[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia and autism

Thu Oct 13 07:19:51 UTC 2005

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>  
>
>>I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out 
>>autistic 
>>contributors for special treatment - which
>>is, after all, what most of this discussion about autism entails.
>>
>>Psychologists - trained professionals - are ethically prohibited from 
>>making such diagnoses without meeting a
>>patient in person. So, rather, now our admins are supposed to do what 
>>even trained professionals will not.
>>
>>Furthermore, it's inherently bad policy to treat one particular group 
>>different than others (different, for better or for
>>worse). Not only is it insulting and likely to cause far more 
>>problems 
>>than it would actually, but it is guaranteed to
>>be riddled with errors (statistical type I and type II).
>>    
>>
>I agree with all the above and suggest that
>people have been using the words "autistic" and
>"autism" loosely. 
>
Respecting the privacy of Wikipedians has been an important principle 
from the beginning.  Any Wikipedian should have the right to park his 
private life at the door when he logs on.  That includes the autistic 
and those with other psychological problems.  We also extend that to 
anyone whether famous or infamous.  We even allow Moonies. :-)    The 
only valid basis we have for judging anyone is their behaviour in the Wikis.

>(To pick a popular example
>from politics, a certain school of thought has
>taken to labeling George W. Bush "an idiot" -
>although they do not _literally_ mean that his
>I.Q. is below that of a moron or imbecile: they
>merely oppose his policies. They probably mean
>that they regard his _policies_ as "stupid". You
>might be able to graduate from university with a
>90 or 100 I.Q., but an [[idiot]] literally would
>be unable to find his way home from class.)
>
>What's tolerable in the political field is not
>good to bring to discussions of Wikipedia
>contributors. Bush is fair game: we can all say
>what we want about him. Our fellow contributors
>should not be targets. We should not apply
>hurtful labels to them (see [[Wikipedia:Avoid
>personal remarks]] and maybe even [[Wikipedia:No
>personal attacks]]).
>
If Bush chose to become one of our editors it would be his right, and he 
too would have the right to remain anonymous.  I'm afraid though that if 
he tried to sign on as [[User:George W. Bush]] he would have a difficult 
time proving that he was not a troll using that name for mischief.

>It's easy and common to "diagnose" a schoolchild
>or other person with ADD or autism, simply
>because they don't "listen" or "behave". Label
>them, pigeon-hole them, forget about really
>helping them.
>
These kind of diagnoses are well beyond the capacity of any contributor 
acting on line.

>We should simply make it possible for those with
>poorly developed social skills to contribute to
>Wikipedia, but not by relaxing our standards of
>civility. If someone _declares_ that they are
>somewhat autistic (or senile, or have
>Asperger's) that's fine. Cut them a little more
>slack, along the lines of "Be nice to the
>newbies."
>
It would be preferable that they not make such declarations, but if they 
do it should not be held against them.

Ec