I have been concerned for some time that [[List of persons with autism spectrum disorders]], unlike the responsible [[autism]] article on WP, is being used to push an 'activist' POV, such as can be found for example on the campaigning web site neurodiversity.org.
Each of the listngs there deserves separate research. I can't comment on them all. I happen to known Richard Borcherds, who is there; anyone who actually reads the Simon Baron-Cohen article on which the listing is presumably based will get the main point (which is that 'disorder' is a fairly notional concept in this case).
There is no simple 'diagnostic' for Asperger's, as is made clear by responsible professionals in the field. Some of the names there are self-diagnoses (for example Richard Stallman, as far as I can see). The whole aspie/geek connection seems to have been made fashionable by an article in 'Wired' magazine three years ago; anything that simply reflects that is unlikely to have encyclopedic value.
My principal concerns:
(i) listings could quite possibly be defamatory (certainly hurtful), and are made without any support;
(ii) Some of the listings based on media interviews with the Irish psychiatrist Michael Fitzgerald, who has a book "Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability?" to promote, seem to be complete dross (de Valera, W. B. Yeats because he obsessed over Maud Gonne ... puhlease).
Charles
I have added the references from the talk page, and copied this message onto the talk page of the author requesting comment.
TBSDY
Charles Matthews wrote:
I have been concerned for some time that [[List of persons with autism spectrum disorders]], unlike the responsible [[autism]] article on WP, is being used to push an 'activist' POV, such as can be found for example on the campaigning web site neurodiversity.org.
Each of the listngs there deserves separate research. I can't comment on them all. I happen to known Richard Borcherds, who is there; anyone who actually reads the Simon Baron-Cohen article on which the listing is presumably based will get the main point (which is that 'disorder' is a fairly notional concept in this case).
There is no simple 'diagnostic' for Asperger's, as is made clear by responsible professionals in the field. Some of the names there are self-diagnoses (for example Richard Stallman, as far as I can see). The whole aspie/geek connection seems to have been made fashionable by an article in 'Wired' magazine three years ago; anything that simply reflects that is unlikely to have encyclopedic value.
My principal concerns:
(i) listings could quite possibly be defamatory (certainly hurtful), and are made without any support;
(ii) Some of the listings based on media interviews with the Irish psychiatrist Michael Fitzgerald, who has a book "Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability?" to promote, seem to be complete dross (de Valera, W. B. Yeats because he obsessed over Maud Gonne ... puhlease).
Charles
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.
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).
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
Charles Matthews wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote
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.
<snip a lot of text about how Autism is difficult to diagnose accurately>
You're falling into the classic "sympathy" trap, but I'm going to drop it and just say that I still fail to see why this is *any* different from any other Wikipedia article, especially on a contentious subject.
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.
If you feel there is a problem with the listing, by all means change it. Apparently there's a consensus that the page should be fixed, so fix it. Being annoyed that no one else is fixing it really isn't going to get you anywhere.
Incidentally, the talk page has been idle for a few weeks now, and the person that added some questionable names recently doesn't appear to have even participated on the talk page, and for all we know may never have read it!
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
There doesn't seem to be any indication on the article's talk page of anyone opposing more careful practices in the listing, so I'm at a loss as to what the problem is. You want the article changed, no one seems to have any strong objections, so change it.
As it is, WikiEN-l is hard to keep up with, if every time there was a potential defamation issue it was brought to the list instead of dealt with in-wiki, it would be entirely impossible to follow (ever try reading linux-kernel? picture it multiplied by three or so).
probably is too busy to be concerned; but why list him without something more definite? (I haven't gone into this one.)
An excellent question highly appropriate for the article's talk page. If you can't get a satisfactory discussion of it, perhaps removing his name from the list will give rise to a detailed and thought-provoking discussion on that very topic! It's nothing that can't be undone later if it turns out to be the wrong move.
Nicholas Knight wrote
You're falling into the classic "sympathy" trap, but I'm going to drop it and just say that I still fail to see why this is *any* different from any other Wikipedia article, especially on a contentious subject.
It certainly shouldn't be. If we take 'diagnosis' to mean diagnosis by a clinical psychologist on the basis of an adequate history and personal contact, and if we assume these diagnoses are subject to the usual clinical confidentiality, and become public only if the subject self-identifies to a large extent, it becomes a short enough list.
I see that top of the list is a case where AS is being used as a legal defence. That would raise other questions.
Charles
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).