Wikipedia

[schadendox.livejournal.com]

EDIT: Original article on Healthy Multiplicity has been found! (may not be most recent version)

Does anyone remember Wikipedia's healthy multiplicity page? It's gone now, which is a pity because that's how I first found out such a thing existed, along with the links to Astrea's Web and Pavilion.

The disambiguation page for Multiplicity still links to the nonexistent page, and there's a brief section about healthy multiplicity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_personality_controversy#Healthy_multiplicity
I'm not a regular on Wikipedia, but is there anything we could do? If I recall , it got the axe not because someone necessarily disagreed but because there weren't enough sources and no one spoke up in objection.

So, what is there to do? Are there even enough sources out there yet, or do we have to wait a few decades? There's a big thing about acceptable sources at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution

Edit: I was going to find the debate/discussion over deleting this, but thehumangame beat me to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Healthy_multiplicity

Quick links: Copy of original article - Original location - Reasons for deletion - Summary on MP controversy page - Wikipedia source guidelines

Comments

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

If anyone has a copy of the page we should put it back up. I know of a few
sources we can attribute.

In any case, we hope to publish something on the subject later in the year.

--- Marina and Harriet of Mtribe

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

What are you planning to publish? A book? An academic paper? Something else entirely?

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

An academic paper which i hope to present at the American Anthropological
meeting next year in Washington DC.

-- Marina

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

we could use the wayback machine to find it.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Could you, and repost it ;-)

I will add references to Stevens and a few other
sources to make this more removal proof.

--- Marina

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

I've tried to get it, but there's no accurate link for me to plug into it....

everything I've tried brings me to wiki's main page. get me a link, and I'll get the page.

Rick
Pack Collective

PS: sorry to sound brusque, I'm kind of rushed...

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

We found a copy.

--- Constance of Mtribe

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

awesome.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

Found the debate over deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Healthy_multiplicity)

[schadendox.livejournal.com]

Good. I put the link in the first post for good measure. Now I just have to find the last existing copy of the article itself, which might be tricky...

[schadendox.livejournal.com]

Found it!
http://www.answers.com/topic/healthy-multiplicity
I'd forgotten that answers.com takes all sorts of stuff from Wikipedia. I saved a copy to my hard drive in case something happens to it.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

We helped to work on that article. It was deleted for containing "too much original research" and "not enough acceptable sources." The sources thing was the real problem-- we've really tried combing the Internet for that, but they're looking for "secondary sources", aka articles by doctors or journalists or someone working in some "professional" capacity. And there honestly just isn't much. Most of the professionally-written material we've come across that mentions healthy multiplicity in any way approached it from the standpoint that it's all MPD/DID, and proposing the "radical" idea that multiples don't have to integrate (though, of course, it's always suggested that they're only supposed to be capable of living independently and non-integrated after being in therapy for years).

I don't object to using those as sources, as I think a big point to be emphasized in the whole concept of healthy multiplicity is that a system can start out disordered and come to be healthy and stable in time, but what we needed and couldn't find were sources talking about it as a natural state of being-- not necessarily in terms of a pathological deviation from the norm albeit one that isn't necessarily precipitated by trauma, or in terms of spirit possession, or similar. (I have found several articles on those last two subjects, most dating from prior to 1920.)

On the other hand, there's a persistent problem on Wikipedia of people who seem to believe that "NPOV" means "skeptical point of view." We've run into several problems on the "Multiple personality controversy" article with people doing this.

[hessgasm.livejournal.com]

the article was removed, as sethrenn^shiu said, because of this big thing on wikipedia about 'neutral point of view' meaning scepticism.