http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_of_autism
This article has a strong bias toward the vaccine myth and towards claims in the news. The article also used to be called "Autism epidemic" and severely needs to be fixed up.
Also, my URL is blocked from editing due to supposedly sharing the same IP as 'Cute 1 4 u', who's apparently a Wikipedia vandal. Even using a proxy isn't letting me edit!
You could also possibly nominate it for Votes or Deletion if people edit it back. Just fix it up, sicne I'm blocked from there!
*currently in a "must destroy curebies!" mood*
I should be able to log on to their what would you like me to put?
I wouldn't be editing it at first glance. I'd be alerting an admin to the general lack of neutrality in the article (as in what Mich was saying about the message of the article). But there are citations missing which can be removed because they were tagged in July.
All this stuff about an autism epidemic is a big fat load of crap anyway. It only seems as if there are more autistic people because medical professionals are getting more aware of the condition and because the DSM criteria have been changed.
Funny thing that people say it can't be because the diagnosis rate is increasing so fast. I don't find logic in that saying.
I've just shifted a lot of material over to the ASD article (the reference to Dan Olmsted is gone thankfully - that man's a quack) and I've suggested the article be deleted.
I haven't had time to look at the Wiki but would hope there wasn't any information to suggest that adults and females don't have autism. I'd find the wiki frustrating to read if it contained a lot of mistruths so any attempts to get it fixed are welcomed.
Seems like alot of aspies are engaged in wikipedia.
The edit I made was reversed unfortunately, but I started a process of discussion to merge up a lot of material so that the pressure goes on to keep the whole thing neutral. I haven't been on this morning but I'll be going on when I've finished here.
I've just shifted a lot of material over to the ASD article (the reference to Dan Olmsted is gone thankfully - that man's a quack) and I've suggested the article be deleted.
who is dan olmsted is he another curebie?
The edit I made was reversed unfortunately, but I started a process of discussion to merge up a lot of material so that the pressure goes on to keep the whole thing neutral. I haven't been on this morning but I'll be going on when I've finished here.
I'd get really angry if I went to all the trouble of making an edit and then somebody reversed it but let's hope your current edit "sticks".