Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not therapy

I

I think the title of this proposed view, or guideline, is a poor one. Whilst the aim is good, I don't think this (as stated) is properly a part of "WP:NOT". It's about editor conduct, not about content. WP:NOT is about what Wikipedia is from a content point of view.

The aim of the proposal is to emphasize that Wikipedia is a project and/or that Wikipedia has a purpose, and that therefore the work of Wikipedia as a project is not to be allowed to be disrupted without limit, by people who do not understand these things.

Wikipedia is not to be allowed to be endlessly abused?

As it stands, the title of this page is an incitement to flames and name-calling, no matter what is said to the contrary. Even so, this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact it's patently mis-targetted as a title as well.

FT2 (Talk) 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even though I came up with the idea, I'm not sure either that we want it phrased as such. The ontogeny of the line might be telling. The original is from the 2000 US Presidential elections, when someone on The WELL (me, eventually) got into the habit of saying, "Voting is not therapy" to people who expressed their intent to vote for Ralph Nader because Al Gore didn't give them warm fuzzy feelings. (I'm oversimplifying, of course.) It certainly didn't change any minds -- either that or there weren't enough Well users in Florida. Anyway, it is a smart-ass comment that reflects a real issue. Wikipedia is about Wikipedia. People's personal issues don't get to trump our efforts to create a great encyclopedia. We don't care if your syndrome makes you mischievous; we don't care if your general sense of self-worth demands you fight what you perceive as oppression at every juncture; we don't care if you have issues with authority that could be best dealt with by a kindly and supportive pat on the head. We're not here to help you with your life or to entertain you until the meds kick in. Wikipedia is not therapy. But I think this isn't something we want to put in WP:NOT, because it doesn't really inform those who would actually need to be told it -- nobody's going to recognize these behaviours as their own. In its "voting is not therapy" incarnation, it was useful as a sneer, and it was meant as a sneer. The principle applies, but needs to be expressed in sneer-less fashion, rather like WP:DICK. Oh, wait. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

my thoughts

Well it really lacks any source or verification that wikipedia is not therapy. Some may argue that it is.

The "Getting back on the horse: If you have had trouble at Wikipedia in the past, for most users Wikipedia offers the chance to start over and try again; the only exceptions being users who have deliberately caused serious disruption." Actually wikipedia lets people make tons of accounts nonstop--not even a touring test. No verification required at all. If you're permabanned, change your ISP and you get back on. This prompted some questions I sent to Jimbo Wales, which nobody has answered. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=45930014 And for the proof that wikipedia can't keep anyone out, there's a vandalism article, see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels. DyslexicEditor 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel you

I really do sympathize with the author but with a little smile, too. It does read like a fellow venting a little anger and that's okay; I get similar feelings from time to time. A person wanders into the project, makes a few edits, starts a war or two and suddenly a big fraction of community energy gets devoted to "rehabilitating this editor". It might be better to look with a critical eye and simply invite the lost soul to leave. We don't really need more editors that badly.

The hard thought at the core of this essay is that we need to raise the bar to participation. Anon editors do more harm than good -- although there are still arguments in favor of permitting anon editing, we pay a high price for this principle. New editors sometimes turn out very well; other times they screw things up and fade; worst of all, some get locked into some sort of psychological battle with several editors and stink and stink. We're so committed to keeping the door jammed wide open that we sometimes sound like cultists. Once you're in, we'll talk you to death before letting you walk out again.

Maybe we need to stop talking so hard to troublesome newbies and just let them fade out; maybe we need to give the sticky ones a little push, too. Maybe we should wait until a user has a few hundred edits before deciding there's much value in working to keep him, once he gets into a bad rut.

That said, there's no way in the world to translate the fuzzy text on this page into policy. This should be considered an {{essay}}. John Reid 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did have to bite my wrist to keep myself from putting a reference to it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive87#Blu Aardvark: I recommend a permanent ban. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A quote from that thread:

Maybe you need to re-examine the way you approach these bans and blocks, because when you accuse someone of being a troll or a vandal, erase their messages, and then you don't give them the chance to defend their character, chances are they will become a deviant, because they have nowhere left to speak, no one to speak to, and no way left to speak.

We may not be therapists but a lot of loose nuts seem to get stuck in our couch. You'd think Willy was fighting for his life. John Reid 00:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You say "...we pay a high price for this principle,..." Making an anon register an account changes little. Chalk the expense of helping the disabled up to the cost of doing business I suppose. As it sounds, you might rather be publicly considered bigots and possibly lose 501(3)(c) status. Which is the higher price? Tomkwill (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

Comment!

I like this a lot, and I think it could even be a guideline if it were refined more. I do a lot of dispute resolution at Uncyclopedia and it seems like wikis attract a lot of people who are off their meds or having a hard time and it's left to the people who are trying to help things work smoothly to solve their problems. It's probably a lot of the same here, and it's nice to have something that says, "Hey, it's not personal, but we can't help you." Wikipedians are not therapists and shouldn't be responsible for dealing with goodbyes and suicide whatevers. --Keitei (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree...

While I agree that the article is well written, I believe the subject matter is subjective, as a whole. I believe it's a great way for one to take their mind off the numbening of their working life, and as such can be seen as therapeudic.

All in all, though, I like the article. You state your comments well and you keep to the point.

Good work

--lincalinca 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)!!?!

Suggested move

I think this page actually wants to be titled Wikipedia is not occupational therapy, to differentiate it from talk therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. It would clarify what it really means. Sabena Rani Gupta (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

merge

Should be merged under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

This article says "editors who engage in disruptive or antisocial behavior may be blocked or banned without regard for their mental health." Is this meant to assert that it is acceptable to intentionally (in the sense of an oblique intent) or recklessly cause grievous bodily harm, or any other personal injury, to editors who engage in "disruptive or antisocial behavior" (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to so cause such injury). What exactly does "disruptive or antisocial behaviour" include? Is it confined to behaviour that creates a risk to the personal safety of others (including a risk of psychiatric injury of a kind that amounts to bodily harm). Does this have any legal implications? If, for the sake of argument, it is technically legal to so cause such injury under such circumstances, is it within the bounds of what is reasonable and appropriate and acceptable? Should this passage be modified or deleted? James500 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No person has a right to disrupt Wikipedia for any reason, including assertions that being allowed to disrupt Wikipedia is good for the person's mental health. If someone were to complain "but being banned will make my mental health worse", the community's most likely response is "So get professional help from a qualified mental health expert. You're banned anyway."

It is very difficult to get banned, and people are normally sympathetic to people who appear to have genuine problems, but our actual job is to write an encyclopedia, not to be friendly to people with mental illnesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not at all difficult to get banned. See section "It's a lot to learn" of User talk:Materialscientist and all sections to date of my own User talk:Tomkwill especially ending in section "Assume good faith." Tomkwill (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

If you cannot find the "It's a lot to learn" section of User talk:Materialscientist, then please reference the cut-pasted version on my own talk page. Tomkwill (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

Is it lawful to do what this essay proposes? I can't speak for the United States, where this website is based, but in England and Wales the infliction of this sort of injury is capable of amounting to an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and telling someone to seek help from a doctor would certainly never be a defence. James500 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? If your neighbor has a mental illness, and says that pounding on your front door every half hour during the day is part of his illness, are you required to just put up with it, or are you allowed to say, "Do not bang on my door. I don't care why you are banging on my door. Just go away and leave me alone."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If saying "do not bang on my door, I don't care why you are banging on my door, just go away and leave me alone" to my neighbour is going "inflict grievous bodily harm" on him, I might not be allowed to say that to him. James500 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you will want to talk to someone more knowledgeable about the state of the law in your country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about an entirely hypothetical question. Section 20 talks of grieveous bodily harm.[1] This is an internet site and you can't injure someone on the internet. "Making someone's mental health worse" is also not a measurable outcome in any form. If someone were to commit suicide after being banned from Wikipedia, there are numerous reasons why this will not stand in a court of law. Show me jurisprudence that says that driving someone insane to the point of self-harm or suicide, particularly without knowing the victim personally, constitutes GBH. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find any mention in the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing guidelines about driving someone insane over the internet.[2] The only thing that comes close is the section on "ill-treatment of someone lacking mental capacity", and this seems to be peculiar to those with a duty of care. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This question is not hypothetical as long as the words "without regard for their mental health" remain in this essay.

According to the decision in R v Ireland, R v Burstow [1998] AC 147, HL, a "recognisable psychiatric disorder" is, in of itself, "bodily harm" for the purpose of section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and it can be "inflicted" for the purpose of that section without either the direct or indirect application of force to the body of the victim. Neither suicide nor self harm are necessary for a conviction, because the mental illness itself is the bodily harm. When paragraph 55 of the CPS guidance that you linked to refers to "psychiatric injury", that is what it means.

That said, the relevant law might be that of the United States as that is where the servers are. James500 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The law includes the phrase "Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means..." Blocking someone for being disruptive would be difficult to argue as "unlawful and malicious." I'm sure some ambulance-chaser looking for work might try it as a cyberbullying case, but honestly those people will try anything and having a website with a bulletin board is all you need to do that. We might want to be wary of Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats in this conversation, by the way. SDY (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has made any legal threats, but I will strike all of my remarks above anyway because they are attracting this sort of absurd response. I am not going to reply further to this thread. James500 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's okay if you don't want to continue the conversation, but since you are interested in this subject, you might like to think about what it means to "inflict" a psychiatric disorder on someone. If this page applies to you some user, then you the user already has some sort of mental illness. Getting banned for disruption cannot possibly "inflict" a pre-existing mental illness on you the user.

And, as I suggested above, if you want a real answer, you should seek qualified professional advice. If you don't wish to pay for proper advice, then you could always seek out a law enforcement officer and ask whether anyone is legally required to to remain the victim of harassment and disruption merely because the disruptive person has a mental illness that might be made worse by putting a stop to the bad behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This page does not apply to me. I say this for clarification only. James500 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was incredibly sloppy in the way I phrased that last comment, and I apologize. I have clarified my meaning. I have assumed the entire time that you were interested in this question from a purely disinterested standpoint, related to your obvious academic interest in UK laws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Question on deadlines

The ' Pace your work' section says: "With a "work in progress", remember that there is no deadline, so annoyances and imperfections can be set aside for a while."

Would it better to say: "With a "work in progress", remember that regardless of whether you believe that there is a deadline or there is not, annoyances and imperfections can be set aside for a while."

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically

Technically, all civil methods of dispute resolution could be labeled "therapy." Anger, unhappiness, impatience, and even slight anger or the lack of perfect patience could be considered a undesired mental state. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce those on Wikipedia. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Title

There are several comments above expressing doubt about the title for various reasons from different editors, one of whom says the essay was their idea. I also dispute the title on the grounds that it's pejoratively misleading since definition of therapy per Wiktionary includes: "2) Healing power or quality". I will now apply what seems to be the most suitable template tag to it. Sighola2 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you seek more opinions on this matter -- opposition to the title. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I will note the first three opinions back in 2006 are:

User:FT2: "the title is...a poor one ... an incitement to flames and name-calling, no matter what is said to the contrary...patently mis-targetted as a title as well"

User:Jpgordon: "I'm not sure either that we want it phrased as such. ... In its "voting is not therapy" incarnation, it was useful as a sneer, and it was meant as a sneer."

User:DyslexicEditor: "Well it really lacks any source or verification that wikipedia is not therapy. Some may argue that it is."

While some subsequent comments have liked the essay, they don't seem to have specifically defended the title. The most recent comment above suggests disagreement with it. Sighola2 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Using WP:Echo to call on people who have already expressed similar opinions as you is not seeking more opinions. I don't see a thing wrong with the title, and it is a widely cited essay. Since you have decided not to seek opinions in an appropriate way, I will alert people at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which is a page that also addresses essays, to this discussion, and then move on from there (whether it's a WP:RfC or whatever). Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTED is for article content. Does anyone have a proposed name? If so, let's discuss it. If not, the tag should be removed—in general we don't tag pages to express displeasure, and tagging an essay is rarely warranted. If the essay is really offensive, take it to WP:MFD. Re the issue: there is nothing wrong with the essay or the title, and it is sometimes necessary to face facts with this essay to explain the details. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I didn't immediately take up your suggestion to seek opinions elsewhere as I did not feel ready to do so, but thank you. I wikilinked the user names of those I quoted, one of whom seems to be inactive, one of whom says they invented this concept and I expect follows this page anyway. Johnuniq, I have removed the tag and thank you for the clarification. I note you both give absolute statements on nothing being wrong with the title but without giving reasoning at this point. Sighola2 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For technical reasons, a page must be at a title. Consequently, the question is never whether the current title is perfect, but whether anyone has an idea that is better. If you've got a better idea, then feel free to suggest it. If other people agree that your idea is better, then we'll move it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A page must be at a title. Examination of the pros and cons of an existing title could fruitfully occur prior to alternatives being offered. Sighola2 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Let it be. It's smart-ass snarkiness in the first place, and should stay that way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see the title has that advantage, perhaps especially for those with administrative responsibilities, and it addresses the serious issue that while Wikipedians are working collaboratively (supposedly) they do not have to rehabilitate those with behavior problems nor allow them to break rules. However, can I ask for a bit more serious consideration of the possible flipsides. That it is just not necessarily true that Wikipedia can't be considered or used as therapy by some if they choose, as multiple editors have commented, so what impression does it give to say (and widely cite) that it isn't? And moreover as FT2 previously suggested, it may, no matter what disclaimers it then includes, facilitate attacks on wikipedians who express difficulties. Sighola2 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It might. It's been here for eight years. It hasn't been a problem. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you know that it had added to the problems or sense of exclusion of some editors experiencing difficulties? Last time I looked a couple of years or so ago Wikimedia Foundation didn't care enough about disability issues, let alone specifically mental illness, to even include them in a survey it was doing or even answer a question about it from someone else. In your original comment in 2006 you suggested this essay "needs to be expressed in sneer-less fashion, rather like WP:DICK. Oh, wait." But that essay, which is not dealing with medical conditions with potentially very serious repercussions, has since been shifted off to Wikimedia meta and been continually objected to including apparently by Jimbo Wales. It is also not innacurately declaring how Wikipedia can or can't be used by individuals. Sighola2 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(gap) Johnuniq, you have removed the 'when defined as?' tag from the first sentence with the edit comment 'Wikipedia is not any kind of therapy'. Yet prior to that specific points were made here about the definition which you didn't address. Please provide any reasoning here. Sighola2 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors—it is not an article where precise terms and references are required. The essay has started with these words for a long time (for example, see this May 2007 version). If someone wants to propose a change, make an edit or discuss the proposal here. However, it is the addition of a tag that needs to be justified, not the removal. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept these points. I personally feel the tag is constructive. The proposal here remains that Wikipedia could be therapy under some definitions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/therapy The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Updated in 2009: "1. Treatment of illness or disability. 2. Psychotherapy. 3. Healing power or quality: the therapy of fresh air and sun." Sighola2 (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(gap) I checked into the origins of this essay a bit more and am putting the links here for the record in case useful:

Regarding 'voting is not therapy', there seems to be some citation instead of 'elections are not therapy' by 'liberal' political commentator Eric Alterman in a Nov 2000 article Not one vote! ("You don't have to like or admire Al Gore to vote for him. I sure don't. But elections are not therapy.")

Regarding the origin of this title on Wikipedia, it seems to have been first briefly discussed in May 2005: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive4#Wikipedia_is_not_therapy and then briefly in Jan 2006: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_5#Wikipedia_is_not_therapy. It seems that from the start there has been some agreement especially for admins but perhaps more dispute and concern on various grounds. Sighola2 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The title seems fine to me. Gigs (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Card stacking Sighola2 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Buh? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh you'd prefer it in wikipedian: WP:PNSD Sighola2 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This essay says you should never say to someone "wikipedia is not therapy" because that would imply people with mental disorders should not be allowed to edit wikipedia." That's the title of this essay though so what's the point of it? It should never be referred to? What good is it then? It's like it admits that it is untrue inside the essay. Popish Plot (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Redux

I think that "therapy" means "talk therapy" to a lot of people, and that's not really what this essay (originally) meant. The original idea was more like this: "We don't care if your doctor told you that you could use Wikipedia to practice working with strangers. If you are causing problems, we're going to ban you. You don't have an inherent human right to be here, because Wikipedia isn't actually medicine. It's just a website."

What do you think about moving the page to something like WP:Your treatment plan should not be editing Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible edits to essay

Firstly, at this bottom of this essay targetting contributors with medical conditions to tell them WP is not therapy, it states in See Also: Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope which starts "As the old saying goes Give 'em enough rope, and they'll WP:SUICIDE|hang themselves". I propose removing or rewording this.

Secondly, this essay in its origins and current phrasing appears to target regular 'users' not administrators, who are only referred to in terms of their skill levels. But it is clear that administrators can get stressed and may have mental health conditions etc too. Some might also engage in problem behaviors. I propose including something about that. Sighola2 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Essays don't have to be consistent with each other. Or politically correct. Gigs (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Or correct in any way. They're essays, opinions, ideas. Write your own essay. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is useful therapy. Might actually be a good counterpoint. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As I expect you both know, a document placed into wikipedia namespace can be edited by others - otherwise it should be moved to user namespace. My second proposal was for an addition on the topic of this essay so please clarify why you object or think it's a counterpoint? Sighola2 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the case, however it is not considered proper to "gut" an essay to get it to conform to a different POV than was originally intended, at least not in most cases. Edits to an essay should generally be in the same spirit of the original essay, unless there is something like MfD consensus to completely overhaul an essay. Gigs (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again who said anything about gutting or opposing anything? I mean the POV of the essay is confused anyway because it starts off saying WP is not therapy then spends most of the time pointing out how to use it to have 'therapeutic effects', which under one definition would make it a therapy if achieved. But my proposed edition is on the supposed anti-therapy POV of the essay - i.e. how administrators might get stressed or have mental health needs, and might try to manage that with behaviours that could be problematic for others on Wikipedia, and how that should not be permitted because Wikipedia is not therapy. That is also adhering to this essay's discriminatory scapegoating of (bad) mental health/disability as the cause of problems for others (which in reality someone suffering/disabled in themselves might have very good behaviour for others, and those who cause problems for others may be seen as very 'able' and 'mentally well' by whatever criteria). Sighola2 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition

I've WP:BOLDly added a section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy#Don't_exploit which explicitly states what is averred somewhat more gently elsewhere in the essay. If it seems out of line don't hesitate to remove, but I think it needs to be said. Coretheapple (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Afraid I'm not clear as to how you suggest this add might be changed. Can you clarify? tx Coretheapple (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

To me, it makes more sense if the text is focused on an editor using Wikipedia to work through certain personal issues and that this has led to them being disruptive. That is more in line with the essay than having text stating that an editor should not use personal issues to excuse their disruptive behavior. How is the latter about Wikipedia not being therapy? What type of therapy is someone getting by using personal issues to excuse their disruptive behavior? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the thought I'm trying to convey should be done through a separate essay. I see your point. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)