Wikipedia

Talk:Audiometrist

Latest comment: 8 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Changed to reflect more world wide definition (this particular discussion is closed. To re-open please start a new section)

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

User:71.123.169.200 Please stop vandalising this article without discussing it further. Are you an audiometrist? My own edits on this have already reflected a more worldwide definition, as previous edits from other users either focused entirely on a U.S. or Australian definition, which omitted a UK definition. That is why I included the explanation for why an audiometrist is not the same as an audiologist. There is no reason why the first paragraph should be deleted in its entirety as I have provided citations and internal links to support this definition. The other paragraphs can be edited or expanded on if you have something more constructive to offer than simply vandalism. Jodon1971 (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of course, I am an Audiometrist. I have been a practicing Audiometrist in Sydney for 18 years. My license allows me to practice at the very highest level of Audiology. In Australia, a college education and a 2 year audiology residency is required. By the way a bachelors degree is also the required education for Dentistry and Optometry in most european counties including the UK. While the qualifications vary from country to country, your view that an audiometrist is subordinate to an audiologists is plain wrong! In most countries these titles are interchangeable and the scope of practice is the same. Your view point leads me to believe that you are an America audiologist or an American audiology student? The United States is the ONLY country in the world that requires a doctorate to practice audiology or most other allied health care professions. It shows a great deal of insecurity that you feel it necessary to defame other practicing audiology professionals outside of the United States. This is the world wide web!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.169.200 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, this is the world-wide web, which is precisely why you shouldn't ignore the UK and Ireland either, which you have done. I wasn't "defaming" anybody, far from it - I was presenting the information so that the definitions and the reasons for their ambiguity could be understood better. You have missed that completely and instead have taken this personally, in addition to making some false assumptions:
  • Firstly, more specifically, I'm a practising audiometrist (not a student) from Ireland (not America), and in Ireland the standards for both roles of audiometrists and audiologists are the same as in the UK, because both countries receive the same training for both audiometrists and audiologists. Because they differ from a world-wide view, my edits then continue to explain the nature of these differences, which you seem to have either misunderstood or misinterpreted. At its most basic, an audiometrist practises audiometry, for the simple reason that it is derived from the word "audiometry" not "audiology". Still keeping it basic, an audiologist practises audiology, for the simple reason that it is derived from the word "audiology" not "audiometry". An audiologist which has its own definition in wikipedia, as does audiology, should not be incorporated here, other than to show why countries have confused one definition with another. By Wikipedia's own definition (not mine), you are an audiologist, yet you call yourself an audiometrist, so therefore it is necessary to explain this in the article clearly, why the derivation from the root definition changes. My own edits also showed various links to wikipedia's own definitions of the words I use, such as audiometer, and audiometry to define audiometrist (which you have not done). In keeping with that basic definition as presented in my first paragraph (which you deleted) it can be understood to be correct in a broad sense for English-speaking countries, especially since I have provided inline citations and internal links, as it relates directly to audiometry, NOT audiology, which is what you practice. That defining opening paragragh of mine does not in any way eclipse or devalue the roles as defined from country to country.
Now, expanding this basic definition should be the province of the rest of the article which goes to point out the variations. The secondary paragraphs should then go on to explain these roles, and definitions, as I did in my own edit before you deleted them. Your own second paragraph assumes that a worldwide definition of audiometrist is equal to the "role" (not the definition) given to an audiometrist in Australia, which is incorrect when applied to the UK or Ireland - but it must be made clear what country has a specific definition or role. Regarding the mention of doctorate, the article said "OR" doctorate, not "ONLY" - which was placed there to include America as an either/or, NOT as an exclusive definition.
  • Secondly, more generally, the fact that I used carefully placed inline citations from other sources to support my definition, was completely ignored by you, and seem not to appreciate the fact that Australia was among my sources (as well as America and the UK). In your article you fail to include any inline citations. The one reference you make is to an Australian website, which by the way is not coded correctly in the article and does not appear as an inline citation. This leads me to conclude that you need to read up more on how to write articles for wikipedia and also what their policies are regarding points of view. Look at how other wikipedia articles present their information in terms of verifiable sources and then this article can become less opinionated and more neutral.
  • Thirdly, the fact that you're hiding behind an IP address without having a user name or not even signing your comments shows more "insecurity" on your part than your own unsubstantiated claim that I was defaming (again, WRONG) and therefore "insecure".
My own edits were done initially because previous edits were either exclusively Australian, or exclusively American. I felt that whoever was writing those was completely ignorant of the same roles as defined by other countries. Because there is obviously wide scope for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, this article requires other senior wikipedia editors to resolve this, and if you do not address any of the issues I mention above, I will be forced to continually revert your edits ad infinitum. The alternative is to have this article deleted entirely from Wikipedia. I will make this recommendation to another wikipedia editor myself, one who has already been monitoring this edit war. Jodon1971 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Look, I don't know what your educational, licensing requirements, or scope of practice are in Ireland, but I am an independent autonomous Practitioner. I do not report any of my clinical results to anyone to interpret. I own and run my own solo hearing health care practice. I diagnosis, treat, prescribe, dispense, and fit hearing aids. An audiometrist is an autonomous healthcare profession the same as a dentist or optometrist. I just don't know how much more clear I can be. Perhaps you could clarify the definition better than I can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.169.200 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I don't know how much clearer I can be either. I'll try - Its one thing making a definition of something by your own standards, its another to make it by Wikipedia's standards. Bear in mind I already mentioned that Wikipedia already has a definition of audiologist, and judging from what you said about your practice, you fall under that definition, correct me if I'm wrong. Read it and get back to me. Therefore audiometrist has a different definition, which was supported by my external references and internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Your edits have not provided anything that is verifiable (other than a single ref for an Australian website, which is not correctly cited), that is the key issue here. If you are writing this for yourself, or for an educational or licensed body that's fine. If you're writing this for Wikipedia, you need to be aware of how Wikipedia articles are written. What you have done will continually classified as poor editing unless you validate your definitions they way I did. In order to make your definitions verifiable on wikipedia they must include citations, references, internal articles, they way I have done. I will leave your edits as they are for the time being to allow other Wikipedians to be brought into this dispute, and make a request that Wikipedia editors comment on this. I can't be any fairer or more considerate than that. Jodon1971 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You win! However, you are NOT an Audiometrist. Your attempt to slander and reduce an entire group of independant healthcare providers to merely techicians that report their results and do not diagnosis or treat their patients is INSULTING!!! You obviously have an agenda. Unfortunately, it seems that your arbitrary and false citations are all that matter on this site. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.169.200 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Once again you have taken this personally and there was no need for that. Please understand that I'm NOT trying to slander anyone. I'm NOT trying to insult anyone. Its a shame you don't see that. I've tried to explain everything as clearly as possible to you, and if you still don't understand that then perhaps I've failed in making myself clearly understood. If that's the case then I apologise. The whole idea was to make a distinction between audiologist and audiometrist. There IS a distinction, and this distinction must be explained and verified. In the Uk and Ireland I am not entitled to call myself an audiologist because the training and licensing requirements are more advanced than simply carrying out audiometric hearing tests. I work with an audiologist, and because of their training they can carry out my work, however I am not licensed to do their work (to treat hearing loss with hearing aids etc), but simply to carry out audiometry. Hence the distinction.
What this discussion has revealed, is that somehow, somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, it seems that in Australia the distinction between the title audiometrist and audiologist has become blurred. Therefore the roles applied to one can be applied to the other, in your country. How this happened, or why this happened, I do not know. Perhaps it would be worth looking into this from your own perspective. Perhaps also you could explain to me why you do not consider yourself an audiologist, based on the definitions of audiologists that are out there (including and besides Wikipedia), which to me, seem to be consistent with your own definition of yourself. Like I said, your edits would be considered for inclusion once you provided the appropriate references and internal links. If your links/citations can support your edits, all the better. You can't just make a claim without any support for your arguments. From a Wikipedia standpoint, the only reason my edits might be considered before yours is because I took a little extra time and effort to include sources. If you can do the same then your edits will be warranted. If you consider my edits false, then provide constructive reasons and support for your argument, otherwise you just come across as "lashing out". If you consider my sources and links false, then you are disagreeing with all the wikipedia definitions I have linked to, as well as the external sources I have cited. That simply doesn't make sense.
Rather than blaming me, perhaps you should realise that in order to edit Wikipedia articles you do need to have at least a little understanding of its policies, however much you might disagree with them personally. If I am guilty of an "agenda" it is only to try to conform with Wikipedia policy. You should rather question if Wikipedia has an agenda, not me. The only agenda I can see, which I think is legitimate, is that if there is a dispute, it must be resolved by consensus, not by a single opinion. That is why I have asked that other editors be brought into this discussion, not just for my benefit but for yours also. If my edits can be shown to be false, I will admit that openly. But an opinion is not enough.
Please don't think I'm trying to insult you or any of your/our profession. That is NOT the case at all and frankly I don't see how you can make that assertion, given my explanations to you. All I've done is offer you an opportunity to become a better Wikipedia editor. If that is not within your sphere of interest then good luck and Godspeed. Believe me I have learned the hard way through frustration and edit wars, not unlike this one, from other wikipedia editors, about the importance of following Wikipedia guidelines. These MUST be considered before anything else. I would urge you to stay involved in this discussion as I believe it has been valuable to both of us. Jodon1971 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Audiometrist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audiometrist&oldid=1205484324"