![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
.. some was even in the article in this case :)
The Talk page for Borderline Personality Disorder (sic) on WP is a worthwhile skim, for education and entertainment.
Between the article and the talk page you get a pretty solid view of how much confusion, upset, documented bias, and outright noise are caught in this (perhaps most) poorly named diagnosis of
the questionably scientific field of clinical psychology. And a few crumbs about differing mental health practices in a few English-speaking nations (at least) (they cite the Spanish version of the article as better, but I haven't tried it yet)
I am glad they took out the mneumonic. Media always have to understand their audience, and well, this is definitely something WP has always had trouble with, this article no exception.
Still there are bright points. including the cited conclusion that the diagnosable incidence in the population is less than 3 %, even including the three times greater (!) rate of diagnosis for female patients. (To psychology and Wikipedia's credit it is noted that that statistic alone is enough to call into question the diagnosis as a whole).
A messy, yet meaty, article on a controversial topic and some interesting discussion. Well done, folks.
The Talk page for Borderline Personality Disorder (sic) on WP is a worthwhile skim, for education and entertainment.
Between the article and the talk page you get a pretty solid view of how much confusion, upset, documented bias, and outright noise are caught in this (perhaps most) poorly named diagnosis of
the questionably scientific field of clinical psychology. And a few crumbs about differing mental health practices in a few English-speaking nations (at least) (they cite the Spanish version of the article as better, but I haven't tried it yet)
I am glad they took out the mneumonic. Media always have to understand their audience, and well, this is definitely something WP has always had trouble with, this article no exception.
Still there are bright points. including the cited conclusion that the diagnosable incidence in the population is less than 3 %, even including the three times greater (!) rate of diagnosis for female patients. (To psychology and Wikipedia's credit it is noted that that statistic alone is enough to call into question the diagnosis as a whole).
A messy, yet meaty, article on a controversial topic and some interesting discussion. Well done, folks.