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@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@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