| There's some atrociously written articles on Wikipedia even in the year 2023. Case example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_intimacy The majority of the article is woman-centered, even though there's no evidence that it's highly gender-biased, and the only information pertaining to men is that if they have fear-of-intimacy then they might be a sex offender. Otherwise, the article barely communicates anything meaningful. How do attachment types relate to fear-of-intimacy? Are they causative or merely correlative? Then there's of course poor writing throughout such as this: > Fear of intimacy has three defining features: content which represents the ability to communicate personal information [...] What the hell does that mean? "Content?" Like a YouTube video or something? This is just the latest example I've come across, and happens to be one of the least encyclopedic bodies I've text I've ever read. So much of what I read on Wikipedia is of a similar low caliber. People scan over Wikipedia articles but don't think critically, in part because Wikipedia has devolved into writing that can't decide what its audience is and won't get to the point. As I've said before, check out the Talk sections of the pages you visit, and you'll find some of the most arrogant responses from Wikipedia's inner circle of editors. What makes me LOL the most is supposedly scientific articles that are written as if there is no debate behind a scientific idea, despite there being no such thing in science as "case closed." Wikipedia often behaves like it's a peer-reviewed scientific journal, yet has none of the chops to act as such. Anything that you read on Wikipedia that suggest that there is "no evidence" for something is likely to be some buffoon's ignorant opinion on the actual literature. And no, I can't just "edit" Wikipedia to fix these issues. I've tried. Both my home IP address and my phone IP address is banned from them, despite my having never set up an account with them. |
> What the hell does that mean? "Content?" Like a YouTube video or something?
It's taken directly from the source cited (page 2 of https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-and-Valida...). I'm not an expert in the field and have no idea if this is a good paper, but it has received 267 citations which does convey some impact.
> The fear-of-intimacy construct takes into account three defining features: (a) content, the communication of personal information;(b) emotional valence, strong feelings about the personal information exchanged; and (c) vulnerability, high regard for the intimate other. We propose that it is only with the coexistence of content, emotional valence, and vulnerability that intimacy can exist. Consider, for example, the customer who talks to an unknown bartender about his or her troubles. Although there may be personal content
It's clear that it's not the noun "content" but the adjective, defined as "pleased with your situation and not hoping for change or improvement".
I hope the Wikipedia editors are more literate and willing to research than that. I don't think I want to read your version of wikipedia.