Am I the only person concerned about the Wikipedia entry for "Asperger syndrome"?
Do other successful aspie parents object to being depicted by the loons at ASpar and FAAS as being unable to parent children without irreperably damaging them psychologically, and in urgent need of the services of a shrink?
Am I the only aspie who is fed up to the eye teeth with adult children of aspies who are most likely somewhat AS themselves, whinging and complaining that it was bad parenting from an aspie parent that is the cause of their own marriage failure, social ineptitude or depression? The crowd who are currently dominating the Wikipedia entry are doing this, and I've seen a most spectacularly bad case of this "my weirdo mummy made me a misfit" syndrome in real life. I think it's time to GROW UP!
Am I the only person who objects the absence of a positive view or an autistic view of AS in some sections of the Wikipedia?
Another point - I have no idea where I'm supposed to post posts about the depiction of AS in the media. It used to the the biggest and the most interesting section of the forum. What the f@#$?
it does lack in some positive views of aspergers but it doesnt have a negative view on it also it shows a more negative view on CAN
dont listen to wikipedia, wikipedias a load of s...!
dont listen to wikipedia, wikipedias a load of s...!
Incorrect.
Wikipedia is a very useful source of information, however; like all information, you must check the sources.
or hell, revert it yourself.
I tried reading through the Wikipedia.
it's um...not possible.
I don't think I would like the wiki then as I have no patience with bullshite. It was my impression it was only supposed to consist of scientifically verifiable facts or if an article was a contributor's own opinion, there would be a clear disclaimer to that effect.
No, it's full of crap, crap, and crappier crap. The best way to ensure that crap gets to be retained is for it to be leftist and/or come from a sycophant of one of the moderators. For a great example of the "value" of wikipedia, look up "wikigroan" on google.
I'll repeat myself, then.
any, any source that reports or presents information is going to be biased.
by that same dint, you can say the mods here are biased; people like me and Ross are free to attack people, and have we ever been cautioned? no. but we are usually justified...from our point of view, and that of most of the forum. does it make us right? debatable. Lt Cally for example needed getting rid of, so I did that.
and I'll repeat myself. ANY information that is presented, check the damn sources, or shut the *** up.
Also, not to mention the page was protected "due to vandalism". I think the Wikipedia should be sued, personally, because vandalism on Wikipedia is one of the many forms of discrimination. Check the "History" part of Wiki's AS for how to see how we are really treated by some Wikipedians. So we are "nerds with no love-life"? What the heck?
Um, are you people reading the same article as I am? I don't see any serious problems with this.
Um, are you people reading the same article as I am? I don't see any serious problems with this.
that's because there isn't.
Yeah, well, everything on Wikipedia is garbage. Unfortunately, the majority of the population don't think so. I hate the depiction of Aspies as weirdos whose socializing and behavior are "restricted." And being interested in certain things are productive to the human race! To know about my special interests, read my profile and PM me if any of mine match yours and we can chat.
oh, for the love of- not everything on wikipedia is garbage; it's my first port of call, a home away from home when I don't understand something.
if you have gotten bad information, it's solved by one simple *** action; Check the Damn sources. you should be doing that anyway, no matter were you get your information from.
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think I need it, Revan. I just don't bother with Wikipedia. I use
Goodsearch instead. I get more reliable information plus I can donate to charity as I get my info. I just ask readers to please not donate to any curebie organizations for my sake.
but do you check the sources that you get that information from?
no?
then how do you know that it is not as inaccurate the wiki can occasionally be.
Wikipedia is a lot more accurate than people give it credit for; yes, they make mistakes, but so do the traditional pedias too.
To make relatively long-lasting changes on Wikipedia,
1) add {{NPOV}} to a section that you think is biased, and then get several of you friends to write on the talk page that yes, they argree that the section is biased. Then make the fixes, and be sure to cite published material (books are good citations; blogs and unpublished internet resources are not).
2) if you see a statement that you don't like, and it has no citation or an unreliable source, add {{fact}}, and then delete it a couple of days later, if someone else hasn't already deleted it.
For more info on what Wikipedia considers to be a "reliable source," see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources