*Sigh* Why does Wikipedia have to be so biased?

Post Reply New Topic

Hello today. I have something to tell you. I do not think AS should be described on Wikipedia, as it affects us all differently. The "cultural aspects" thing about being unmarried is just a fixed and biased stereotype. Also, the two autistics getting married and producing an autistic offspring is the same way (the thought disgusts me). So, write this down: I hate Wikipedia. It used to be good until I discovered the AS article, then it got old and biased after that.

Well what can you expect for the fountain of all knowlege which has no editorial control system and no method of choosing what is right other than what the mob choose.

I used to think that wikipedia was a great idea, while I think it is an interesting experiment I think that it has some deep flaws. One of them is that anyone can edit anything, and add nonsense.

I agree, wikipedia is a great idea, but in practice it just does not work.

It's still a great source for free tattoo flash!

On the other hand, Uncyclopedia is 100% unbiased and fair towards aspies.

Here's an article about Asperger's that is obviously 100% truthful and completely free from any bias: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Aspe ... drome/lite

Considering all the crap that could be there, this is pretty damn good.Besides, how can one article from any source completely describe the complexity of human beings--Aspie or otherwise?

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself,

"People with Asperger syndrome may refer to themselves in casual conversation as aspies, coined by Liane Holliday Willey in 1999.[81] The word neurotypical (abbreviated NT) describes a person whose neurological development and state are typical, and is often used to refer to non-autistic people. The Internet has allowed individuals with AS to communicate and celebrate with each other in a way that was not previously possible due to their rarity and geographic dispersal. A subculture of aspies has formed. Internet sites like Wrong Planet have made it easier for individuals to connect.[7]

Autistic people have contributed to a shift in perception of autism spectrum disorders as complex syndromes rather than diseases that must be cured. Proponents of this view reject the notion that there is an "ideal" brain configuration and that any deviation from the norm is pathological; they promote tolerance for what they call neurodiversity.[82] These views are the basis for the autistic rights and autistic pride movements.[83] There is a contrast between the attitude of adults with self-identified AS, who typically do not want to be cured and are proud of their identity, and parents of children with AS, who typically seek assistance and a cure for their children.[84]--
Some researchers have argued that AS can be viewed as a different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability.[7][85] In a 2002 paper, Simon Baron-Cohen wrote of those with AS"...

Wikipedia entry-- Asperger's Syndrome;subheading cultural aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

Use the numbers in the article to find the website that it was dervived from and chew them out... wiki is actuly a good scource on info...

According to Wiki, a PATA hard drive is also called an IDE hard drive. Without getting heavily into detail, I will use this as an example that Wiki is not 100% right.

Got pissed when one of my specialist books noobed out and called a memory module "Memory Stick" OMG... Some of the questions are not for the UK market, and it's using American language.

Best to "research" really instead of rely on one source. I do hate it when books try to explain by using something else that has no relevance, then I get confused because it doesn't use the examples of the subject at all. Dumbing down

So, yeah, Wiki - not a good source of info

i never said it was reliable...

Wiki is good for a very general overview if you know little about the topic. Otherwise just use the references down the bottom

I've heard tales from lecturers this year that their more enthusiastic honours/phd students correct factual stuff on wikipedia, only to see it revised back to the incorrect version the next day

What I like about Wikipedia is you can find stuff you wouldn't find in an encyclopedia, like video games and albums and even individual songs sometimes.

It should never be trusted though, not for anything serious.

Well usually controversial subject will put <citation needed> and you can add your comments in their box. Otherwise I haven't had much trouble with Wikipedia compared to other sites like wikidramatic

On a side note, no one knows how it's passed on genetically just like other odd "mutations". I no one in my family who has some form of autism except me..."Oh why did it have to be me!"

So there are no real or circumstantial evidence as to how it's carried in the gene pool other than that it can be hereditary meaning they don't know what gene is responsible for this "abnormality" or if that if the genetics to this condition are dominant or recessive. I don't know, I guess in my family it's somewhat recessive but in maybe other families it's dominant just like brown eyes over blue eyes. It's still under some scrutiny we may never know in this life of which gene pinpoints it just like we don't about other causes for certain traits in genes.

I think it's good for autistics to get together and have autistic offspring... it'll make the community bigger.


But I don't like stereotypes either, so I understand how you feel.

So, the accepted is correct over real facts? Typical. The world MUST be flat then....

Wikipedia offers a very text-book example. It's being more general than specific, which I don't see a problem with.