This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moderation Management article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The information about the child murder makes little sense here as key details are missing, such as the leader's some members' apparent belief that such things should be kept confidential our of fear of making the group look bad. ""On an email listserv dedicated to MM, a member named Larry Froistad confessed to the murder of his 5-year-old daughter. Lisa Decarlo, a member of the group who had been finding some success with moderation, found the admission disturbing and contacted the police to report it. She shared the emails from the group to assist in the investigation. Decarlo then contacted Kishline seeking support, but was surprised by the response she received. Decarlo said Kishline was shocked to learn that the police were involved. Kishline admitted to Decarlo that she hadn’t wanted to go to authorities, in part, because of possible adverse publicity. "Our controlled-drinking support group was controversial enough already," Audrey responded to Decarlo. And besides, “What’s done is done. I mean, the child has been dead for a while, hasn’t she?”" https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline
Out of the approximately 200 members of the MM email group who were privy to the confession, only three contacted authorities. Instead, the group rallied around Froistad offering support and understanding and attacked those few members of the group who had contacted the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 ( talk) 02:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's missing relevant information. Like it makes it seems like she just randomly drove the wrong way, leaving out that she was blackout drunk. Which would be in any summary as it explains what she was charged with and served time for. also, she's no longer with us and has a second name (In March 2000 she drove her truck the wrong way down a highway, and hit another vehicle head-on killing its two passengers (a father and his 12-year-old daughter--
https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 (
talk)
02:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot more I found on MM that I didn't include, but this is a reasonable summary. I was on the fence about whether or not to include the part about Larry Froistad, but decided it was relevant as it was included in Schaler's book. There is unquestionably enough information on Froistad that he could have his own article - between the legal reviews on the issues of online confession and the online bystander effect research it was included in. -- Scarpy ( talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what the purpose of the information on Froistad's online confession. What purpose does it serve for moderation management, I feel it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinamSmith ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Kasira added a bias template to the top of this article. Unfortunately, there is no indication of which pieces she(?) takes exception with. -- Scarpy ( talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made two changes to this article:
Defendingaa ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that the article has been deleted (again; it was also deleted back in 2007), and has been restored, only to be nominated for deletion, let me be a little more frank and shoot straight here: This “Moderation” program never worked. Its founder was never moderately drinking, and finally killed two people in a drunk driving accident. Other members of the group were also, by and large, not moderately drinking: A 2001 survey saw that 87.1% of online-only members (members whose participation in Moderation Management was online only) and 61.7% of face-to-face members (people who went only to real-world face-to-face meetings) drank four or more days a week. 70.6% of online-only and 49.1% of face-to-face-only members had five or more drinks on days they drank. Among members who went to both face-to-face and online meetings, 85.4% drank four or more days a week, and 53.8% had five or more drinks on drinking days. [1] (Edit Correction: This describes the drinking of MM members before they start the “moderation” program)
I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not work. It did not work with the founder of this group, it did not work with the majority of active members in this group. Indeed, its founder at one point admitted that “Moderation Management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem” [2]
Defendingaa ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
NOTE:For people just joining us,
moving conversation from my talk page to here. -
Scarpy (
talk)
15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not workthis proposal does not appear to be grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As Scarpy pointed out in another discussion, we have articles describing trepanation, homeopathy, ornithomancy, and many more practices which are discredited, pseudoscientific, or superstitious. If it's notable, we should describe it. If reliable sources describe it as ineffective, we should say that. Colin M ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Colin, first of all, thank you for your input. It is good to have an intelligent conversation about this matter.
The difference between Moderation Management and things more notable, like homeopathy, is that homeopathy has been studied in excellent peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials. Moderation Management, on the other hand, is of limited notability, so we don’t have many essays on how effective it is. Looking through the peer-reviewed literature today: “there are no prospective, longitudinal studies of MM face-to-face group participation, much less a randomized clinical trial. Given the limited evidence base, any conclusion about MM’s effectiveness must remain tentative” [3]; the article then has to look at studies which did not directly measure MM’s efficacy, but measured moderation among heavy drinkers. There is only one study out there which looks at MM’s effectiveness. People using just Moderation Management to control their drinking went from drinking six days a week to drinking 5.5 days a week (e.g. they would drink five days one week, then six days the next week), which apparently is significant improvement among treatment experts (the study actually compared just MM to MM + some web drink tracking program, the web tracker showed heavy drinkers going from six days a week of drinking down to three or four days a week of drinking) [4].
Anyway, it’s going to be a busy week and I don’t think I will be able to circle back to this article (as well as the Death of Amanda Froistad which also needs some TLC) until this weekend. I think moderation for alcoholics does not work, I think a lot of alcoholics like to pretend they are heavy drinkers who can use “moderation” to control their drinking, and I think that Humphreys 2012 paper is wrong about how well heavy drinkers moderate their drinking because alcoholics consistently lie to doctors about the extent of their drinking. This is why I am very skeptical about any study about “moderate” drinking without a 10-year or even 5-year followup, because the very few studies we have about “moderate” drinkers 10 years later show them alcoholically drinking again (most famously, Pendery 1982) [5], when the consequences are so bad, they can not hide their drinking problems from doctors and researchers performing studies on their drinking.
(Edit Let me give more information about Lembke 2012 and the argument it makes for MM’s efficacy: After admitting we don’t have any good studies for MM per se, the paper invokes Cunningham, J.A; Lin, E.; Ross, H.E; Walsh, G.W (2000). "Factors associated with untreated remissions from alcohol abuse or dependence". Addictive Behaviors. 25 (2): 317–321. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00130-0. and Sobell, L. C.; Cunningham, J. A.; Sobell, M. B. (1996). "Recovery from alcohol problems with and without treatment: Prevalence in two population surveys". American Journal of Public Health. 86 (7): 966–972. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.7.966. PMC 1380437. PMID 8669520. to argue that alcoholics can moderate their drinking. I should point out that the both papers used self reporting without any follow up, which I believe to be very unreliable with it comes to “moderate” drinking: Alcoholics lie when they say they are “moderately” drinking, and any study I have seen with a long term followup confirms this. The paper than argues that web-based interventions are as effective as brief interventions, and then invokes Hester 2009, the only survey we have about MM per se which is open for anyone on the Internet to read. The paper then argues that cognitive-behavioral therapy, used by MM, works, so MM should also work. It then looks in to more studies where it argues heavy drinkers can moderate again without choosing full abstinence; I need to go to work so I don’t have time to invoke the exact studies right now. This is all well and good, but I don’t think the full reasoning belongs in this article; I don’t think this article should drift in to the discussion about whether moderation is effective for some heavy drinkers, a topic which is far more notable than this tiny group ever has been.)
This is why I like to avoid editing this article. I will try my best to be neutral, but I have strong opinions on the subject which can very well be reflected in any edits I make here. Defendingaa ( talk) 06:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Significant edits to this entry appear to have been made by individuals with clear, stated biases as regards substance abuse treatment and addiction. While this is not a problem in and of itself, it currently feels that the article has been written and cited in a way to support these individuals' points of view and biases, without any citations, sources, or data that present a balanced view of the topic; the information in the article currently seems very focused on presenting a negative view of the topic, from focusing on a murder that is only tangentially related to the program itself to the death of its founder to emphasizing studies that support the editors' own perspectives on substance abuse. While contents related to studies should absolutely stay, I'm concerned at present that the only people currently editing and maintaining this article also have a vested interest in painting a negative-- as opposed to unbiased-- picture. Captbloodrock ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm on board with most of the recent edits, but I believe we should avoid a Criticism sections, for the reasons in
WP:NOCRIT e.g. In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.
. -
Scarpy (
talk)
17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moderation Management article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The information about the child murder makes little sense here as key details are missing, such as the leader's some members' apparent belief that such things should be kept confidential our of fear of making the group look bad. ""On an email listserv dedicated to MM, a member named Larry Froistad confessed to the murder of his 5-year-old daughter. Lisa Decarlo, a member of the group who had been finding some success with moderation, found the admission disturbing and contacted the police to report it. She shared the emails from the group to assist in the investigation. Decarlo then contacted Kishline seeking support, but was surprised by the response she received. Decarlo said Kishline was shocked to learn that the police were involved. Kishline admitted to Decarlo that she hadn’t wanted to go to authorities, in part, because of possible adverse publicity. "Our controlled-drinking support group was controversial enough already," Audrey responded to Decarlo. And besides, “What’s done is done. I mean, the child has been dead for a while, hasn’t she?”" https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline
Out of the approximately 200 members of the MM email group who were privy to the confession, only three contacted authorities. Instead, the group rallied around Froistad offering support and understanding and attacked those few members of the group who had contacted the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 ( talk) 02:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's missing relevant information. Like it makes it seems like she just randomly drove the wrong way, leaving out that she was blackout drunk. Which would be in any summary as it explains what she was charged with and served time for. also, she's no longer with us and has a second name (In March 2000 she drove her truck the wrong way down a highway, and hit another vehicle head-on killing its two passengers (a father and his 12-year-old daughter--
https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 (
talk)
02:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot more I found on MM that I didn't include, but this is a reasonable summary. I was on the fence about whether or not to include the part about Larry Froistad, but decided it was relevant as it was included in Schaler's book. There is unquestionably enough information on Froistad that he could have his own article - between the legal reviews on the issues of online confession and the online bystander effect research it was included in. -- Scarpy ( talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what the purpose of the information on Froistad's online confession. What purpose does it serve for moderation management, I feel it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinamSmith ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Kasira added a bias template to the top of this article. Unfortunately, there is no indication of which pieces she(?) takes exception with. -- Scarpy ( talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made two changes to this article:
Defendingaa ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that the article has been deleted (again; it was also deleted back in 2007), and has been restored, only to be nominated for deletion, let me be a little more frank and shoot straight here: This “Moderation” program never worked. Its founder was never moderately drinking, and finally killed two people in a drunk driving accident. Other members of the group were also, by and large, not moderately drinking: A 2001 survey saw that 87.1% of online-only members (members whose participation in Moderation Management was online only) and 61.7% of face-to-face members (people who went only to real-world face-to-face meetings) drank four or more days a week. 70.6% of online-only and 49.1% of face-to-face-only members had five or more drinks on days they drank. Among members who went to both face-to-face and online meetings, 85.4% drank four or more days a week, and 53.8% had five or more drinks on drinking days. [1] (Edit Correction: This describes the drinking of MM members before they start the “moderation” program)
I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not work. It did not work with the founder of this group, it did not work with the majority of active members in this group. Indeed, its founder at one point admitted that “Moderation Management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem” [2]
Defendingaa ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
NOTE:For people just joining us,
moving conversation from my talk page to here. -
Scarpy (
talk)
15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not workthis proposal does not appear to be grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As Scarpy pointed out in another discussion, we have articles describing trepanation, homeopathy, ornithomancy, and many more practices which are discredited, pseudoscientific, or superstitious. If it's notable, we should describe it. If reliable sources describe it as ineffective, we should say that. Colin M ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Colin, first of all, thank you for your input. It is good to have an intelligent conversation about this matter.
The difference between Moderation Management and things more notable, like homeopathy, is that homeopathy has been studied in excellent peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials. Moderation Management, on the other hand, is of limited notability, so we don’t have many essays on how effective it is. Looking through the peer-reviewed literature today: “there are no prospective, longitudinal studies of MM face-to-face group participation, much less a randomized clinical trial. Given the limited evidence base, any conclusion about MM’s effectiveness must remain tentative” [3]; the article then has to look at studies which did not directly measure MM’s efficacy, but measured moderation among heavy drinkers. There is only one study out there which looks at MM’s effectiveness. People using just Moderation Management to control their drinking went from drinking six days a week to drinking 5.5 days a week (e.g. they would drink five days one week, then six days the next week), which apparently is significant improvement among treatment experts (the study actually compared just MM to MM + some web drink tracking program, the web tracker showed heavy drinkers going from six days a week of drinking down to three or four days a week of drinking) [4].
Anyway, it’s going to be a busy week and I don’t think I will be able to circle back to this article (as well as the Death of Amanda Froistad which also needs some TLC) until this weekend. I think moderation for alcoholics does not work, I think a lot of alcoholics like to pretend they are heavy drinkers who can use “moderation” to control their drinking, and I think that Humphreys 2012 paper is wrong about how well heavy drinkers moderate their drinking because alcoholics consistently lie to doctors about the extent of their drinking. This is why I am very skeptical about any study about “moderate” drinking without a 10-year or even 5-year followup, because the very few studies we have about “moderate” drinkers 10 years later show them alcoholically drinking again (most famously, Pendery 1982) [5], when the consequences are so bad, they can not hide their drinking problems from doctors and researchers performing studies on their drinking.
(Edit Let me give more information about Lembke 2012 and the argument it makes for MM’s efficacy: After admitting we don’t have any good studies for MM per se, the paper invokes Cunningham, J.A; Lin, E.; Ross, H.E; Walsh, G.W (2000). "Factors associated with untreated remissions from alcohol abuse or dependence". Addictive Behaviors. 25 (2): 317–321. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00130-0. and Sobell, L. C.; Cunningham, J. A.; Sobell, M. B. (1996). "Recovery from alcohol problems with and without treatment: Prevalence in two population surveys". American Journal of Public Health. 86 (7): 966–972. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.7.966. PMC 1380437. PMID 8669520. to argue that alcoholics can moderate their drinking. I should point out that the both papers used self reporting without any follow up, which I believe to be very unreliable with it comes to “moderate” drinking: Alcoholics lie when they say they are “moderately” drinking, and any study I have seen with a long term followup confirms this. The paper than argues that web-based interventions are as effective as brief interventions, and then invokes Hester 2009, the only survey we have about MM per se which is open for anyone on the Internet to read. The paper then argues that cognitive-behavioral therapy, used by MM, works, so MM should also work. It then looks in to more studies where it argues heavy drinkers can moderate again without choosing full abstinence; I need to go to work so I don’t have time to invoke the exact studies right now. This is all well and good, but I don’t think the full reasoning belongs in this article; I don’t think this article should drift in to the discussion about whether moderation is effective for some heavy drinkers, a topic which is far more notable than this tiny group ever has been.)
This is why I like to avoid editing this article. I will try my best to be neutral, but I have strong opinions on the subject which can very well be reflected in any edits I make here. Defendingaa ( talk) 06:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Significant edits to this entry appear to have been made by individuals with clear, stated biases as regards substance abuse treatment and addiction. While this is not a problem in and of itself, it currently feels that the article has been written and cited in a way to support these individuals' points of view and biases, without any citations, sources, or data that present a balanced view of the topic; the information in the article currently seems very focused on presenting a negative view of the topic, from focusing on a murder that is only tangentially related to the program itself to the death of its founder to emphasizing studies that support the editors' own perspectives on substance abuse. While contents related to studies should absolutely stay, I'm concerned at present that the only people currently editing and maintaining this article also have a vested interest in painting a negative-- as opposed to unbiased-- picture. Captbloodrock ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm on board with most of the recent edits, but I believe we should avoid a Criticism sections, for the reasons in
WP:NOCRIT e.g. In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.
. -
Scarpy (
talk)
17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)