Psychology Wiki


Hi Tom

If only we could get more editors!! If I had a pound for everybody who has assured me they would contribute I would be a rich man! I think the initial learning curve puts people off and the layout is still very primitive and somewhat confusing for people. I am trying to get to the point where we can tidy it up and my idea is to use a book analogy of nested chapter headings, so going into ever more detail. You can see discussion of publicity plan and copies of emails sent out on Site support and help page and To Do page have ideas. Maybe these need making cleared. My policy is to keep on building the structure and the content where I can and I just know that when people can see how useful it is they will want to contribute. Anything you can do like starting up on the main page discussion is great. Now you have put the DSM codes up Im currently working on upgrading the layout of the diagnostic illnesses {see changes to Schizophrenia so we can go into depth and aggregate research on main articles. The aim would be to link then to Schizophrenia from both the ICD code and the DSM code.

Before I had the schizophrenia article redirected to ICD:Schizophrenia and this all needs sorting out.I am on study leave for most of next week and hope to have broken the back of it by next weekend.

For breaks in revision I recommend opening up a copy if the wiki alongside wikipedia and copying links across. I use the 'Random Page' link cos I like the surprise element and I just tidy up the page, do a quick google search, harvesting what I can. For more committed sessions I use Special pages Wanted Links.

It would be good if you could look at the site with Newbie eyes and contribute anything to help entice them in

Keep talking to me - But not while the footies on!!! CheersLifeartist 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good going Tom. I've just come back to do the redirect and you are ahead of me. I had the Psychology Wiki page up as a branding exercise but found that Google rated us better when we were main_page - I think because of the link off Wikia. Lifeartist 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Its good to have a fresh pair of eyes at work[]

Hi Tom, I broadly welcome the changes you've made as they tend to look more inviting and lively. I particularly like the idea of bringing in user and have been doing quite a bit gathering together mental health advocacy and activist group info. Its become really clear in doing this site just how reliant we are on our psychiatric collegues for much of the way we think about things. We need to be thinking our clinical role afresh and aligning ourselves more directly with users and not pathologising them so. I like the idea of contacting wikipedians directly as they will know the ropes and help build the community. I've been through the list on the psychology portal but didnt attract much response-but I think it is just a question of persistence. I am trying to start the habit of going to the discussion page where I visit and to leave a question or two. I think in the long run these pages will become as important as the articles, because in many ways I feel we have lost the radical/creative thinking spark that used to be such a feature of psychology. Glad to see you can burn the midnight oil - no wonder you burn out though. Clearly you have yet to learn how to pace yourself - but it comes with practice. This is the place to train for the marathon cos I can see all this still going strong in 50 years time. But its part of the attraction of the collaborative model - it wont depend on any one of us in the end!!!Lifeartist 07:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Plans for the next stage[]

You make some good points Tom, although I find it very hard to know how people are relating to the site.I've just had Google analytics put onto every page and I am hoping that will give us a better idea of how people move around the site. For example we've had the good articles listed on the Community portal - but does anyone go there? - It took me three weeks to find it. Its so hard to know how to communicate with newbies even if we did have a demonstration area.

But while I have been doggedly trying to get to 10000 pages, as a credible number, I think you are right about trying to take time out to consolidate. Today I have been copying over the background articles from Wikipedia about how to write articles etc, hoping that will give people ideas. But I like the idea of working up the demonstration area what if we try to do it on clinical depression. I am particularly interested in trying to tie articles to fulltext copies, trying to construct a web of references so we have links not only between psychology wiki {PW} articles and the fullltext copy, but linking all the references within the papers so you can move easily between them. This level of useful complexity is only achievable with collaborative effort.

I've MSN on the computer but gave it up as I was getting a lot of rubbish, particularly from my lad using it. I will try and sort out my account details and get back to you.

Lets go with a demo of the coloured pages. I am not sure about the orange colour it looks a bit lively and the contrast with links looks problematic.what about a soft tint of rose? Had you seen that there is an experience link on all the category:Service user pages pages. Is that what you were thinking of.

Really glad you're up for the placement. September is good for me Let me know which weeks are good and I will arrange it.

Good luck with the exams Lifeartist 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work Tom[]

I cant believe you are doing exams at the moment!!! The logo looks the business. I am not sure about the black background what about white or graduated sunray yellow to liven it up. But the branding is good and strong which I like. Called to tea be back laterLifeartist 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Right where was I. I think the message about the discussion is a good one. If you havent cut and pasted it yet you could make the point about the value of starting up discussion on other pages and perhaps give them the news that we are trying to get the demonstration area going on Clinical depression. For my part I have just downloaded a whole new list of psychology journals (you'll be amazed how many there are}and one line of attack is locate the web details and email and get people , preferably the editors, to let us know what their position is on copyright and to ask them to upload their historical content list and to link those articles that are copyright free.Ill include a press release and hopefully they will publicise us. Its this sort of content that will attract the big fish like the societies. Back to some editing!!!Lifeartist 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ive just checked the community page but its not coming up coloured on my explorer browser. I've looked at the colurs and pink looks right but its got a hex code and I dont know off hand what the HTML code is.Ill leave it to you to sort outLifeartist 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No sorry Tom this page Psychology Wiki community support page. Thanks for the indent thing. Always happy to learnLifeartist 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It must be my old eyes!! contrasting the two i could just about see it. We could probably go a touch stronger to make it just more noticeable. There must be a paper on this somewhere!!!!Lifeartist 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey the golds great!!

Ive been trying to get my MSN sorted address is with the it might make it easier to communicateLifeartist 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Google Analytics[]

Hey Tom check this out Google_Analytics_report I am thrilled to bits with it. The map is really encouraging! at least we are being visited from far and wideLifeartist 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki for beginners page[]

Tom this is brillianr. Reads really well and hits just the right note. Its been a good day today23:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Tom I was going to have a go at uploading the logo but it needs to be a png file. Can you save it as that from your picture editor for me? Thanks. I've also uploaded the merge template for Jaywin.

  • I like the logo! Jaywin 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jaywin Talk to me here:[]

Wikians Categories[]

I'm glad you like the categories. When you add a category or categories to your user page, don't forget to put a "|" followed by the letter "M" so that your name is in alphabetical order on the page(s) for whatever category or categories you use. For example,

Category:Psychology Wikians interested in whatever|M Jaywin 10:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I've got some suggestions at Psychology Wiki talk:Community Portal#What do you want to See on the Psychology Wiki, if you'd like to check them out. Jaywin 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you know how to create Template:Merge? We could stand to have one, but I don't know how. Jaywin 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Glad you like the ToK so far. Good idea for the article. I've added a little bit, mostly a "problem of psychology" section. Let me know what you think, and we'll keep hammering away at it. Maybe Lifeartist would like to get in on it too. Jaywin 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I just created Template:ToK Category Grid. Check it out. Jaywin 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad you like it. Don't feel bad...I had to learn how to make a table while I was making that one! Come to think of it, I don't think I should have labeled that as a template. I'll look into it. Jaywin 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When I created some articles on Wikipedia, (and now they're also on Psychology Wiki), I sent e-mails to experts in the fields that I wanted to create articles about. They would send me something via e-mail, and then I would copy and paste them to Wikipedia. I'd then add a couple of headings, some internal & external links, and so forth. For example, for the evolutionary developmental psychology article, I sent an e-mail to David Bjorklund at Florida Atlantic University, who is a pioneer in the field. I asked if he could send me something, and he was glad to. I did the same thing for dual inheritance theory, (I got that from Pete Richerson at UC Davis), and for evolutionary educational psychology, (I got that article from David Geary at the University of Missouri-Columbia). This way, I got articles from the experts themselves. So I was wondering what you would think about the idea of getting a ToK article directly from Henriques? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he'd be willing to do that. I realize I should have asked this before you got into writing the article. I didn't realize you'd start it so soon, and I procrastinated...oops. But for future reference, I thought I'd let you know that, in my experience, university professors are very often glad to send something via e-mail to contribute to Wiki articles. (They'll often times copy and paste something from their own material and send it!) It's always worth a shot. Jaywin 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Debating Chamber[]

Hi Tom. I thought you might like to check out my response to your statement at the Debating Chamber. Jaywin 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting paper on individual differences from an evolutionary psychological perspective, check out Adaptive Individual Differences
You might also like Personality, Evolution, and Development. Jaywin 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to your questions at the Debating Chamber. Jaywin 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Got a paper you might find interesting at Talk:Clinical depression Jaywin 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Link at Psi Chi[]

I sent out an e-mail yesterday to Psi Chi telling them about the Psychology Wiki, and today we have a listing here in the "Psychology Site Links" section. Jaywin 13:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The location of Jaywin[]

Hi, Tom. Thanks for the message. To answer your question, yes, I do live in the U.S. To be more precise, I live in the state of Maine in a town called Skowhegan. Here's a map with Skowhegan's location. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to Harvard, even though Massachusetts is practically right next door to me...let's just say things are a little financially tight right now! I would be curious to know what the purpose of this meeting is, though. Jaywin 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ToK & E-mail to Henriques[]

Hi Tom. I just read your recent edit on the talk page for the ToK article. I forgot to tell you that I've had a little e-mail correspondence with Gregg Henriques for a couple of weeks now. He thought the Psychology Wiki looked like a good project. He saw the ToK article and said that it looked good but that it missed the mark in a few places, (he didn't get specific). He also said that he would send me some text if he gets a chance. He's on vacation right now. I'll keep you posted! Jaywin 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

10000 pages reached.[]

Hi Tom.

Thanks for all you efforts today- we got over the hill at 10000 pages: In 5 months I dont think that is bad going. Looking forward to the next stint to 10000 articlesLifeartist 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done much here. You guys don't need me. And being married to a social worker doesn't give me any special qualifications. However, I was happy to give the site my vote as requested. Robin Patterson 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


My heads hurting! So I am off to bed. I looked through this stuff quicklyand it read OK. Ill need to read the background papers to give it some context. I started the article up on Wikipedia with a link back to us, using the Template:enPW. I think it is a good plan to put tasters up there and work on the more complex versions here, with links so people can go between the versions.. NightLifeartist 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


We don't have accurate statistics for page views. uses Special:Statistics, but that page is wrong. Due to the way we cache pages to make the site faster, not all views are recorded there. doesn't include page views because we know the information at Special:Statistics is wrong and don't yet have a way of finding an accurate number. However, the more important statistics of how active your wiki is in terms of editors should be accurate, so I suggest you look at [1] instead of the other stats. Angela (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Good work on the templates as I was finding them difficult to use. The original order was to follow PsycINFO order to give a bit of credibility to the site initally. But they are a lot more usable in alphabetical order. What do you think about the social psychology and soc proc split. again that is from psychinfo but I for one do not raelly know what the difference is. Do you think we should amalgamate them under Social? Railised this would have been better done over messengerLifeartist 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Heres a copy of conversation I've been having with Jaywin I've played around with the reference format on the HenriQues page. been thinking that the Fulltext or Abstract tag is a useful indicator for people. It makes it clear at a glance as to which references on a list are linked. I am thinking that the title of books should be underlined and this would take us to a book record page with links to reviews etc, but papers get taken to a paper record page by a link including the 'authors and date' so these can be searched on seperately. I am going to do more work on these conventions this week . What are your thoughtsLifeartist 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This page How to reference and link to summary or text needs a bit of a rewrite to make your point about italicised title for books. I feel if we stick to APA style it will have broad acceptance and make possible the author/date link. This is important as it will link to a book or paper record page where we can have real discussion about papers. This is a unique selling proposition for the Psychology Wiki because it provides a natural forum for people to comment quickly about publications in a way they cannot generally do elsewhere. Supposing the was a new paper on the genetic/evolutionary role of depression published in a clinical psychology journal this week. How long would it take you to hear about it and where would you go in the academic space to discuss it? I think there is a whole area of special interest group communication that we haven't opened up yet. What are your thoughts> I'll copy to MostlyZenLifeartist 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I make you into an administrator?[]

In acknowledgement of all your efforts I would like to make you an administrator on the Psychology Wiki. The details of what is involved are on the Administrator appointments page. Let me know if you are willing to take on these responsibilities and I will sign you upLifeartist 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Id typed this onto my page by mistake just pasting it here now

Its amazing what you can learn on the wiki!! I think a reasonable solution is to use the Author(date)link for indexing, so if we search on an authors name all the papers will be listed Zen, M (2005), Zen, M (2006a) , Zen M {2006b) etc. This link also creates a record page for the paper where more indepth discusion can be had if people want it. I am clear that we should stick to APA format a lot of journals use it so theres less work to be done when copying references acrossLifeartist 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats - you are now an administrator[]

Ive signed you up for the priveleges!!!. I've been playing around here Content_boxeswith the idea of have various cloured panels/boxes on the content pages. Could you have a look at it and see if you can code them up.

  • I think the practitioner panel is important to give over pearls of wisdom that maybe are not backed up with research evidence but which come from clinical experience.
  • The speculative space I see as more likely to be used on a talk page where we can float some of our more creative ideas.
  • The hypothesis box I thought could be cloned from the clinical disclaimer template so we can draw attention to hypotheses that need testing
What do you think? I've been chipping away at the depression pages, gathering references and working on the layout a bit.Lifeartist 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


I've got a bit of a return to depression portal button going here Depression:The social context of depression do you know how to get to line up above the navigation template, maybe with our brand colour rather than black?Lifeartist 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychwiki etc[]

Its an interesting proposition isnt it. To share links I think we would need to have a similar structure and sets of categories etc. I am not clear how this would work out in practice, and I think my view is that things enevitably get shaped to our own purposes. Say with the depression article, there would be no point linking to it on WP as we have changed it so much and it probaly wouldnt suit their purposes anymore. I also think as we get into this the links become broader, evolution of depression , physiology of depression etc and for those you need the specialist context links. In doing this I feel I have learnt that the boundaries around an area are pretty fluid these days, its not like in the 80's where there was little cross fertilization between areas.

They seem to be developing a different structure from us and Im feeling we should trade material as with WP but with the understanding we would cannabalise it to fit into our scheme of things.Though I am not against linking where that would work, say on simple definitional pages without to many broad links.

I've replied to ravi in this vein, I would like to keep the dialogue going as we are making it up as we go along and nothing is set in stone.

I suggested they look to structure our social material and they may then find they want to import the structure for themselves. At the moment I found their site a bit unpenetrable. Myself Ive lost the disticnction between social processes and social psychology. Its a psychINFO distinction which I just find confusing. I suspect we may be best off merging the two. But its the knd of thing they would know about.

On other matters. Ive started to set up a depression template to bind all the articles together, I think this will make navigation around the subtopics easier. Ive also seen the light about bridging the gap between the clinical and the cognitive/experimental subdomains. I've done a lot of gathering of material to feed onto the site over the next few days.Lifeartist 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a star[]

Thanks so much for cleaning up my papers. I've got a bit fed up of them and couldnt face doing it which was why I was investigating pdf. At least Ive found some free software to do it. Happy to talk to you about it. I've been contacted by someone else from Newman who wants a placement. She's in first year. I've given her your name. I'll get her permission to give you hers. I'm off out now, will catch up with you tonight.Lifeartist 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New admin forum[]

I've been experimenting setting up forums and have one going at Forum:Admin_discussion_forum which we can use for admin stuff. Hope the move has gone well. I've given Emma the first year volunteer your email address. Perhaps you could meet up with her and give her a preliminary introduction. I'll meet her next week and give some training. Is there any chance that you could speak to your professors about putting up the curriculum for you degree course up on the wiki so we can link it to the material. I found it really useful doing the Birmingham clinical course, because it shows us just what holes we have to fill, and what subjects are currently included on courses.Lifeartist 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Outed :-)[]

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


Working on the manifesto[]

Yes I agree to the workload distribution and to work it up on about page. I think the key is to clarify the unique selling proposition(s)for the wiki. Perhaps we can cannabalise stuff from Imagine and the stuff weve done on the orientation page and the community portal. I will catch up with you tonight when I get back from work. I know its a pain for you but this is a really handy time for you to have time to devote to the project! Lifeartist 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question about user experiences[]

If I write a user experience about a drug, would you link to my experience on the page for that drug? That sounds appropriate. Anon Psych Victim 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also: let me know if you're reading it an appreciating it. I'm only going to bother writing it up if I feel like someone's actually going to be reading it. My experience page itself is protected, but do you encourage others to comment on it? Anon Psych Victim 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive done another redraft of manifesto[]

Check it out here. Joes redrafting of manifesto I think the stuff about purchasing papers was getting in the way, cos we dont know how its going to work out. I'll talk to you later on tonightLifeartist 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)