I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatement - which is, after all, what most of this discussion about autism entails.
Psychologists - trained professionals - are ethically prohibited from making such diagnoses without meeting a patient in person. So, rather, now our admins are supposed to do what even trained professionals will not.
Furthermore, it's inherently bad policy to treat one particular group different than others (different, for better or for worse). Not only is it insulting and likely to cause far more problems than it would actually, but it is guarenteed to be riddled with errors (statistical type I and type II).
This idea needs to go into the "circular file" post haste.
-Mark
On 10/12/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatement - which is, after all, what most of this discussion about autism entails.
Not really. Just not gangbanging new editors in the manner that Maoririder and Wiki brah have been.
They're obviously different in some way, we could say they're "Martian" or "Weird" if that makes you feel better.
They've both produced good work from day one, but they were both pillored and blocked for utterly petty reasons very early on in their editing.
Is this the kind of community Wikipedia should be? I thought we were better than that, or had aspirations to be. Why are we alienating good editors?
It is easy to go beyond protecting Wikipedia into a punishment mode, ignoring obvious difficulties a user may be having. Specific accurate diagnoses are inappropriate, but sympathetic treatment is appropriate.
Fred
On Oct 12, 2005, at 4:16 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/12/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatement - which is, after all, what most of this discussion about autism entails.
Not really. Just not gangbanging new editors in the manner that Maoririder and Wiki brah have been.
They're obviously different in some way, we could say they're "Martian" or "Weird" if that makes you feel better.
They've both produced good work from day one, but they were both pillored and blocked for utterly petty reasons very early on in their editing.
Is this the kind of community Wikipedia should be? I thought we were better than that, or had aspirations to be. Why are we alienating good editors? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatement - which is, after all, what most of this discussion about autism entails.
<snip>
Agreed; see [[m:GAY]].
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
we should be nicer in general, who cares what postulated disability other editors might have.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/12/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
we should be nicer in general, who cares what postulated disability other editors might have.
I very infrequently "me too", but this is well worth repeating.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/12/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
we should be nicer in general, who cares what postulated disability other editors might have.
I very infrequently "me too", but this is well worth repeating.
The sad thing about this affair is that everybody involved, right down to those instituting blocks "to enforce guidelines", seems to have taken these extreme and sometimes nonsensically harsh measures out of the purest of motives. They clearly felt that it was necessary to protect the wiki from "disruption" by people who produced lots of short stubs, or wrote not very good articles about anal sex in Brazil. There's something almost Milgramesque about the whole affair. Would they have behaved in such a needlessly brutal manner towards a random weirdly acting stranger in another context?
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Would they have behaved in such a needlessly brutal manner towards a random weirdly acting stranger in another context? _______________________________________________
If a random, weirdly acting stranger turned up and started going on about anal sex IRL I would call security. If a random weirdly acting stranger turned up and I was able to asertian they were not a drunk student I would call security.
-- geni