1

Welcome to the latest wikiHaus Lab update! Here’s what’s happening for Feb 24th:

:rocket: What’s happening?Containerless design has now been implemented on all articles on small screens (thanks to your helpful testing!) If you happen to come across any further quirks or potential bugs on small screens, please let me know and I can pass them on.

:rocket: What’s happening?Affiliate link tests: The team is testing adding links to services at the end of an article for logged out users. You can see an example on https://www.wikihow.com/Choose-a-Mental-Health-Counselor-or-Psychotherapist logged out, where you can see there are links to options for online therapy underneath the steps. So far affiliate links are looking promising and showing signs of success!

:rocket: What’s happening?Thinking about how to increase engagement from category pages. The team is working on ways to get people to click on and read more articles from category pages. Do you have any thoughts about features, wording, or the layout for category pages that could improve a reader’s experience when they’re on a category page, and increase chances that they’ll want to check out other articles?

5 Likes
3

Whilst I’ve largely stepped away from wikiHow now, I have occasionally been stopping in to see what’s going on on the site. I haven’t felt the need to comment on any goings on, but seeing this made me feel that I had to say something. I can certainly appreciate that affiliate links are potentially an effective way of linking users to appropriate resources whilst generating a revenue stream, but I don’t think that it’s appropriate to have these on medical (and similar) articles. In the case of the choose a counsellor article for one, creating income from people who are, one would assume, potentially struggling with their mental health and thus possibly in a rather vulnerable space doesn’t seem morally responsible. In this space particularly, the broad range of reasons someone might have for seeking counselling and their associated needs are so variable (as opposed to, say, a physical product for a DIY how-to), would also appear to make affiliate links less responsible and desirable; from this, there also stems the possibility that someone will access sub-standard or poorly fitting services simply because wH referred them there. I also have a concern that, potentially, there’s room for some less-than-desirable businesses to promote their services via these links (for example, see the controversy over the promotion by online influencers of BetterHelp BetterHelp - Wikipedia ). Perhaps there is some system of curation in place to stop this, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate this or how it might function if it exists, either here or in a reader facing space.

Whilst I’m not inherently against the idea of any sort of affiliate links anywhere, I feel that where, how, and with whom this is implemented needs to be very carefully managed to avoid causing potential harms to readers, particularly those who are already in a vulnerable position.

9 Likes
4

Thanks for stopping by with your feedback GB742! Ensuring that we’re partnering with the right organizations and companies is definitely something that’s paramount to the initiative and is considered at length before choosing to go ahead with a particular partner or placing links on an article.

2 Likes
5

I’m not really around myself either, but I was tipped off to this by a friend and I’m really concerned about this as well. Speaking as someone who’s been in mental health services for more of my life than not, I genuinely don’t think it’s a good idea for wikiHow to be referring people to services like this; GB’s already brought up most of my concerns already, but there’s also a lot that goes into picking a therapist. In my teens, my parents couldn’t just pick a therapist who worked with teens; they needed to find a therapist who was familiar with handling family problems, self-injury, suicide, neurodiversity, and transgender identity. Sure, I may be a bit of an edge case, but point being, there were too many moving parts for something like this to have been helpful. Even an otherwise-neurotypical person who just needs someone to talk to can end up with a therapist whose style doesn’t really work for them, or who they have a personality clash with. There’s no way to know if a service like this will help someone.

I admittedly have a lot of concerns about how these services are vetted, too: it’s not explained how the quality of these groups are assessed, and while I know there are many reasons that might not be able to be disclosed, interviews with a company representative (or even a session or two with each respective group) can make a group look better than they really are. (Speaking from many, many bad experiences.) And it’s frankly rather disturbing to see wikiHow willing to take money from people who may be desperate and/or in legitimate crisis.

sliding back into retirement now, I just felt the need to say something because this really does worry me.

10 Likes
6

Thanks @anon74718567 , we know you, GB and others are looking out for the best interests of readers and those who may be in a vulnerable position, and that’s an admirable quality. We do have someone with really good experience, qualifications, and understanding of this space working on this initiative, so hopefully in some small way that can help alleviate concerns for the process and project moving forward.

2 Likes
7

I don’t have much to add, except for the fact that I too have been retired from wikiHow, though I still have been checking in occasionally. I also find it very concerning that wikiHow is looking to profit off people who are in legitimate crisis and/or otherwise struggling with their mental health. While I don’t mind articles having affiliate links, these types of articles are not the right ones to include them in.

9 Likes
8

I won’t go too far into this, but I will say that I have trouble getting by putting affiliate links on articles like these as well. It’s great that the links have been successful for the site. That being said, the people reading this article may need serious help or know someone else who does. They may not even be in the best place to pick a counselor on their own; a teenager who’s dealing with severe depression, for example, would most likely have to rely on an adult’s discretion, or someone whose judgment is currently in question may need the help of someone else to seek medical and therapeutic treatment.

As someone who has struggled with mental health on a consistent basis for several years, I’ve had my fair share of extreme crises, and I can easily put myself in one of these situations because I’ve already been there. Having experience as both a wikiHow editor and someone with mental health issues, ultimately I don’t feel as though affiliate links are appropriate here.

8 Likes
9

I am seeing a lot of comments on here from people who are objecting to the affiliate links project because they believe that it could be hurtful to people who need serious help. However, considering that affiliate links are only being added to articles like How to Play Uno, and How to Ski, I really have a hard time understanding where they are coming from. Absolutely none of these links, and I mean literally 0, like no affiliate links at all, are being added to articles where someone might need serious help. I checked all of them; there are no articles that someone in a crisis situation would use that have an affiliate link on them. I don’t even think that it’s possible to get affiliate links for mental health or other crisis services, so I don’t see any reason for alarm.

1 Like
10

The affiliate links are between the article content and Expert Q&A on Choose a Mental Health Counselor or Psychotherapist , but they’re only visible for logged-out readers.

image
image 1452×1082 135 KB

image
image 1472×1402 246 KB
6 Likes
11

And I am sure that the have vetted it throughly. Hopefully they can make a lot of money with it.

1 Like
12

Part of the beauty of our wiki is that we’ve always had such a diversity of perspectives that derive from many different lived experiences and backgrounds. This thread reminds me again to appreciate the different points of view others have.

I’ll admit I had some skepticism about what affiliate links may look like once rolled out. From my perspective, being able to provide resources like referrals to trained professional counselors who have been professionally vetted to readers who are reading about a topic like choosing a mental health counselor seems like a way to help readers get additional support beyond the scope of what wikiHow can provide.

Individuals in a situation where they’ve found themselves on an article like how to choose a mental health counselor or psychotherapist may find the prospect of finding a trained professional daunting because they literally have no idea where to start.

Affiliate links aside, being able to provide potential counselor referrals right from wikiHow seems like a tremendous win for readers. The fact that we’re able to provide readers with a discount to each of those counselors as part of the affiliate program is a win-win in my opinion.

Including really relevant affiliate referrals like what’s been demonstrated here is significantly more tactful than some of the Google Ads readers may be seeing. It would be neat to see if there are other opportunities for us to provide meaningful resources like this in places where it could even replace Google Ads and help our readers even more.

3 Likes
13

I really can’t see affiliate links on any article, even when I log out, but I do get to see them on Alex’s screenshots. I see what I feel is already said, so I’d just like to mention that I totally agree with GB, Alex, XxVxX and Helpie.

3 Likes
14

Not to try and call anyone out or assume anything, but this is a topic that directly impacts several people who’ve commented here with their own personal concerns, and an attempt to knock these concerns out with a lack of experience (or at least a lack of mentioning if one has any exposure to this) comes off a bit iffy.

I’m by no means against people getting the help they need—let’s face it, I’m one of those people, too—but there may be some issues with affiliate links on an article like this. I’ve already made my case here on some points, as have others, but there are other reasons to back up our stance, too.

Just to compile a quick list of some points that have been mentioned:

  • It seems morally wrong to take monetary advantage of people in any sort of crisis
  • BetterHelp specifically is a subject of controversy
  • There are many factors that go into choosing a counselor, and a quick referral might not cover all their needs
  • Someone reading an article like this might not be in a good spot to seek help independently

Another factor to consider here is insurance. Insurance might cover the costs for some therapy services and not others. As such, with certain insurance, someone could get counseling for a much more convenient price than these links would offer them—and using these links in such a case would quite frankly be “ripping them off” more.

Just to tack on a personal story here… I’ve been in and out of counseling myself, and I can say I’ve had exposure to all of these concerns directly, other than BetterHelp. I can’t legally seek mental help on my own, and it took months to try and find a service that would actually take me. A few years ago, I was actually dropped by my first therapist after she quite literally gave up on me for being a lost cause. After that, I just pretended to be fine so that my parents wouldn’t feel stressed and pressured into finding a new service that would accept our crappy insurance and be able to tackle intense issues. My life, up until a couple months ago, was acting as though things were okay for these reasons. I can say that I’m back in therapy and have recently started medication, and because my family was able to do research and account for all factors, I’m in a better spot than I have been for a long time.

Counseling isn’t a “one size fits all” type of thing. What might work wonders for one person could make another feel significantly worse. Thus, when seeking help, there are many factors that need to be considered, and one click of a link by someone in a severe crisis can’t be expected to “fix” an issue. I empathize with others who’ve been in a similar place as I have, including potential readers, and as such, I have a moral right (and even a moral obligation) to do what I can to look out for them. Ultimately, these decisions of what comes out of this aren’t up to me, but I sincerely hope that there’s a spot in the hearts of us all that will recognize the troubles here and help correct them.

all that being said, I’m sorry, and I’ll go return to my inactivity hole now

5 Likes
15

I’m not sure if you happened to catch my post above, @HelperOnWikihow , where I actually addressed a handful of the remarks that you made. However, I’ll address each one more specifically here. Keep in mind I certainly don’t speak for staff, but rather I speak as a volunteer with a neutral opinion and open mind about techniques staff are using to ensure it can continue to pay its bills and keep wikiHow running to serve millions of readers around the world.

You stated: It seems morally wrong to take monetary advantage of people in any sort of crisis

I’d love to hear more about how you feel laying out options of trained professionals who can help provide greater help than volunteer editors on wikiHow can provide is taking advantage of people in crisis. This is a genuine question, and I don’t mean it in a sarcastic way at all. As somewhat of an internet nerd, I tend to be more introverted. I know other introverted people who are likely to refer to the internet as their primary source of research in finding information like this. If someone is in crisis and needs prompt help, being able to connect with trained professionals is up of the utmost importance. I’m really struggling to see how this can be perceived as taking advantage of someone.

You stated: BetterHelp specifically is a subject of controversy

Hopefully the allegations of unfair pricing from several years ago is a thing of the past. I personally know someone who has used BetterHelp who was, at the time, experiencing a peak in their depression. Their social anxiety was preventing them from seeking other in-person options, and they found the staff at BetterHelp was able to provide support in an online chat style that worked really well for them. Overall, they had a positive experience using BetterHelp.

You stated: There are many factors that go into choosing a counselor, and a quick referral might not cover all their needs

For sure. Simply because a reader clicks a link to learn more about a professional counseling service in no way obligates them to use that service. One of the first steps in selecting a counselor is to read more about them and the services they offer. This is no different than someone independently Googling the names of any of the counseling services as a first step to learn more about them. If, after clicking an affiliate link to learn more, they determine this is not going to be a good fit for them, they can easily opt to continue looking for another counselor. The specific facts and circumstances of anyone’s experiences are going to vary, and trained professional counselors are in the best position to provide next steps if they’re not going to be able to help cover the reader’s needs.

You stated: Someone reading an article like this might not be in a good spot to seek help independently

It’s quite challenging to generalize all readers and make broad assumptions about everyone’s situation. If someone is reading this article on their own and feels there’s benefit in learning more about a professional counseling service, I’m not sure that wikiHow would be in the best position to first interrogate them and see if they should involve others in the decision-making process. The article already includes a recommendation to talk to friends and family in Part 1, step 6, so if the reader finds themselves in a position where it would be best to consult with others first, we’ve already made that recommendation. We cannot seek complete control over every decision everyone makes.

You stated: Another factor to consider here is insurance. Insurance might cover the costs for some therapy services and not others. As such, with certain insurance, someone could get counseling for a much more convenient price than these links would offer them—and using these links in such a case would quite frankly be “ripping them off” more.

Insurance is hugely important. It’s so important, it’s listed as step 2 in Part 2 of this article. We recommend readers first make sure a counseling service will accept their insurance and verify coverage. As previously mentioned, merely clicking an affiliate link to learn more doesn’t obligate anyone to select that counseling service. While we cannot control every aspect of every reader’s decision, we’ve done our best to ensure readers know to first verify insurance coverage before making any decisions. Being able to snag a 10% discount in additional to having insurance coverage could make the session(s) free, or certainly at a discounted rate.

You stated: When seeking help, there are many factors that need to be considered, and one click of a link by someone in a severe crisis can’t be expected to “fix” an issue.

I don’t think anyone here is implying that any of the counseling services displayed in the affiliate links is a ”quick fix to solve all your problems” type of service. However, connecting a reader with a professional who can provide personalized and one-on-one services is oftentimes better than merely providing more generic solutions that don’t take each person’s specific circumstances into account. No one counseling service can solve every single person’s concerns, but they can do their best to help, which may mean making referrals to other services.

As I mentioned before, this is just my take as someone neutral and open-minded. I know that sometimes outside group-think can come into play with some of these posts, but it’s a really far reach in my eyes to see connecting readers with trained counselors as a bad thing or a way to take advantage of readers when it actually seems to be the exact opposite – providing readers with a connection to someone who can help them in a serious time of need.

While not specifically related to this article’s affiliate links, I just want to note that it’s probably not reasonable for a full community consensus or discussion each time affiliate links are added to an article or it would literally paralyze the operations of the wiki.

I guess I’d challenge those who have expressed concerns to step back and make sure you’re coming at this with an open-mind. If it’s possible to reduce dependence on Google Ads (which we have minimal to no ability to vet and ensure is actually relevant to the article) and instead provide relevant helpful resources to readers, I think this is something we should seriously consider.

Don’t get me wrong, change is easy for nobody. And change takes time. However, if the desire is to reduce dependence on Google Ads, this seems like one of the most reader-friendly options available that further help us meet the needs of readers.

2 Likes
16

Not Helpie. But as someone who’s also not a fan of this idea, and who’s also currently in mental health services, I can address your points as well, Eric.

Key word: monetary. Referring someone in crisis to a service is not inherently taking advantage of someone. Profiting off it, however, is another story entirely – especially because it’s not wikiHow providing this support, it’s an external service where there’s no way to guarantee the quality.

Copying this from an email from another editor who was concerned about this: There has also been a lot of controversy with Betterhelp (including but not limited to they apparently have a word limit for their texts and sessions, and are particularly big on influencers promoting them), so I’m appalled that wikiHow would be advertising such a service.

When you’re struggling with mental health issues, you often have no choice but to budget your energy. Even basic internet research can be absolutely exhausting, and if it turns out that the services wikiHow is affiliated with are insufficient but the person doesn’t have the energy to do further research, they’re (for lack of a better term) kind of screwed.

Mental illness in particular can be legitimately incapacitating. Someone in a depressive episode is drained of energy; someone in a manic phase of bipolar disorder can spend money without thought as to whether they actually should; someone in a psychotic episode may not be able to distinguish reality; and all mental illnesses make it difficult to tell what’s really going on. (When I’m struggling with depression, I’m often incapable of even picking between two options; at my worst points, I have legitimately completely shut down due to questions like, “Do you want strawberries or a banana?”) Moreover, if wikiHow isn’t in “the best position to first interrogate them and see if they should involve others in the decision-making process,” then wikiHow isn’t in a position to refer them to a service, full stop. wikiHow doesn’t know their needs.

At least four of the five platforms wikiHow links to don’t appear to take insurance at all. What’s more, insurance can have better options than an affiliate link – it’s rare, but it’s possible. My parents’ plan in Vegas allowed anyone on the plan to receive therapy for free as long as it was in the insurance network.

Doesn’t this contradict your earlier points? If we can’t make broad assumptions about everyone’s situation and wikiHow isn’t in a position to “interrogate” them, then how is wikiHow in a position to connect them to a professional in the first place?

I don’t have commentary on the affiliate links in general. But there’s a time and a place for them, and on an article for readers who could potentially be in a bad place isn’t either – and I’m admittedly really concerned that the tone of your post is blowing off people with actual experience with mental health services who are saying this is concerning as “groupthink” and justifying it as “well, wikiHow has to pay the bills somehow.”

6 Likes
17

There are two main points that I wanted to tack on/clarify/whatever in regards to what you’ve contributed @Eric .

Re.

This is, almost certainly, a culturally and experientially variable moral interpretation, but as someone who has grown up in a system where healthcare, and many related services, are expected to be free at the point of use, this is my take. Making money, as is inherent with affiliate links, from the provision of some activity to do with health (particularly when the service in question is effectively being a broker of non-personalised links to actual service providers) is, to me, morally wrong. I take the position that access to healthcare, which counselling/therapy is a part of, is a human right and is not something that anyone should profit from. I guess that, from these background beliefs, my perception is that these links may be construed as taking advantage in that they seek, by their inherent nature, to make money from someone seeking to access healthcare. I can see that, with different background beliefs as to healthcare or different cultural expectations of healthcare, that concern may be far lessened or entirely absent (indeed, the provision of a discount may serve to act in the opposite direction). This matter, to me, seems to broadly hinge on these culturally and experientially formed views, but to take only one of the philosophical/moral perspectives at hand is to do a disservice in considering how people from a broad array of backgrounds may perceive this initiative (wH is, obviously, not a site only used by those in the US or other countries where these perceptions of healthcare-as-commodity are held).

Re.

I can certainly see that, in some situations, having access to this discount would make a positive difference, and that certainly something I’d laud (though, obviously, my thoughts on charging for healthcare of any form remains the same). However, an issue does also arise here in that, if someone is a financially difficult position, lacks insurance etc., then they may feel unduly inclined to use the services promoted by these links as they’ll receive a discount, even if the services these providers offer is not a good fit. Whilst there’s no easy way around this, the potential pressurising effect of discounts of this type should be remembered.

I’m very much open minded as far as the general concept of affiliate links, indeed in many cases I think they would be a preferable alternative to the, as you say, near uncuratable Google Ads. My position certainly isn’t that all affiliate links are always bad. In fact, I would positively encourage them when they’re used for physical items that need little personalisation (e.g., physical items for a craft project) - a discount + easy access to necessary items + income stream for wH is a win/win. However, for matters such as these, i.e. those where the specifics of the attributes of the service need to be highly personalised, relate to those who are vulnerable, etc. I don’t think they’re appropriate or entirely responsible. To take issue with one element of a new idea is not to be against change, and to categorise legitimate concern in that manner is both disingenuous and not conducive to effective and constructive discussion.

Also my fire alarm went off like halfway through writing this, so if anything is oddly written/missed out/etc., that might be why

5 Likes
18

I appreciate you both taking the time to share your thoughts. Different points of view can be helpful when thinking about the bigger picture.

I don’t think you’re alone in wishing we all had access to free mental health (and all aspects of healthcare) worldwide. Hopefully one day we get to that point!

I think if we dig hard enough, we can find criticisms to make about every organization (justified or not), but I don’t think that’s very healthy or a productive use of anyone’s time. I still believe this provides much more meaningful service to readers than other forms of traditional advertising. From my perspective, this initiative remains a very positive one and I’m curious to see how it evolves over time. I think there’s genuine good intent behind the decision-making here.

It’s not productive for me to continue to respond line-by-line as you’ve made your opinion abundantly clear, and I’m not sure there’s much benefit in continuing that dialogue. I appreciate you sharing your perspective nonetheless as it makes me think about things from other viewpoints.

1 Like
19

‘I think if we dig hard enough, we can find criticisms to make about every organization (justified or not), but I don’t think that’s very healthy or a productive use of anyone’s time’. That’s just intellectually dishonest. The fact that one can find things to criticise about anything doesn’t, in any meaningful way, disprove or diminish any individual piece of criticism - only an appraisal of the merits of the specific claim can do that. If we hold the implication of that statement, that criticism is a worthless endeavour as criticisms may be generated for anything, to be true, you can discredit any criticism of anything, which obviously would be incorrect, that statement therefore falls into both the ‘proving too much’ and ignoratio elenchi fallacies.

The second claim, that there’s ‘genuine good intent behind the decision-making here’ and the resultant implication that this has a material impact on the nature and interpretation of the outcome, falls victim to a similar issue as expressed in the intentionality fallacy (and the less formalised fallacy of good intentions). The chain of reasoning that, as good intentions were involved in the making of a decision, the material product of that decision must necessarily be good, is a non sequitur. Things are ‘not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create’ them. Whilst I fully accept that good intentions were and are present in the making of these decisions, and that many of these decisions are likely to produce positive, or at least harmless, outcomes, that doesn’t negate the criticisms that have been made or somehow protect the outcomes of these decisions from being undesirable.

The proposition that there’s not ‘much benefit in continuing [this] dialogue’ is both antithetical to wiki principles, in that it effectively denies the process of developing consensus, and argumentatively fallacious. ‘When there is disagreement, people should talk about it and develop a solution’. By acknowledging legitimate criticism yet failing to incorporate this, no solution has been developed, instead, those concerns have been disregarded and a potential avenue for improvement and engagement has been lost. In logic terms, this statement somewhat constitutes an appeal to closure, an argumentative fallacy, which proposes that an ‘argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled’.

As far as the argumentative deconstruction goes, that will more than suffice. However, we ought also to consider the idea presented that it isn’t a ‘very healthy or a productive use of anyone’s time’ to find criticisms. The opposite of this, and thus the course of action implied to be preferable, is actively not seeking to develop critiques and discussion, rather accepting decisions and proposals as they are made with no critical engagement. Some may deem that sycophancy, and indeed it is readily apparent that such servile obsequiousness has benefits to its practitioners - you yourself, Eric, have received such benefits. Other who have spoken out about things they find undesirable find themselves shunned, demeaned, or accused of acting in bad faith.

This promotion, both tacit and more obvious, of a culture of acceptance and sycophancy only serves to close down discussion and promote passive permissiveness, worsening consensus, worsening the ability of wH to take on board constructive critiques, and worsening the ability of wH to call itself a wiki.

5 Likes
20

I’m sorry if you interpreted my statement as meaning nobody in the community can continue to discuss actions on the site. That wasn’t at all my intention.

I was merely advising that I’ve shared my opinion, and I’ve taken into consideration the feedback others have shared. I’ll continue to monitor and take in feedback others have to share, but I simply meant I wont continue to respond line by line to each response because I’ve shared my feedback already.

1 Like