The new Asperger's syndrome article at Wikipedia

Post Reply New Topic

Is a total catastrophy. One Sandy, with able help from Ryan Norton, have destroyed the once neutral article and once more made it into a medical article full of "peer-reviewed" crap. I encourage active wikipedians to help stop this vandalism, especially since Wikipedia's content is spread widely to informational sites about AS.

Go here:

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

and remove the biased stuff!

What unbiased and non "peer-reviewed" content is (now) missing?

How far back in the edit history can one find the non corrupted version?

I'm disappointed. I really liked it as it was. I had been recommending it.

If it's not peer reviewed, what good is it to an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia deals in facts, not personal opinions.

Here is the original version I read when I discovered AS. The problem with the new version is that it IS biased. It ignores the shift in the medical community away from the veiw that it's a disease which must be treated.

Not to mention the old article had more meat to it. It better described the condition. The newer version isn't nearly as descriptive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=48861049

Ok, I see the difference.

I think from thier POV, they were unbiasing it.

How much of the medical community, in regards to those that deal with aspergers, has shifted?

Are their any surveys or the like that can be refereced by the wiki?

The cure war does exist in the gray area of ethics.
Is it ok for parents to take their children to church?
Is it ok for deaf parents to have doctors make thier kids deaf?
Is it ok for your parents to enable you to be as functional as possible?

If it wasn't for your parents, you wouldn't have language. And you would be oblivious to all of this.

I think it's important to learn as many skills as possible. That doesn't mean you have to use them.

I don't care for the new article. I like the old one, much better. I feel that the new article exploits us. And I did notice Public Transport being mentioned. I wonder if the Hackers have read all of my Recent Posts, before they did their little Type-Out.

There is an article on Wikipedia about Wrong Planet:

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

I removed it form special eduction category.

I think the Wikipedia article is comprehensive enough. I read all of it just last night to pass the time. Congrats to whoever fixed it.

this topic caught my interest as I got a philosophical idea related to wikipedia and the wish to keep an article.

New? So, that's how it's different from the old version.

So, I guess I'll have to prepare myself and take a really big deep breath.

I just read the 'new' version. I've read the old one, and I really didn't notice much difference. I'm seemed neutral to me.

What exactly are the problems with the new article?

one of my many occupations is fact-checker; in that world, wikipedia is considered the one sourceyou never use.