Nicholas Knight wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
(i) listings could quite possibly be defamatory (certainly hurtful), and
are
Yeeeahhh... Being on the low end of the autism spectrum myself, and having suffered some rather nasty consequences as a result, I have to say I'd find being on a list of people on the autism spectrum to be about as hurtful as being on a list of people that don't think much of "fine art".
What I DO find hurtful is any implication that I SHOULD feel hurt by it.
That's not the point. And implications that anyone who tries to discuss this objectively is somehow unsympathetic are very unhelpful.
The point is: if someone is singled out and added to such a list just on the basis of some signs that are vaguely connected (e.g. mildly asocial compared to the norm, physically uncoordinated, hates telephones), this could be defamatory and have a direct effect on their work or social position. No one should have to defend themselves against this sort of check-box approach. The whole discussion revolves about the inappropriate use of 'criteria' that have been given some publicity.
Judith Gould writes
"Autistic disorders cannot as yet be diagnosed by using any medical or psychological tests or on the presence of any particular feature of behaviour. The diagnosis depends upon the developmental history and a pattern of behaviour that unfolds over time.
A number of checklists are available for the diagnosis of autism in childhood, for example the Autism Behaviour Checklist (ABC). These require yes/no answers to a list of questions, for example, (Krug et al, 1980). This format cannot be used to obtain a picture of development and behaviour over the years since infancy. The meanings of the questions can be misunderstood by inexperienced raters. The ranges of questions asked are too narrow to cover the whole spectrum. ... "
In other words this whole business of 'outing' Robert Crumb, or David Byrne or whoever, is without a serious basis.
made without any support;
Certainly any such list needs to have evidence to back it up, but I fail to see how that's any different than anything else in an encyclopedia in general and Wikipedia in particular.
If there's a problem with a specific article, take it up on the article's talk page; I don't see why this should be discussed on the mailing list (where, incidentally, not everyone is going to see it or be able to join in the discussion).
I have intervened on the talk page. There are comments there about having the page run on a more principled basis. That seems not in practice to be happening: anyone who wants to know why Gary Numan is cited will refer to neurodiversity.org, which refers back to the WP Gary Numan page, which refers to a woman's magazine article about how his wife decided he had Asperger's, and so on.
I raised it here because it is a problem with large-scale POV, going to WP's reputation, and because of the very issue about defamation. Bill Gates probably is too busy to be concerned; but why list him without something more definite? (I haven't gone into this one.)
Charles