Talk:Cyberchondria
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | All editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are copyrighted. Do not post a copy of the official DSM diagnostic criteria in any Wikipedia article. Simply reproducing the entire list in the DSM is not fair use and is a violation of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria legal policy. Instead, describe the criteria in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright for instructions if the criteria have been copied into the article. Editors may quote a small part of the DSM criteria for a given condition, especially if that quotation is used to discuss the DSM's choice of terminology in that quotation. |
Mention of Harris in the lead
editI'm extremely dubious about mention of Harris in the lede. The first thing that went through my head was "this is Sut Jhally writ large". How does the market Harris serves wish this term to function? Probably they want patients showing up at their doctor's office requesting exotic medications for conditions of borderline concern. Does it help them if the negative, neutral, or confused interpretation prevails? It's a non-trivial task to determine what is being spun and to whom. MaxEnt (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God!
editI think I have this. That explains everything! --122.105.225.197 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That is just so ironic 142.104.104.38 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I Agree!2A02:FE0:C140:8C01:59C9:462A:C614:EA4E (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The term is unclear
editThe term is unclear in the definition. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyberchondria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005235651/http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/ryenw/papers/WhiteSIGIR2010b.pdf to http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/ryenw/papers/WhiteSIGIR2010b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)