Mark wrote:
I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatment - 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 guaranteed to be riddled with errors (statistical type I and type II).
I agree with all the above and suggest that people have been using the words "autistic" and "autism" loosely. (To pick a popular example from politics, a certain school of thought has taken to labeling George W. Bush "an idiot" - although they do not _literally_ mean that his I.Q. is below that of a moron or imbecile: they merely oppose his policies. They probably mean that they regard his _policies_ as "stupid". You might be able to graduate from university with a 90 or 100 I.Q., but an [[idiot]] literally would be unable to find his way home from class.)
What's tolerable in the political field is not good to bring to discussions of Wikipedia contributors. Bush is fair game: we can all say what we want about him. Our fellow contributors should not be targets. We should not apply hurtful labels to them (see [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]] and maybe even [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]).
It's easy and common to "diagnose" a schoolchild or other person with ADD or autism, simply because they don't "listen" or "behave". Label them, pigeon-hole them, forget about really helping them.
We should simply make it possible for those with poorly developed social skills to contribute to Wikipedia, but not by relaxing our standards of civility. If someone _declares_ that they are somewhat autistic (or senile, or have Asperger's) that's fine. Cut them a little more slack, along the lines of "Be nice to the newbies.") Like we all probably have a friend who has a short temper, says things they regret, but always comes back and says sorry and does substantial things to set it right. (If they're not a bully, but a genuine friend - we all know the difference, I assume.)
If they can make it, all well and good. They don't need special treatment here. If they simply cannot conform to civility or 3RR or NPOV (like Gabriel Simon, whom I tried to help), then we may have to shut the door on them - the same as any other policy evader.
We can sympathize more, of course, but we need to maintain one standard for all.
Uncle Ed
On 10/12/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
We can sympathize more, of course, but we need to maintain one standard for all.
What worries me here is that we patently *don't*. Should we ever block an editor who's clearly demonstrating good faith, is not violating any policy of Wikipedia, but isn't complying absolutely 100% with all the guidelines? Of course not, you say, that's absurd, we'd never do such a thing.
But this is precisely what was done to Maoririder twice within one week of his arriving here.
Why does it happen? What unacknowledged bit of vindictiveness existing in the human spirit enabled this to be done by people who told themselves that they were doing so for the best of motives?
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 10/12/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
We can sympathize more, of course, but we need to maintain one standard for all.
What worries me here is that we patently *don't*. Should we ever block an editor who's clearly demonstrating good faith, is not violating any policy of Wikipedia, but isn't complying absolutely 100% with all the guidelines? Of course not, you say, that's absurd, we'd never do such a thing.
But this is precisely what was done to Maoririder twice within one week of his arriving here.
Why does it happen? What unacknowledged bit of vindictiveness existing in the human spirit enabled this to be done by people who told themselves that they were doing so for the best of motives?
It all depends on how disruptive their activities are. To begin with, "good faith" is necessary, but certainly not sufficient. To make the point in an extreme way, suicide bombers also carry out their acts in "good faith". Moreover, Wikipedia is a community, and behaviour that veers too far from accepted norms will have a strong negative impact on other community members. If the overall net impact of an editor's activities are significantly negative, then this must be ameliorated in some way. The kinds of behaviours that Maoririder was exhibiting may not seem serious to you; to others, they may seem far more detrimental than, for example, reverting articles (which is also not violating any Wikipedia policies), something you have repeatedly stated is absolutely unacceptable to you.
Jay.
On 10/12/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote: The
kinds of behaviours that Maoririder was exhibiting may not seem serious to you; to others, they may seem far more detrimental than, for example, reverting articles (which is also not violating any Wikipedia policies), something you have repeatedly stated is absolutely unacceptable to you.
Oh pish, rot and nonsense. Use of edit warring on the scale that I have condemned is grossly contrary to policy. The committee of which you are a drafted member, which is charged in part with interpreting policy, recently adopted the following principle by 5-0: "Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors." And so it is. I understand the sincerity of your dissent from this, but this isn't some bit of nonsense I made up out of thin air.
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 10/12/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote: The
kinds of behaviours that Maoririder was exhibiting may not seem serious
to
you; to others, they may seem far more detrimental than, for example, reverting articles (which is also not violating any Wikipedia policies), something you have repeatedly stated is absolutely unacceptable to you.
Oh pish, rot and nonsense. Use of edit warring on the scale that I have condemned is grossly contrary to policy.
Tony, I was talking about simply reverting an article, not edit warring on a grand scale. From what I can tell your position is that it is essentially *never* appropriate to revert, which is considerably more radical than any current Arbcom rulings. Have I misunderstood your position?
Jay.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Mark wrote:
I think it's a dangerous and foolhardy endeavor to single out autistic contributors for special treatment - 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 guaranteed to be riddled with errors (statistical type I and type II).
I agree with all the above and suggest that people have been using the words "autistic" and "autism" loosely.
Respecting the privacy of Wikipedians has been an important principle from the beginning. Any Wikipedian should have the right to park his private life at the door when he logs on. That includes the autistic and those with other psychological problems. We also extend that to anyone whether famous or infamous. We even allow Moonies. :-) The only valid basis we have for judging anyone is their behaviour in the Wikis.
(To pick a popular example from politics, a certain school of thought has taken to labeling George W. Bush "an idiot" - although they do not _literally_ mean that his I.Q. is below that of a moron or imbecile: they merely oppose his policies. They probably mean that they regard his _policies_ as "stupid". You might be able to graduate from university with a 90 or 100 I.Q., but an [[idiot]] literally would be unable to find his way home from class.)
What's tolerable in the political field is not good to bring to discussions of Wikipedia contributors. Bush is fair game: we can all say what we want about him. Our fellow contributors should not be targets. We should not apply hurtful labels to them (see [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]] and maybe even [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]).
If Bush chose to become one of our editors it would be his right, and he too would have the right to remain anonymous. I'm afraid though that if he tried to sign on as [[User:George W. Bush]] he would have a difficult time proving that he was not a troll using that name for mischief.
It's easy and common to "diagnose" a schoolchild or other person with ADD or autism, simply because they don't "listen" or "behave". Label them, pigeon-hole them, forget about really helping them.
These kind of diagnoses are well beyond the capacity of any contributor acting on line.
We should simply make it possible for those with poorly developed social skills to contribute to Wikipedia, but not by relaxing our standards of civility. If someone _declares_ that they are somewhat autistic (or senile, or have Asperger's) that's fine. Cut them a little more slack, along the lines of "Be nice to the newbies."
It would be preferable that they not make such declarations, but if they do it should not be held against them.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If Bush chose to become one of our editors it would be his right, and he too would have the right to remain anonymous. I'm afraid though that if he tried to sign on as [[User:George W. Bush]] he would have a difficult time proving that he was not a troll using that name for mischief.
He could put a little note at the bottom of his official website. ;-)
--Jimbo