Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 13 August 2009

Münchausen by Internet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

• Review was transcluded at 16.08 and failed at 16.17.
• Review objections include:

• Writing too formal. It is a psychology/medical article.
• Writing is unclear. No examples of what to clarify given.
• Second paragraph has no citations. Unclear whether this means the 2nd paragraph of the lead, or the cited 2nd paragraph of the Characteristics section. Either way, this point is irrelevant.
• Bulk of research is by one person. This is made very clear in the article. It is my understanding that GA is for articles that may not ever reach FA. The article is a summary of what reliable sources have printed about the phenomenon.
• Article may need to be merged with Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen by proxy. This is certainly not a criteria for quick-fail. I disagree with this opinion nonetheless and have stated so in a reply at the GA review.

• Reviewer has a banner on his userpage signifying he may be a permanently banned sockpuppet. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I welcome a second opinion. It is my first GA review, and I found the steps confusing. It may be a psych/med article (it is listed as a cultural topic), but Misplaced Pages isn't a science journal. My feeling is that an article should be understandable with some work by a high-school graduate, and easily by someone with a Master's degree (me). I had to read it a couple of times to understand it. The sock notice was placed there frivolously by someone who is stalking me: if you follow the link you'll notice I'm not part of the official sock-puppet case. Noloop (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, accusations of sockpuppetry before they've been proven. That rings a bell. I'm sure I've seen that methodology somewhere before. I wonder where...? --WebHamster 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, you clearly haven't read the meesages I left you. And before you gone on about stalking, I had the article on my watchlist for weeks.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are five quick-fail criteria, which would warrant an immediate fail such as you have performed. The article exhibits none of these.

A reviewer must be crystal clear about what should be changed or what is unclear. It is typical to give the nominator at least seven days to complete these changes.

I may have asked for a good article reassessment on the singular complaint that the writing is too formal. Not only do I not see that, but the article reflects a tone similar to the sources, some of which are medical journals. I will absolutely not dumb down an article, particularly one that discusses aberrant human behavior. The reason for having GA and FA reviews is to improve writing. I should not be pulling up the reviewer. The reviewer should be pulling up the nominator.

I refer you to other GA and FA psychology or medicine-related articles. GA here and FA here. They are indeed advanced, but I do not understand how a high school student would be unable to grasp the Munchausen by Internet article. Again, you have not provided examples of where the writing is unclear or so laden with jargon that it is necessary to use a dictionary or click on blue links to comprehend the concepts discussed. I think it is rather basic and straightforward.

If this is your first GA review, then you got a good one, and by extension, me as the nominator. Lucky you. You have an excellent opportunity to learn from this article and the process of GA reviewing. I suggest writing a few GAs yourself before reviewing, or asking the advice of someone who is experienced in doing GA reviews. I suggest Geometry_guy (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), both of whom are respected and have high standards. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support reassessment: So basically Noloop trashed failed an article he wasn't qualified to comment on. As he himself states he didn't understand it. It's also apparent that he choose to pop his cherry and fail his first article on an article that had minimal other comments, he doesn't have the experience to be the only reviewer and spectacularly misunderstands even basic tenets of WP let alone complicated scientific articles. Noloops should never have failed this article, he barely understands the GAC procedure as it is. A Master's degree does not qualify anyone to do this. What is required is experience and understanding of the procedures and the subtleties of article reviewing. This takes monitoring and looking (without touching) for dozens of GAC reviews. This is quite obviously not something that has happened in Noloop's case. The current assessment of his should be nuked from space and replaced with an assessment from a reviewer who knows what they are doing. --WebHamster 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, such balanced overviews of the situation, expressed in clear unrhetorical language, calm measured comments on whether the article meets the GA criteria, and sensible advice on how to proceed; this will all surely help this GAR reach consensus. (I will omit the obvious </tag> because experienced editors should know better.) Geometry guy 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

*Comment - My concern is that it is unclear who uses this term "Münchausen by Internet" other Marc Feldman et al who apparently coined the term, and perhaps a few online sources who picked up on the novelty of the term and the current fad for Münchausen disorders, which are informal names for legitimate psychiatric disorders. The general psychological/psychiatric disorders are known as Factitious disorders. Naming conventions for medical conditions are quite clear that the medical diagnostic term be used. See Medicine-related articles - Naming conventions. Further, the article refers repeatedly to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, the standard diagnostic manual for psychiatri disorders but which does not mention this disorder. This is misleading and seems to be legitimizing the use of this term by relating to standard medical sources. The linked article Münchausen syndrome by proxy probably should not exist either, and is a collection of trivial, OR, and a similar attempt to legitimize a slang or lay term. If someone wants to write an article on Feldman and his attempts to set forth standards etc. fine. But to write an article posing as a psychiatric disorder, while referring DSM is not ok, in my opinion. The rest of the article concentrates on Feldman's ideas, and perhaps becomes OR as it attempts to relate Feldman's ideas to the internet community/culture in general. Like other psychiatric disorders, eg Major depressive disorder, this article should use the sourcing standards of WP:MEDRS if it is to pretend to be a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. If it is going to be a popular cultural article, it should not pretend to be a psychiatric diagnosis, and admit it is engaging in pop psychology. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The only issue which GAR can adjudicate on is whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. I trust comments will be made with that in mind. If nominators or other editors consider that a review was bogus, they might instead consider renominating the article. Geometry guy 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• What do you suggest, then G-guy? Renominating? Noloop has defended his review here. This is the first article I've brought to GAR. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Now that it has been brought to GAR, I'd suggest waiting a few days to see if you can get some useful comments from uninvolved editors. I believe Mattisse's struck comments above contain useful comments, for example, even if you may not agree with them all. I think it is unlikely that large numbers of uninvolved reviewers are going to come along and say "list this now", but I have only read over the article once. Generally an article needs to have a complete review in order to be listed, and it is unusual for GAR to provide such a review. However, if the article is renominated, any comments made here will be available to inform the next review and you could get some really helpful ones. As nominator of this reassessment you can ask for it to be withdrawn if you think no further light is being shed and are ready to go the renomination route. It will still be linked from ArticleHistory as part of the GA audit trail. Geometry guy 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do not support reassessment - I think the reviewer was correct. I think his review was unfairly characterized. An unclear article is hard to understand, and the reviewer should not be ridiculed for saying so. The issues he brought up are real ones. I think those issues should be addressed independent of a GAR. I clarified his comments on the GA1 page. He and I are saying the same thing. I do not support an independent GAR. —mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No examples of unclear passages have been given by the initial reviewer or you. I have responded to your other issues on the GA1 page. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  With apologies for any inconvenience, it will simply be too confusing in the long run to have a forked discussion. The GA1 page was closed by the reviewer (for better or worse). You are welcome to discuss improving the article on the article talk page (and I have moved some comments there), but it may be will be more straightforward if the GA status is discussed in one place. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion

• Prose - reasonably well written - it is precise, no weasel words, acceptable against the standards.
• MoS - sufficiently compliant
• References - Well referenced, all seem acceptable, all online refs check out, assume GF for print, no obvious OR
• NPOV - OK
• Broad - apparently so
• focussed - yes
• stable - OK
• Images - none - OK
• Overall - no problems that I can see - perhaps I missed something? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weasel words in first sentence. There is no evidence that "Münchausen by Internet" is a legitimate diagnosis used by anyone professional other than this Feldman who invented the term and is promoting it. The links to DSM misleadingly lead to Factitious disorders. Please provide a link to the DSM diagnosis for "Münchausen by Internet". —mattisse (Talk) 02:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Every source that can be accessed mentions "Münchausen by Internet" in the context of Feldman. The only one that does not, does not mention "Münchausen by Internet" either, but merely talks about internet hoaxes. —mattisse (Talk) 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I was clear, as is the article, that Munchausen by Internet is not in the DSM.
• As what a psychiatrist who has been quoted or published by four peer-reviewed medical journals has written, Munchausen by Internet is a manifestation of Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy, communicated solely by internet communications. In order to understand what a psychiatrist has said, specifically linking Munchausen by Internet to Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy, it makes perfect sense to explain what these disorders are as described by the DSM, then elaborate that the way Munchausen by Internet is expressed is online.
• Every source that can be accessed mentions "Münchausen by Internet" in the context of Feldman. The only one that does not, does not mention "Münchausen by Internet" either, but merely talks about internet hoaxes Factitious disorder by proxy was first noted in publication in 1977. It is still being considered for the DSM. Factitious disorder itself was noted hundreds of years ago but published as a possible psychiatric condition in 1951, and accepted as Factitious disorder in the early 1980s. Ideas take time to be accepted by the psychiatric and medical communities, as they should. Internet communication has been around and widely accessible since the early 1990s. The first mention of this manifestation is in 1997. And I must point out that a name repeated in research on the PsychiatryOnline DSM description of Factitious disorder is Feldman's. He is clearly an expert in his area. He helped write the entry.
• Mattisse, you may be arguing for deletion, but this is the wrong venue. If you feel this strongly about it, put the article up for deletion. The GAR will be voided immediately for instability. But you'll get a wider response, specifically from WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology. However, you will have to discredit 17 of the cited sources and display how they are not reliable, neutral, or that Feldman's ideas are fringe science. I have another list of sources on my talk page that have proven a little more difficult to find, but I'm working on them. You may also have to work for deletion of other syndromes such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder or exploding head syndrome. --Moni3 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is true that psychology/psychiatry on Misplaced Pages is filled with many junk articles which deters many of us from working in the area. It is impossible to stop the exploding pop psych trash because so many feel compelled to write about it. However, such articles should not become GA under the pretense of conveying professional information. I am hoping GAR as some respect for the fields of psychiatry and psychology, which strive to be science-based. If you make the article a pop cultural article, I would have no problem. It is the clothing it in terms that make it sound legitimate and ratified by the American Psychiatric Association that I object to. Many people are like Marc Feldman and make up terms, garner publicity, and get their own Misplaced Pages article. It only takes a flair for publicity, which Feldman has in spades. —mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse reassessment I did not find any examples of text that was too formal or too unclear for an intelligent lay person (ie. me) to understand. Merge worthiness is not within a GA purview, and it would seem to create huge undue weight for any merge target. I somewhat agree about the "one researcher" comment, which is the only thing holding me back from saying promote. I think it needs to be clearer that this is a novel diagnosis - mentioning Feldman's invention of the term, and that most research originates from him in the lead would be sufficient. Also any criticism (if it exists) should be summarised in the lead, highlighting its current lack of acceptance/study.YobMod 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good article reassessment