On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:10:13 +0100, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
If autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) is hard to diagnose, then having a list of people with it would be attempting to do so on the basis of inadequate information. This is original research (which is banned on WP) and has potential problems of factual accuracy.
If some people have diagnosed themselves as having or possibly having ASD, then there's no reason why WP shouldn't say so.
Regarding dead people where some people have postumously diagnosed them as having a condition, I think we need to tread more carefully. It's not uncommon for activist groups to "claim" a famous dead person as having a specific condition, for example some have said Einstein was dyslexic. It would be NPOV for WP to report that such-and-such an organisation has suggested that some person may have had a condition, but in the case of people long dead then any diagnosis cannot be certain.
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.)
It would be reasonable for WP to say something like "Wired suggested in 1999 than Bill Gates may have ASD (give URL)" (note that's just by way of example; I'm not saying that Wired has said any such thing).