Wikipedia, aspie heaven or hell?

Post Reply New Topic

Nah, NTs are great on wikipedia... most of them are nerds, are policty-abiding, and are nice. There are the occasional rude people who don't assume good faith, but they're few. Then there are a few people who think they're NTs who probably aren't... (I know one admin who says he showered with his shoes on without knowing it). And then there are the aspie admins like me (User:AndonicO), or the OCD admins (a few of them, very good admins).

As for the previous discussions about citing sources and accuracy, I think wikipedia's hit the sweet spot (especially with Good Articles or better). The Asperger's syndrome article is also VERY good (most neutral and unbiased piece of text regarding AS I've read--it was written mainly by NTs, but I count a few Aspies too). When I read the article, I was shocked that I had nearly every symptom there. I self-diagnosed myself as an Aspie.

I enjoy Wikipedia alot.
About 95% of the people who use Wikipedia are adding real information or at least making good faith edits. It's the other 5% of people (usually anonymous ISPs) who are doing the vandalism that makes Wikipedia look like a joke to the press. Whenever I tell people I edit Wikipedia, they laugh. Which is really sad. I bet alot of people don't know about the Anti-Vandalism groups or the fact that vandalism is usually reverted in seconds or on a rare occasion, minutes (or on rare occasions hours. this one here was left unchecked and vandalised three times before I reverted it [click "newer edit" the revert was by me]). The other thing is the various amount of hoax pages on Wikipedia (these are usually snowball deleted at the Articles for Deletion page though. Alot of them are really stupid)

Amen to that Doc Strange.

i spend the majority of my web surfing time typing random stuff that comes into my head into wikipedia. and if someone msn's me about some subject he needs info about i jump to wikipedia and in less then 5 minutes i know every detail of it and ive seen atleast 5 different sites wich were on the wikipedia links

http://xkcd.com/214/

*collapses with laughter*

Now THAT is funny!!

Heya,

I'm one of the AS editors who abandoned-retreated-resigned from the wikipedia Asperger's article. You are right that a great deal of very well-sourced information got suppressed. The battle is not yet lost, however. Just this particular batch of soldiers got tired. Others are encouraged to pick up our flag.

The ArbCom (Arbitration Commitee) case actually was a personal conflict between two editors and only tangentially relevant to the issue of balance in that article. No arbcom case has yet been filed for the real issues. The real issues are :
*That article has a heavy bias towards the pathology view of AS.
*Editors have been repeatedly presented with balancing, credible information and rejected it without exception.
*This bias violates Wikipedia's inviolabe policy of NPOV (Neutral Point of View.)
*This bias does injury to living persons, contrary to wikipedia policy and actually illegal under UK and Australian "group libel" laws.

Anybody who wants is encouraged to pursue this. The biggest obstacle is that the editors who consider themselves 'owners' of the article are ... well ... stupid. If you present them with information, be prepared to have to explain the definition of basic words and the most rudimentary principles of statistics. One editor named SandyGeorgia rejected H. Asperger's statement "[People with Asperger's] often achieve the highest levels of professional success" on the grounds that the word "often" means "more than 50% of the time." I'm often at starbuck's. I'm not at starbuck's 50% of the time.

So, um ... bring a towel !

Monkeys will type shakespeare and translate it into swahili before stupid arrogance gives way to competence on wikipedia.

Still it is better this way than let our opinions get in the way.

For example lets say that you may "hypothetically" that you were "sure" Einstein was an aspie, you would have no proof - nor able to get proof. The circumstantial evidence or thinly support belief may otherwise be passed off as fact.
Einstien aspie? Maybe? Maybe would not be good enough for me to accept as fact.

I think they are in their rights and acting in everyone's best interests to do this.

What do you think I am interested?