Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not therapy

message: 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)
thread_title: I

message: 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)
thread_title:  my thoughts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  While I agree... 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question on deadlines 

message: 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 talkcontributions 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redux 

message: 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)
replies: text: Essays don't have to be consistent with each other. Or politically correct. Gigs (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible edits to essay 

message: 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)
replies: text: Responded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Addition