Im sure there are ways, but keep in mind that some of
these issues are of course systemic rather than of the
individual. Using a conceptualized notion of a
"brittle user" at all carries some baggage of
beurocratic prejudice. Any institution which begins
down the slippery slope of referring to people in
generalities rather than dealing with individuals, has
become a beaurocracy.
"Higher levels of autism" reminds me of Bram Cohen's
recent ripping on Linus Torvalds' concepts rel. code
merge? Anyone can be less than civil in their
discourse when dealing with people whom they percieve
to be idiots.
SV
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
This is a question that has occurred to me in the
context of arbitration,
and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on
Wikipedia: brittle in
interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity,
so gets into
rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement"
mostly as excuses to
exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are
fluid in the pursuit
of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a
general type I've noticed. I
think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract
them. I would *guess*
it's something that attracts people from further up
the autistic spectrum
than the general populace, but that's just
speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working
contributors, but can get
difficult to work with. And putting them on a
processing line that leads to
arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is
there a better way?
I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs