Wikipedia 10K Redux by Reagle from Starling archive. Bugs abound!!!

<-- Previous | Newer --> | Current: 981486309 LarrySanger at Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:05:09 +0000.


This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [ mental health] -- [ insanity (topic in the law)]

""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity. -- LarrySanger
Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.

Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger