Wikipedia AS Article needs Balance Urgently

Post Reply New Topic

The Wikipedia article on Asperger syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome) is pretty influential in terms of global opinion making.

Trouble is that it is developing a very negative bias.

There must be enough people here who have the knowledge and expertise to build a consensus to address that?

I think it is very important because it must be the single most frequently accessed description of AS in the world, and I know Alex Plank was one of the original editors of the article. I would LOVE to see it neutral and objective again.

M

What's wrong with it?

It just seems to be have developed a severe "spin" towards the "disease and defect" model of AS. Earlier revisions were far more balanced and written in a much better style:

2004 Featured article
2005 Featured article
2006 Featured article
17th August 2007
Current

It seems to have been largely taken over by a single NT editor.

M

Look at the sources...determine if what is stated is majority or minority opinion and that the weighting is appropriate. Articles do change and usually for the better. Wikipedia certainly isn't static or citable source. What it does do is give you perspective, sometimes slanted, sometimes false.

Fix the article yourself. Wikipedia doesn't run on a majority anyways.

Unfortunately though Wikipedia sometimes CAN be as simple as fixing the article yourself, and if you know what you are doing, it will be upheld, it is not so in this case.

The article has been taken over by a single NT editor who seems to edit full time and doesn't seem to be able to tolerate anyone else editing except on her own terms and in deference to her. If you try she just ties you up on the talk page in minor technicalities until she pushes you to the edge of meltdown, and you have to withdraw to keep your head together. As a result the page is being run by her rules, not Wikipedia's, with no effective participation from the AS community at all at this stage. The neutrality and integrity of the AS article has fallen victim to whatever issues drive that behavior.

M

As a wikipedia editor I offer to edit the Asperger Syndrome article on your behalf ....

Can anyone suggest any thing that should be changed, and I will edit the article for you. I am a believer that AS is not a disease, but a high functioning genetic variation, and as such there could be a better word for "treatment".

Also what is the user name of this "full time" editor who writes in the style of the clinical model as opposed to the cultural model?

Thanks,

The best thing to do is read the article and read the talk page (and recent archives, it grows and gets archived at an alarming rate) and see what YOU think is best. You probably know more than I do anyway...

The dynamics are really obvious, and the article is sinking deeper into a sole focus on the most negative aspects of pathology with every edit. I think it is close to the stage where it will need re-writing again just to balance it.

M

I perused the articles; I still see no problem with the current one compared to the previous ones if objectivity and bias is your point of contention. I'm far from an expert on Asperger's disorder -- a lot of it meshed with what I've read however.

At the end of the fourth paragraph:

That's quite favorable for example.

Do you really believe a single crumb from the table like that is all we should need, or expect, for balance?

M

It seems the most significant name off the discussion tab is someone called SandyGeorge.

In a way, said quote is erroneous as it's silly for sufferers to have a say in how the disorder is defined (objectively); the professionals do such, the mentioned researchers (so it probably does need to be refined).

The section titled "Shift in view" is quite a lot of information that's favorable to people with Asperger's who feel they're "different" (and the following section), rather than "disordered".

What would you like to see added?

I see nothing wrong with it. Actually, it looks pretty objective to me.

So far I am happy with Wikipedia article, but with the main revision being:--

The definition sentence at the start of the article could be clearer, and with a neutral stance (ie no clinical bias towards disease model).

It should be made clearer that most people with AS are high functioning with regards to independent living, despite difficulties with social interactions. Also that they have an understanding of themselves as not being diseased nor disabled, but having a different mode of perceiving and interacting with the world and with human society. In other words, people with AS would find a cultural model a more acceptable point of view of of their syndrome, than that of a disability or disease model.

I think you have nailed it EXACTLY Kreb, and the problem is that no-one is being allowed to introduce any of the cultural model to balance the "disease" model at all. Any attempt is just dismissed, out of hand.

To me that is neither neutral, accurate nor representative.

The article seems to cover the lower end of the spectrum objectively, then stop and say "And that was the whole story", when it is nothing of the kind.

That is REALLY important, because that Wikipedia article is the first many people know about AS, when they are seeking information while considering, for example, employing an Aspie, or even dating them, if they have never heard of AS before.

M

I have always found the Wikipedia article of very high quality and it is the first source I point people to, when I need them to know a bit more about it.

Please post specific sentences or phrases that you have a problem with. We're a detail people... vague "it's more negative" statements do not help at all.

And, please remember everything about Asperger's is not good, like everything in life (including chocolate).

I used to point people to it myself.

The trouble is that the negative "spin" is being put on it by stitching up components that are objective in themselves into a negative whole. That omits all mention of positive aspects and determinedly resists any attempt to insert them. Think of what you percieve to be the positive aspects of AS and see if you can find them in the article.

The word "honest" does not appear once, for example, nor does "punctual", "reliable" (and it is BAD when we don't even get conceded those). "Hyperlexia" is presented soley as an "other problem, to be consider in differential diagnosis", with no positive aspects, in the same list as multiple sclerosis and conduct disorder

I know AS isn't all good, but it isn't all BAD either...

M