Defining Film/Video-Based Therapy: What Judy Weiser Taught Me About Expertise, Wikipedia, and the Ownership of Knowledge
AI-generated editorial illustration for YDSP; not a documentary image of Judy Weiser, Dr. Joshua L. Cohen, or the subjects described.
By Dr. Joshua L. Cohen
One of the most important conversations I've had about film/video-based therapy was with Judy Weiser, a psychologist, art therapist, author, and internationally recognized pioneer in PhotoTherapy.
Over the years, Judy repeatedly challenged me, as I recall our conversations, to define my work more clearly. What exactly was film/video-based therapy? How was it different from PhotoTherapy, therapeutic photography, cinema therapy, or other forms of visual expression used in psychological and therapeutic settings?
These were legitimate questions, even when our conversations involved professional disagreements.
Judy had spent decades developing a conceptual framework for understanding how photographs could be used within psychotherapy and how those practices differed from photographic activities undertaken for personal growth, education, or community development.
She understood something fundamental about the development of an interdisciplinary field: before people can meaningfully evaluate a practice, they need to understand what it is—and what it is not.
I took that challenge seriously.
My academic publications, professional collaborations, and three Routledge books have been part of an ongoing effort to articulate the theoretical foundations, applications, boundaries, and emerging research surrounding film/video-based therapy.
But defining a field within academic publications is only part of the challenge.
The public also needs a way to understand it.
That is one reason I thought Wikipedia might be a reasonable place to begin.
What Judy Weiser understood about defining therapeutic practices
Judy's contributions to PhotoTherapy offer an important example of why terminology matters.
In her 2014 article, Establishing the Framework for Using Photos in Art Therapy (and Other Therapies) Practices, published in Arteterapia, Weiser addressed the distinctions among PhotoTherapy, therapeutic photography, and Photo-Art-Therapy.
She described a continuum of photographic practices that could help professionals understand where their work belonged, where different approaches overlapped, and how they differed.
Her distinction between PhotoTherapy and therapeutic photography is particularly important.
PhotoTherapy involves using personal photographs and photographic interactions within a therapeutic relationship guided by a trained mental-health professional. Therapeutic photography, by contrast, includes photographic activities undertaken for personal development, well-being, education, or community purposes without necessarily involving formal psychotherapy.
The distinction is not simply semantic.
It involves professional qualifications, the context of the activity, the relationship between participants and facilitators, and the ethical responsibilities associated with the work.
Weiser's published framework also discusses the evolution of visual technologies and acknowledges related photographic practices. Her broader professional work recognizes connections with moving images and VideoTherapy.
That acknowledgment matters because film/video-based therapy does not exist in isolation from the history of photographic therapeutic practices.
It shares conceptual territory with PhotoTherapy, expressive arts therapies, narrative approaches, and digital storytelling.
At the same time, filmmaking introduces additional processes: sequencing experiences, constructing narratives, recording movement and sound, editing material, collaborating with others, and potentially sharing a completed story with an audience.
Those processes raise questions that deserve careful examination.
What changes when someone creates a moving-image narrative rather than reflecting on a still photograph? What role does editing play in how an individual organizes personal experience? How does filmmaking within psychotherapy differ from community storytelling, documentary production, or filmmaking intended for personal growth?
And perhaps most importantly, what evidence supports the proposed therapeutic applications of these practices?
These are scholarly questions, not promotional ones.
They require definitions, research, professional dialogue, and critical evaluation.
Why I turned to Wikipedia
My conversations with Judy helped reinforce my belief that film/video-based therapy needed a clearer public definition.
Wikipedia appeared to offer a collaborative environment in which terminology could be explained, related disciplines could be distinguished, and readers could follow references to the underlying scholarship.
I did not initially view that effort simply as an opportunity to establish my professional reputation.
I saw it as part of the broader work of defining an interdisciplinary subject.
The distinction is important.
A person may have a professional interest in a subject and still raise legitimate questions about its definition, history, and relationship to other areas of knowledge.
But Wikipedia introduces another consideration: editorial independence.
Because I have published extensively on film/video-based therapy and have a direct professional connection to its development, my participation presents a conflict-of-interest concern under Wikipedia's editorial framework.
I understand why such safeguards exist.
An encyclopedia cannot simply accept an author's account of their own contributions as independent evidence. Nor should the publication of books, professional credentials, or personal experience automatically determine whether a subject warrants an encyclopedia article.
Nevertheless, the experience raises a question that extends beyond my circumstances.
How does an encyclopedia incorporate specialized knowledge from people closely involved in developing a subject without surrendering independent editorial judgment?
That is the question I believe deserves more attention.
Defining a field is not the same as promoting its founder
Judy Weiser's work illustrates why this distinction matters.
Her published scholarship did not merely assert that PhotoTherapy existed. It examined the boundaries of photographic therapeutic practices, distinguished related approaches, and offered a framework through which other professionals could describe and evaluate their work.
That is how academic fields develop.
Terminology is proposed, debated, refined, and sometimes challenged by subsequent research.
My own efforts to define film/video-based therapy should be subject to the same scrutiny.
A definition should not become authoritative simply because I wrote it. It should be evaluated through scholarly literature, independent analysis, and the contributions of other researchers and practitioners.
But neither should the question of how to define the field disappear because one of the people asking it has a professional connection to the subject.
There is a meaningful difference between advocating for personal recognition and asking whether an interdisciplinary concept has been accurately explained.
In my experience, those two activities can become difficult to distinguish within collaborative encyclopedic environments.
That difficulty deserves discussion rather than dismissal.
Where specialized knowledge lives beyond Wikipedia
As I reflected on my return to Wikipedia in my October 19 essay, I considered other places where readers encounter information about film/video-based therapy.
EverybodyWiki contains an article titled Film/video-based therapy, which describes filmmaking with clients and distinguishes that activity from cinema therapy, generally associated with watching and discussing films.
The article also connects the subject to expressive therapy, narrative therapy, art therapy, digital storytelling, and phototherapy.
However, the page includes editorial maintenance warnings, including requests for additional citations.
Those warnings are important.
An entry's existence does not establish that its claims have been independently verified.
Similarly, Encyclopedia.pub includes a section discussing film/video-based therapy within an entry on cinema therapy. That section describes my involvement in the development of collaborative work surrounding the subject.
But the entry identifies HandWiki as its source, meaning that its account should not be treated as independent corroboration.
A third example raises different questions.
Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia, also presents information about film/video-based therapy. In my review of its entry, I encountered an organized account of the subject addressing distinctions from related approaches, historical development, theoretical foundations, proposed mechanisms of change, clinical applications, ethical considerations, and research evidence.
The version I reviewed included thirty-one references, among them academic publications and professional websites.
That structure may give readers the impression of a comprehensive scholarly overview. Some cited publications concern relevant independent research, including qualitative investigations of collaborative filmmaking with veterans.
Yet the presence of references does not establish that every claim in an AI-generated article is independently supported.
Some sources may describe closely related practices rather than the precise approach being discussed. Others may originate from people professionally associated with the subject, including my own publications and websites.
The distinction matters.
An AI-generated reference work may organize available material effectively while still reproducing the assumptions, terminology, and evidentiary limitations of its sources.
These examples illustrate the broader problem.
When a subject is not clearly explained in a major encyclopedia, readers may encounter it through alternative reference platforms, institutional websites, scholarly publications, or AI-generated summaries.
Grokipedia illustrates how AI-generated material can already function as a public reference source, regardless of whether it follows traditional editorial practices.
Each source carries different standards of verification, editorial oversight, and transparency.
The challenge is not merely to make information available.
It is to make the origins, limitations, and evidentiary basis of that information visible.
Expertise and editorial independence should work together
My experience with Wikipedia has made me think more carefully about the relationship between subject-matter expertise and independent editorial review.
Academic publishing depends on both.
Researchers develop concepts, explain methods, and defend interpretations. Editors and reviewers evaluate those claims, identify weaknesses, and request clarification.
Neither role eliminates the need for the other.
An encyclopedia operates under different policies and has different responsibilities, but the underlying challenge remains similar.
How can knowledgeable contributors identify omissions or explain specialized terminology while independent editors retain authority over what is published?
How can professional experience inform an article without becoming a substitute for reliable, independent sources?
And how can disagreements over terminology be addressed as scholarly questions rather than reduced to disagreements about individual contributors?
I believe those questions are particularly important for emerging interdisciplinary subjects.
Fields involving psychology, media, expressive arts, and digital technologies often develop across several professional traditions.
Their boundaries may not be immediately obvious to readers or editors unfamiliar with the literature.
That makes accurate explanation especially valuable.
It also makes independent verification essential.
Artificial intelligence makes definitions even more important
AI adds another dimension to this discussion.
Increasingly, people encounter specialized knowledge through conversational systems rather than traditional reference works.
An AI system may summarize PhotoTherapy, cinema therapy, therapeutic filmmaking, and film/video-based therapy in a single response.
The Grokipedia entry illustrates this possibility.
In the version I reviewed, it described film/video-based therapy as a specialized, trauma-informed clinical approach and associated it with trauma processing and resilience building.
Such descriptions deserve careful scrutiny.
There is published research concerning collaborative filmmaking and related therapeutic practices. For example, a 2018 qualitative study by Tuval-Mashiach, Patton, and Drebing explored collaborative filmmaking with veterans.
That research is relevant to understanding participants' experiences and possible therapeutic processes. But qualitative findings do not, by themselves, establish clinical efficacy across populations or demonstrate that film/video-based therapy constitutes a validated treatment modality.
Nor should research concerning cinema therapy, therapeutic photography, or other related approaches automatically be treated as evidence for every application of filmmaking within psychotherapy.
The distinction between a proposed therapeutic mechanism, an observed participant experience, and an established clinical outcome is essential.
This is precisely the kind of distinction Judy Weiser's work on professional terminology encourages us to consider.
My concern is not simply that AI might generate inaccurate information.
It is that an AI-generated explanation can sound authoritative while blending different levels of evidence and different types of sources into a single coherent narrative.
A fluent summary is not necessarily an accurate one.
AI can also reproduce claims from encyclopedic entries without clearly revealing whether those entries rely on independent scholarship, primary sources, or material copied from other websites.
This makes source transparency increasingly important.
AI-assisted research tools may help scholars organize terminology, identify relevant literature, and examine competing definitions. But those tools cannot independently resolve disputes over evidence, professional qualifications, or editorial conflicts of interest.
In my own case, I have asked whether AI-assisted checking would be permissible when considering contributions to Wikipedia on unrelated subjects. As of this writing, I have not received an answer, and I am not treating that question as permission.
The broader issue is how these technologies can support responsible knowledge development without replacing scholarly judgment.
Returning to Judy Weiser's challenge
When I think back to Judy's repeated encouragement to define my work, I recognize the importance of the question she was asking.
What is film/video-based therapy?
Where does it belong in relation to other photographic, narrative, and expressive practices?
What distinguishes psychotherapy from therapeutic activities that do not involve clinical treatment?
And what evidence is necessary to support the claims made about these approaches?
Those questions remain central to my work.
Judy's contribution to PhotoTherapy demonstrates that establishing conceptual boundaries is not merely an exercise in professional identity. It is part of the intellectual work required to make an interdisciplinary practice understandable, teachable, and open to critical evaluation.
My experience with Wikipedia introduced another question that I had not anticipated:
Who gets to participate in defining a field once that definition moves from scholarly conversation into a public encyclopedia?
I do not believe the answer should be that the person most closely associated with a subject gets to control its public description.
But I also do not believe that expertise and editorial independence must be treated as opposing forces.
The most productive approach is one in which scholars contribute research and clarification, independent editors assess reliable sources, and readers can trace the evidence behind what they encounter.
That was the possibility I originally saw in Wikipedia.
It is also why the conversation Judy Weiser helped initiate remains important to me.
Ultimately, this is not simply a story about my experience with an encyclopedia.
It is a story about how knowledge develops, how professional disciplines define themselves, and how public institutions decide which explanations become accessible to everyone.
And it begins with a deceptively simple question:
Before we can explain a field to the world, have we adequately defined what we are talking about?
Selected references
Weiser, J. (2014). Establishing the Framework for Using Photos in Art Therapy (and Other Therapies) Practices. Arteterapia, 9, 159–190. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ARTE.2014.v9.47490
Weiser, J. (2004). PhotoTherapy Techniques in Counselling and Therapy: Using Ordinary Snapshots and Photo-Interactions to Help Clients Heal Their Lives. Canadian Art Therapy Association Journal, 17(2), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08322473.2004.11432263
PhotoTherapy Centre. PhotoTherapy, Therapeutic Photography, and Related Techniques. https://phototherapy-centre.com/
Cohen, J. L., Johnson, J. L., & Orr, P. P. (Eds.). (2015). Video and Filmmaking as Psychotherapy: Research and Practice. Routledge.
Cohen, J. L. (Ed.). (2022). Film/Video-Based Therapy and Trauma: Research and Practice. Routledge.
Tuval-Mashiach, R., Patton, B. W., & Drebing, C. (2018). When You Make a Movie, and You See Your Story There, You Can Hold It: Qualitative Exploration of Collaborative Filmmaking as a Therapeutic Tool for Veterans. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01954
Dr. Cohen's current coaching, consulting, and educational services are nonclinical and do not constitute psychotherapy, psychological treatment, or a substitute for care from a licensed mental-health professional.