Wikipedia BAD!!

<laugh> No. But you can find it on the Internet. And also you can ask your therapist, who probably does have a copy.

my therapist does have a copy of the dsm. that's how i found out more about my diagnosis of ptsd and bipolar. where can you get a copy of the dsm online? or are you referring to quoted snippets of the dsm?
 
my therapist does have a copy of the dsm. that's how i found out more about my diagnosis of ptsd and bipolar. where can you get a copy of the dsm online? or are you referring to quoted snippets of the dsm?

Quoted snippets.
 
Actually Wikipedia itself quotes DSM-IV. Wiki on Schizoaffective Disorder:

Schizoaffective disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DSM-IV-TR criteria

The following are the revised criteria for a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR):

A. Two (or more) of the following symptoms are present for the majority of a one-month period:

* delusions
* hallucinations
* disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence) which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
* grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
* negative symptoms—affective flattening (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)

If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required to meet criterion A above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.

AND at some time there is either a

* major depressive episode
* manic episode
* mixed episode

B. During the same period of illness, there have been delusions or hallucinations for at least two weeks in the absence of prominent mood symptoms.

C. Symptoms that meet criteria for a mood episode are present for a substantial portion of the total duration of the active and residual periods of the illness.

D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

[edit] Subtypes

Two subtypes of Schizoaffective Disorder exist and may be noted in a diagnosis based on the mood component of the disorder:

[edit] Bipolar type

if the disturbance includes

* a manic episode
* a mixed episode

Major depressive episodes usually, but not always, also occur in the bipolar subtype, however they are not required for DSM IV diagnosis.

[edit] Depressive type

The depressive type is noted when the disturbance includes major depressive episodes exclusively.

This subtype applies if major depressive episodes only (and no manic or mixed episodes) are part of the presentation.

[edit] Etiology and pathogenesis

Although the causes of schizoaffective disorder are unknown, it is suspected that this diagnosis represents a heterogeneous group of patients, some with aberrant forms of schizophrenia and some with very serious forms of mood disorders. There is little evidence that schizoaffective disorder is a distinct variety of psychotic illness. That is, the disorder appears exist on a continuum in-between schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder and severe recurrent unipolar depression. Thus in a subgroup of patients with schizoaffective disorder, the illness appears to be comorbid (or co-ocurring) schizophrenia and mood disorder. It follows then that the etiology is probably more similar to that of schizophrenia in some cases and more similar to mood disorders in other cases.

Many different genes may be contributing to the genetic risk of acquiring this illness. In addition, many different biological and environmental factors are believed to interact with the person's genes in ways which can increase or decrease the person's risk for schizoaffective disorder. Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (of which schizoaffective disorder is a part) have been marginally linked to advanced paternal age at the time of conception, a common cause of mutations. [1]

Wiki on PTSD:

Diagnosis

The diagnostic criteria for PTSD, per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (Text Revision) (DSM-IV-TR), may be summarized as:[1]

A. Exposure to a traumatic event
B. Persistent reexperience (e.g. flashbacks, nightmares)
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear of losing control)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)
E. Duration of symptoms more than 1 month
F. Significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g. problems with work and relationships.)

Notably, criterion A (the "stressor") consists of two parts, both of which must apply for a diagnosis of PTSD. The first (A1) requires that "the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others."

The second (A2) requires that "the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror." The DSM-IV-TR criterion differs substantially from the previous DSM-III-R stressor criterion, which specified the traumatic event should be of a type that would cause "significant symptoms of distress in almost anyone," and that the event was "outside the range of usual human experience."

Since the introduction of DSM-IV, the number of possible PTSD traumas has increased and one study suggests that the increase is around 50%.[47] Various scales exist to measure the severity and frequency of PTSD symptoms.[48][49]

Posttraumatic stress disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
it's scary how dsm information is floating around on the internet. then again, it is available on amazon.com, so...

back on-topic...
 
Question: if I quote a quote on Wiki that is from a reliable source, is the Wiki source still considered unreliable? For example if I were to use the above quotes in a thread on PTSD or Schizoaffective Disorder.
 
Question: if I quote a quote on Wiki that is from a reliable source, is the Wiki source still considered unreliable? For example if I were to use the above quotes in a thread on PTSD or Schizoaffective Disorder.

you're better off quoting a reputable website like NAMI instead:

http://www.nami.org/
 
Isn't the DSM a reputable source? <confused>

...not when it's quoted from wiki. you're best bet is to quote an alternative website from a national organization that deals with mental illness.
 
nika,

if you want to quote wiki and the dsm, be my guest. i just think there are better alternatives out there.
 
I'm just confused. How does a reliable source like the DSM all the sudden become unreliable when it's quoted on Wiki? Isn't it the exact same information? I mean the person who wrote the article probably opened up a copy of the DSM-IV and typed it up letter for letter onto Wiki. So what difference does it make?
 
I'm not saying in terms of what I want to do. I'm just saying that we get so brainwashed into thinking "Wikipedia is Bad" that we become so black and white in our thinking. Wikipedia is not all around always bad. I have heard so many people go on about how Wikipedia is bad, bad, bad, bad, for everything, in all cases, etc. And I'm just trying to show here that sometimes Wikipedia isn't so bad. And sometimes it's even reliable, because it quotes directly from a reliable source.
 
Wikipeida in my opinion is only good for those who wants to have a superficial idea of whatever issue is being presented. I do read things on Wikipedia from time to time to get a glimpse of what is out there but never, I would use it as a source.

However, If it were to cite as a source to support or to refute your statement; That isn't always the best idea because Wikipedia can be altered, modified. Basically, to sum it up - anything goes on Wikipedia.

I have nothing against people wanting to use Wikipedia to learn about something or two but when it comes to finding the core of the subject, it is always best to cross-refer it with a reputable source to get the whole picture.
 
I'm just confused. How does a reliable source like the DSM all the sudden become unreliable when it's quoted on Wiki? Isn't it the exact same information? I mean the person who wrote the article probably opened up a copy of the DSM-IV and typed it up letter for letter onto Wiki. So what difference does it make?

see jolie's post for the answer to your question. i think she summed it up best.
 
a website that is "sometimes" reliable isn't good enough. a website should contain solid information that can be relied upon. for example, the psychiatric times when quoting citations regarding psychology and/or psychiatry.
 
Well what I am saying is that in that case Wikipedia is a good thing--if you just want to have some brief superficial knowledge of something. But the thing is I have used it for more, too. I learned Portuguese from Wikipedia, and I've spoken it with Brazilian and Portuguese and Mozambiquan people, all who were surprised to learn I picked it up from Wikipedia.

So all I am saying is that it can be a good thing, especially if you know when to use it and how to use it. I agree there are many situations where it's inappropriate. I just acknowledge those times where it is useful as well.
 
Back
Top