Talk:Munchausen by Internet/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • See also: Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2/archive

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments to follow asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a question: This review is the third review of this article; why was the actual second review archived in favor of having the third review occur at Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA3? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rcej, your "unfortunately failing the article" and other comments Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2/archive were pretty final, although you have not update status in the GA review template at Talk:Münchausen by Internet. --Philcha (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Lead

• "The development of factitious disorders in online correspondence is facilitated by the availability of medical literature on the internet ...". I have a slight reservation about using the word "correspondence" here. To me correspondence is letters, bits of paper, not forum postings. "Facilitated" is also on my most hated words list, but I won't hold that against you.
• "Reports of users who deceive internet forum participants by portraying themselves as gravely ill or as victims of violence have appeared only recently given the relative newness of internet communications." The internet has been around for ever, as we all know. Can we put a rough date on "recently"? 1998?
• "... the existence of communication forums established for the sole purpose of giving support." Giving support to what?
• "Several high-profile cases have exemplified behavior patterns ...". I'm not sure they "exemplified" it, "demonstrated" it perhaps.
• "The virtual communities which were created to give support ...". Give support to what?
• "... often express genuine sympathy and grief...". How can we be sure that it's genuine?

Characteristics

• "The term 'Münchausen by Internet' was first used in a Southern Medical Journal article by Marc Feldman, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Although Feldman gave a name to the phenomenon in 2000 ...". This reads a bit awkwardly to me. I'd like to see a clear statement as to when the term was first used, as in "by Marc Feldman in YYYY".
• "Health care professionals, with their limited time and greater knowledge and training from a more skeptical diagnostic viewpoint, may be less likely to provide that support." That doesn't quite work for me. The professionals are trained to have a "skeptical diagnostic viewpoint"?
• "Stalking, victimization, harassment, sexual abuse, and physical ailments are common complaints of those who demonstrate factitious disorders, although several clues exist that indicate factors beyond genuine problems."I'm not following this; clues don't "indicate" things. "Complaints of" seems rather strange as well. From?
• "Feldman listed the following common patterns of people who exhibited Münchausen by Internet". Patterns "of" people doesn't make sense. "In" people"? "Patterns of behaviour in people who ..."?

Per this thread, Malleus, I'm inclined to withdraw the nomination once more if only because it gives the appearance of impropriety. You've already started, however, and I do not want to reject a genuine offer to review the article in earnestness. Let me know your thoughts, please. --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of my reservations, I'm still making the suggested changes, and I think I addressed them all except for "... often express genuine sympathy and grief...". How can we be sure that it's genuine?. We can't, but the sources have asserted it is. This is expounded upon later in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen that Moni, what a time you've had with this article! It looks like it may have blown over now, but in any event neither you nor I have been accused of any impropriety, not yet anyway. As far as I'm concerned the only difference Geometry Guy's archiving made was that this review is numbered /GA2 instead of /GA3. To be honest, I'd have left the second review where it was, and in the article history, as I can see the second reviewer's point, but on the other hand there was nothing to be learned from it so I can the argument for archiving as well.

In any event, I don't see what's happened as anything to do with us, but the decision as to whether to carry on with the review or to delay it until the dust settles has got to be yours. I'm easy either way. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like for the review to continue. I want the article to receive valid scrutiny to improve it. I'd also like to get rid of the pall this article has cast, but I may be fooling myself to think that it would be over if it is promoted. I often overthink things, and have considered asking members of WP:Med and WP:Psych to weigh in to cover all the bases. I cannot be sure, however, that these project members will bother to read the sources or have a firm grasp on GA criteria. Of course, with the consistent problems and fundamental misconceptions about what GA criteria are regarding this article, I'm rather doubting my own sanity and grasp on the facts here. I'll take suggestions from anyone, to ask specific projects or shut up. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No harm in asking members of WP:Psych to take a look, or anyone else for that matter, but the slight worry is it might turn into another bun fight. The GA criteria are pretty clear I think, it's just that not all reviewers bother to read them, or add in their own pet preferences. I may be missing something, but I just don't see this as a particularly complicated subject to deal with, and to a certain extent not even a psychiatric topic rather than a sociological one. But then I've never been a fan of the mental disorder as illness pov so beloved by the medical profession. I think if it was my article I'd get the GA review over and done with, and then pop along to peer review for a wider input beyond the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea to get the GA review done, then put it up and ask the opinions of WP:Psych and WP:Med. --Moni3 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics (cont.)

• "These illnesses are intentionally feigned ...". Isn't "intentionally" redundant here? Doesn't feigning always have to be intentional?
• "Chronic manifestation of factitious disorder is often called Münchausen syndrome, after a book by Rudolf Erich Raspe ...". It's not named after the book, but after the character.
• "Stalking, victimization, harassment, sexual abuse, and physical ailments are common declarations from people who demonstrate factitious disorders ...". Earlier we defined the term factitious disorder as "the production of non-existent physical or psychological ailments", so it's hard to see what Stalking, victimization and so on have to do with it. (I think btw that a sentence explaining factitious disorder could usefully be added to the lead.) Have these been suggested as diagnostic signs commonly associated with MBI?
• "... a case that lasted over a year involving a 15-year-old boy participating in an online support group for people enduring debilitating migraine headaches, some of whom had been on disability pension or gone through drug regimens for years to no avail." His headaches were on disability pension?

The title of the book is Baron Munchausen's Narrative of His Marvelous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, and the source notes the anglicized spelling. It's the character, it's the title, if you want me to clarify the character, I will.

Other issues fixed I hope to your satisfaction. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just being picky, I know, but "the most extreme form is Munchausen syndrome, named in 1951 after Baron Munchausen, a spinner of fantastic tales in 18th-century Germany." I won't fight you over it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking to fight =) Look. You made me use an emoticon. Now you've done it. Anyway, are you suggesting the wording in your sentence there, or is that quote from a source? --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was quoting from one of the aricles you cited, can't remember which one. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable cases

• "Internet forums unrelated to medical issues have also been the audience for such cases." Not sure a forum can be an audience. Venue?

Causes

• "Feldman has admitted in several interviews that he has also been the victim of people who email him to explain psychiatric symptoms ...". Not sure what "also" is supposed to be telling me here.
• "In the brief period that internet behavior has been analyzed, social theorists Adam Joinson and Beth Dietz-Uhler write in a 2002 Social Science Computer Review article that deception on the internet is a paradox". Can't quite make sense of this; In the brief period ... social theorists ... write in a 2002 Social Science Review article".
• "More practical issues such as age, location, marital status, and occupation are also frequently changed online". In what sense are these "practical issues", or even "issues" at all?
• "... left ambiguous to preserve users' privacy or continue identity play." Should that be something like "continued identity play"? Not quite sure what the term "identity play" means though.

I removed the "also" but it was to point out that even Feldman, an expert in Factitious disorder, is sometimes fooled.

I'm not sure what you are telling me to do with the Social Science Computer Review sentence. Would you like me to rewrite it? It was Ottava Rima's suggestion to make the sources explicit in the article. I didn't think it a bad idea, but it did tend to make the language somewhat unweildy.

The first part of the sentence seems entirely disconnected from the last part to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Social Science Computer Review article addresses how people deceive others online. Over IRC and in MUDs, they create completely different personae fleshing out entire histories, imaginary costumes, fantasy roles that are impossible in real life (elves and wizards, for instance). Like a Renaissance Fair or roleplay convention online. I was trying to differentiate that kind of fantasy play with the more common privacy issues of hiding one's age, location, marital status, and occupation, which seem more practical considerations esp. in light of To Catch a Predator and such. It's quite a fascinating article. That's the identity play referenced in the prose. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Impact on online communities

• I have a niggling reservation about the implied diagnosis of MBI in the case taken from The Weekend Australian. The title uses the term "virtual illness", but I can't check what the article itself says.

In reality Andrea enjoys robust good health, has an energetic three-year-old daughter and is going to outlive most of her genuinely ill online friends. Andrea does have one real affliction: She suffers from Munchausen's syndrome and more specifically, Munchausen's by Internet. "This young woman came to see me in January this year and it was clear she was deeply troubled," says Dr Roy Blum, a London therapist. Andrea had been referred to Blum after her own general practitioner suggested she seek counselling. Exasperated by her frequent visits seeking treatment for her seemingly incurable bad back, her physician began to suspect Andrea's problems were psychological. "She only visited me for a few sessions before calling it off," Blum says. "But in that time she told me an extraordinary story, about how she would compulsively visit internet chat rooms set up for people with specific maladies. "She would research the disease in question then present herself to the group as a fellow sufferer." Psychologists have long been aware of Munchausen's syndrome, a disease named in the 1950s after a 17th century German nobleman, Baron von Munchausen, famous for telling fantastic stories.

From the Weekend Australian. I did not remember it had the thing in there about Baron von Munchausen, pretty close to your wording above. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the section is slightly unfocused. Its purported intent is to describe the impact on online communities, but it's dealing just as much with how the perpetrators react when discovered, or how they justify their actions, rather than any impact on the community. Not sure how best to deal with that. Tease the two aspects apart in separate subsections?

I see what you mean, but the discovery of the ruses is what affects the online communities: how individuals handle it and how the group as a whole handles the person under suspicion. It seems a variety of factors are involved in determining if the forum or support group will carry on, one of them being how forthright the accused is in admitting his/her falsification and how sorry they claim to be. Although no source said that when someone is accused and they blame the people who believed them that resulted in a destroyed online community, or any variation of that, the sources did make the connections between the moment of suspicion and how the community fared following the confrontation. Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How about changing the section title to something like Discovery and impact on online communities? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I reworded. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One (probably) final question

• "When another person's symptoms are faked, such as a child or an elderly parent, it is called factitious disorder by proxy, or Münchausen syndrome by proxy." This isn't strictly accurate is it? The symptoms are genuine in factitious disorder by proxy aren't they, just caused deliberately by someone else? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, you're right. That should be "caused" not faked. It would be faked if it were presented online. I'll change it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet

• The article isn't consistent about whether or not "Internet" should be capitalised. It is in the title (obviously), but not in the article body. I always tend to capitalise it, but whichever, the article title needs to match what's in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: K. HAFNER & M. LYON Where Wizards stay up Late (1998) viii. 244 Roughly speaking, an ‘internet’ is private and the ‘Internet’ is public. The distinction didn't really matter until the mid-1980s when route vendors began to sell equipment to construct private internets. But the distinction quickly blurred as the private internets built gateways to the public Internet. I don't mind capitalizing all the internets.--Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a slight US BR English difference as well; we'd probably more likely call a private internet an intranet, and I think we're less inclined to use the capitalised version anyway. Nevertheless, the wikipedia article capitalises Internet so I'd probably go with that. No big deal though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Review closed as listed. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.