Wikipedia AS Article needs Balance Urgently

Post Reply New Topic

I find it very troubling that this woman(SandyGeorgia) suggests antipsychotics are good treatment for AS - she even had a picture of a risperidone bottle earlier that someone removed. Something tells me she's sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps this is a new occupation, editing Wikipedia for companies?

I have added something about AS being high functioning into the lead paragraph.

Also made a comment in the talk section about the article appearing too clinical, currently the article is hard to read for the lay reader who want to learn more about AS. I suspect SandyGeorgia is an academic writer with time on her hand.

To be fair there is a wikipedia sub-article on Autistic Culture, mentioned in the wikipedia Asperger Syndrome article:--

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

And in the talk section, SandyGeorgia admits to removing the image of bottle of risperidone, from the article.

I edit for wikipedia too. Careful with the unsubstantiated accusations about SG and pharmaceutical companies. After all someone could make the accusation that scientologists on this thread are trying to create a enough spin to create outrage.

The crux of the matter is that you want good secondary sources for support. It doesn't matter what SandyGeorgia thinks or what anyone thinks on this board with regards to Wikipedia or AS. It's what good reliable sources like the NYT or NIMH state about the disorder. You need to be able to support information that you post. Then of high importance is how much weight to give to differing opinions on subtopics. Use the talk section of Wikipedia. I have delt with SandyGeorgia on another article. She does not appear to be biased by others. She is stringent but knows what she is talking about, especially with regards to Wikipedian policy. She is accessible. Do not assume bad faith on her part.

The last feature article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=66837523 had a section for "clinical perspective" and another for "non clinical perspective" this incarnation is confined to "clinical perspective" it also had links to:

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

Which have been deleted.

There is NO WAY any editor there represents the pharmacutical companies. I would stake my life on that. But there doesn't seem to be any real element of the consensus and co-operation Wikipedia is, justly, famed for.

M

Theres a site out there somewhere that catalogues & exposes corporate attempts to skew wikipedia in their interests.

I thought about posting a thread on it a few weeks back, but cant remember if i did or not.