The new Asperger's syndrome article at Wikipedia

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age:53
Posts: 2,553
Location: Sweden

13 Jul 2006, 3:41 pm

Is a total catastrophy. One Sandy, with able help from Ryan Norton, have destroyed the once neutral article and once more made it into a medical article full of "peer-reviewed" crap. I encourage active wikipedians to help stop this vandalism, especially since Wikipedia's content is spread widely to informational sites about AS.

Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

and remove the biased stuff!



eet_1024
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Age:45
Posts: 149

13 Jul 2006, 5:09 pm

What unbiased and non "peer-reviewed" content is (now) missing?

How far back in the edit history can one find the non corrupted version?



lae
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 786

13 Jul 2006, 6:30 pm

I'm disappointed. I really liked it as it was. I had been recommending it.



Raph522
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2006
Posts: 15,940

13 Jul 2006, 6:51 pm

eet_1024 wrote:
How far back in the edit history can one find the non corrupted version?


I would like to know this too



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age:35
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Jul 2006, 9:51 pm

If it's not peer reviewed, what good is it to an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia deals in facts, not personal opinions.



phoenixjsu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age:39
Posts: 3,592
Location: The South

13 Jul 2006, 10:30 pm

Here is the original version I read when I discovered AS. The problem with the new version is that it IS biased. It ignores the shift in the medical community away from the veiw that it's a disease which must be treated.

Not to mention the old article had more meat to it. It better described the condition. The newer version isn't nearly as descriptive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=48861049



eet_1024
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Age:45
Posts: 149

13 Jul 2006, 11:37 pm

Ok, I see the difference.

I think from thier POV, they were unbiasing it.

How much of the medical community, in regards to those that deal with aspergers, has shifted?

Are their any surveys or the like that can be refereced by the wiki?

The cure war does exist in the gray area of ethics.
Is it ok for parents to take their children to church?
Is it ok for deaf parents to have doctors make thier kids deaf?
Is it ok for your parents to enable you to be as functional as possible?

If it wasn't for your parents, you wouldn't have language. And you would be oblivious to all of this.

I think it's important to learn as many skills as possible. That doesn't mean you have to use them.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age:40
Posts: 92,169
Location: In a quiet and peaceful garden, where gentle Mick Avory-like Sweet Peas grow.

14 Jul 2006, 8:56 am

I don't care for the new article. I like the old one, much better. I feel that the new article exploits us. And I did notice Public Transport being mentioned. I wonder if the Hackers have read all of my Recent Posts, before they did their little Type-Out. :lol:



Corcovado
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2006
Posts: 563
Location: Right in front of my pc

14 Jul 2006, 11:36 am

CockneyRebel wrote:
I don't care for the new article. I like the old one, much better. I feel that the new article exploits us.


I agree.



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age:29
Posts: 9,080
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

14 Jul 2006, 4:25 pm

There is an article on Wikipedia about Wrong Planet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_Planet


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

FB fan page: http://fb.me/alexplank0
Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


scott
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 30

17 Jul 2006, 11:09 am

I removed it form special eduction category.



Steve_Cory
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 556

17 Jul 2006, 11:09 am

I think the Wikipedia article is comprehensive enough. I read all of it just last night to pass the time. Congrats to whoever fixed it.



one1ai
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Age:33
Posts: 352
Location: / home / Earth / Sweden /

01 Sep 2006, 6:53 am

this topic caught my interest as I got a philosophical idea related to wikipedia and the wish to keep an article.



lawpoop
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 25

01 Sep 2006, 12:20 pm

I just read the 'new' version. I've read the old one, and I really didn't notice much difference. I'm seemed neutral to me.

What exactly are the problems with the new article?