You can always do some sort of hat note: "see also", "distinguish", etc.
JM
On 2/9/2025 10:45 AM, Mark Baumann wrote:
Hello all,
In my world of attachment theory and in Wikipedia articles, there is
sometimes confusion about a general and specific topic when both use
the same or similar words. For example, attachment therapy is a
specific modality of treatment, and attachment-based therapy are a
collection of various attachment-informed therapies.
This has created a big problem for Wikipedia users. Attachment therapy
is a based on a distortion of attachment theory and is soundly
regarded as a fringe and abusive form of therapy. The problem is that
most people interested in learning about the various attachment-based
therapy modalities land on the Attachment therapy article, which gets
5,000 visits per month. The primary article people should be
interested in is the Attachment-based therapy article, which gets 300
visits per month. Another article likely of interest is
Attachment-based psychotherapy, a particular form of
attachment-informed therapy, and which gets 400 users per day.
There's a similar problem with Attachment parenting (generally not a
great specific model, but a fantastic topic), and Biopsychosocial
model. Both of those are minor specific models, and both represent a
larger concept.
For the Biopsychosocial model article, I resolved the problem by
reorienting the article. A guy named George Engel created "the
biopsychosocial" model in the 1970's. It was a brilliant idea to help
the medical community think beyond the human body as a mere machine.
But he died and the model floundered, while other models started using
the generic BPS phrase. The original article was only about Engel's
model. I changed the article to talk about both, and left in info
about Engel's model and it being part of the history of the
development of BPS models. One question I have, was that a fair thing
for me to do?
The Attachment therapy article can't be so easily modified in the same
way. It seems like a nicely written article, more or less, it's long
and acknowledges the therapy's shortcomings and has a good bit of
history on the specific therapy.
One solution is to delete and redirect the Attachment therapy article
to Attachment-based therapy. There is already a section on "attachment
therapy" in the latter article and I could import more info from the
Attachment therapy page. But, is that too dramatic a solution?
It's a serious problem since attachment-based therapies are a very
good thing for humanity, but everyone asking Wikipedia about it is
only going to the worst form of an attachment-based therapy.
Can anyone point me in a useful direction for how to most elegantly
resolve this problem?
Mark Baumann
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
