There’s a lot of polarized stuff flying around about Wikipedia (and other sites like it) and the quality of its entries, or rather, lack thereof. The same polarizing attacks the veneration of the amateur and arguments against collective intelligence, both of which are perceived as uncharacteristic of becoming a psychologist. Right!
Well, tempting as it is to fall into the game of opposites, I’m going to make a guess that the real truth and actual solutions lie somewhere between. A slightly similar question would be, should ‘amateur’ psychologists be encouraged to steer the direction of modern psychology?
The “command/control/hierarchy is the only way to quality” trap (courtesy of people from APA and others like them) from which many have fought so hard to free their minds is only beginning. What are your thoughts on the issue of ‘psychologists-quality-control’? Could it benefit from some measure of control (or absence of it), and what would that control look like? Or are there merely growing pains on the way to an even deeper understanding of and appreciation of collective intelligence about psychological mechanisms?? And, one more - do you feel that you read all sources more critically now in the age of all-around media that allows easy access?
if you are wondering what marijuana has to do with all of this, well, i was refering to the liberating sensations that 'certain' mj users have reported. and NO.. i do not condone the use of MJ...