipedia? (http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:EnWP&1000 I counted 14 pages of 1000 each) What is the point of this wiki if most content comes from Wikipedia? Is that "professional"? I did not know it took professionals just to copy from Wikipedia, and the list is a growing list, from what I can see at RecentChanges. That, way, the forest hides the trees... a new user would have a hard time (like me) trying to find which content is REALLY written in here and not in Wikipedia. It is an artificial way to enlarge a wiki... and who knows how many of those 11.000 articles have been really written here. Maybe they are taken from other wikis as well... Only 44% of this site is supposed to be. I wonder if professionals would be attracted to such a copycat site... Well, maybe the 11.000 who are supposedly not are good articles. So, it would be better if Proxima writes her article and Wikipedia and then someone copies it here, right? Well, I understand what you say about references, if this wiki pretends to be of academic and scientific nature. There should be a warning somewhere on the wiki, saying to people that only psychologists or experts in the field can write in here or that amateurs should write in such a way that it looks like an academic paper. Also, warning not to put original research but just citing what others have discovered and studied. It could help prevent these misunderstandings.
- Proxima, Freud studied the issue of masturbation (from psychoanalysis point of view) Who knows if he can be cited as a source (some people still see psychoanalysis as pseudo-science or at least not scientific). According to him, there was some feeling of guilt that always came with it. He was not clear if this guilt came from religious repression or from just making it. The feeling of guilt is somewhat central to it. I don't know if other people have made studies on this; it might not only be of religious nature (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812307) ... I have no clue what your article was about, anyway. I guess you could modify wikipedia:Masturbation or Masturbation, since they are both the same thing. This article has a link to wikipedia:Religious_views_on_masturbation, so, you could add your parts in there (if they don't complain at Wikipedia) and then copy the article back here. If this wiki were freely editable by non professionals, of course. That article in there has references. You would only have to find the references for your reasoning, which I have no clue what it is, since I cannot read what you wrote. --Davinci - talk 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The exact number is 13.750 articles copied from Wikipedia in a professional wiki. Wikipedia is not a primary source, after all. --Davinci - talk 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)