Let's re-write the Wikipedia article for AS

Post Reply New Topic

The website people are most likely to visit to learn about Asperger's is Wikipedia. The page ranks highest in search engines for the most obvious searches (e.g. Asperger's, and Asperger's Syndrome). It typically receives between 20-30k visits per month. Here it is: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

Personally I think this page needs some Aspie love -- in another words, a complete re-write by people who can present AS in a more balanced way, with a more positive vibe and more focus on the positive traits.

This page to some extent represents every single one of us with AS. This week I mentioned to a co-worker that I had AS and a couple of days later she explained to another co-worker that she looked it up on Wikipedia and it was 'a social disorder'. Well, that's part of it but I think we need to take this page back and make it our own, and use that page to explain our condition the way we see it. Who's in?

To start with, right now there are three introductory paragraphs, and I'd like to move paragraphs two (history of AS and controversies) and three (cause/etiology/prognosis) to separate sections and to rewrite the introduction to describe (a) key traits, (b) effect on the individual in society (e.g. employment prospects and preferences, social challenges and sensory sensitivities, existence of famous people with known or predicted AS). Let me know what you think....

If anybody is interested in collaborating on this or sharing their thoughts please post here!

Last edited by oceandrop on 02 Sep 2011, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I hate, hate, hate that article.

I like that article. It's accurate, having been largely based on known facts.

But if anyone can point out any inaccuracies, and can back up the claim with valid fact-based evidence (NOT assumptions, opinions, prejudices, or outright lies), then I will see about using my Wikipedia account to edit the changes.

Maybe a bunch of people could each write their own versions of the Wikipedia article about AS in general, not their personal AS. I would be curious to read all the different versions.

I'm curious at what the OP finds so objectionable that he / she feels compelled to insist on changes.

Here are some initial changes to consider:

Asperger's Syndrome

Introduction

Paragraph 1 - Delete/Move this sentence: 'Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.[3][4]' If it's not required for diagnosis then it isn't AS and shouldn't be given such a prominent place in the first paragraph.

Paragraph 2 - Delete/Move. History of AS can have a separate section. Controversy about its connection with HFA can go in a separate section. Severity scale proposal is out of date -- already decided and introduced with next DSM.

Paragraph 3 - This should say that the cause is unknown, largely genetic, and brain imaging techniques have shown differences between people with AS and NT people in regions such as amygdala. There is no treatment but early intervention has proven beneficial. People with AS can flourish in the right job (e.g. routine and pattern finding work, science, engineering, maths, computing, etc.)

Classification

Should be rewritten in light of the new DSM

Characteristics - social interaction

Paragraph 1 - "lack of demonstrated empathy" - very important to clarify that there are different types of empathy and that only one (cognitive empathy) is different in AS. Should also add a positive slant (i.e. people with AS often don't feel a strong need for social interaction and instead derive comfort and happiness from special interests which they are usually very good at.

Characteristics - Restricted and repetitive interests and behavior

This is often regarded as a positive aspect of AS but the article makes it sound too negative. Should edit this to highlight the positive aspects, the ability to learn very quickly due to 'hyperfocus', and the contributions of many people with AS to society.

Mechanism

Lots more can be said (e.g. brain imaging studies implicating amygdala). Intense-world theory can also be mentioned.


Two new sections could be added also: (1) positive traits (e.g. independence of thought without much outside influence, hyperfocus, deep knowledge, ability to learn quickly, ability to spot patterns, honesty, not inclined to gossip, less inclined to envy, etc.), and (2) famous people with AS (both known and predicted).

All the above is factual and references can be cited.

Also anybody can edit this article you don't even need an account.

Last edited by oceandrop on 02 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wouldn't recommend anything as broad as "re-writing". For one thing, the AS wikipedia article is quite well-researched and generally well-done. Dumping all that work would be downright silly. Editing it? Yes. Re-writing? Heck no.

However, it would definitely be a good idea to look at specific facts it lists--if they are outdated, or biased; if there's another side to the story. If you find those, then you find good sources that explain it better, summarize them in the article, and point a reference to them.

There are also specific pages about autism rights, etc., which could use input.

Here's what I'd recommend:

Don't delete the sentence about physical clumsiness. That's significant. Move it instead to some other section.

The new DSM is not yet official and not yet finalized, so right now the current DSM is the one we use for the article. Adding a section about merging Asperger's into ASDs in general, and the reasoning used by the committee, would be useful.

Adding stuff to the repetitive interests/behavior section: Look through the journals for this one. There are lots of journals that have to do with occupational and speech therapy as well as special ed. Using a kid's special interests to help them learn is a well-known tactic for special ed teachers. You might also add a reference to Temple Grandin and how she turned her special interest into a career. If you can find a journal article about how autistics tend to do this (work in the area of special interest), that would also be useful.

Re. Socialization: While being content with solitude is true about me, it's not true of many, especially younger Aspies and those with less obvious AS (and thus more internalization of NT norms). Many Aspies want social interaction but don't get it. That can be problematic. I think it would be a good idea to link to an article on empathy and explain that there's a lot of disagreement about which terms to use when talking about reading emotions, caring about others, theory of mind, and prosocial behavior. If you can find that one study that showed that autistic kids are as affected (or more so) by others' suffering, link to that.

Link to the list of famous autistics. There already is one.

Re. positive traits: I don't think this needs its own section; the specific aspects of each trait can be listed under the section discussing them.

Make sure to find references for everything--sturdy ones, too, not some random dude's graduate thesis.

There is also excessive use of negative words such as 'deficit', 'abnormality', 'dysfunction', 'impairment', etc. Making value-laden judgments like this assumes that there is such a thing as normal and that deviation from this is bad. Defining normal in this way (i.e. according to the majority) is ultimately a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) and doesn't hold up in light of the many contributions made to society by people with AS (e.g. from Bill Gates to Isaac Newton to Mozart -- all suspected AS).

I'm not saying we should go to the other extreme and call them NT syndrome, but the article should be balanced. These value-laden judgmental words (such as 'deficits') should be replaced with value-neutral words (such as 'differences') where possible.

Then why don't YOU do it?

In addition to what Callista said, you will need to provide citations - that is, you must refer every change to an already-published peer-reviewed article in an established scientific journal, and not some ersatz observations from an obscure source (or your own opinions).

I honestly don't see a problem with that language. If you are going to talk about something like Asperger's, you've got to explain what is mere difference and what will cause the person with the AS to run into trouble in NT society. Using words like "deficit" or "impairment" makes sense in that context. Now, if you see them used for aspects of AS which truly are just differences, then by all means, change them; but remember that AS is a disability. That doesn't mean that AS is bad or that disability is shameful; but those are matters for the articles on disability rights.

A few months ago, the sentence with "lack of demonstrated empathy" actually read "lack of empathy" instead. On NT forums, whenever the topic of AS is brought up, I have noticed that AS is understood by NTs to include a lack of empathy or even a lack of emotions. For example, posters might say that a fictional character cannot have AS because he or she has empathy and emotions.

Post #333!

As you know, the power of Wiki is in collaboration. I would like to contribute as part of a team with other AS people who share the same concerns, and it does seem other people with AS are not exactly thrilled with this article which enjoys probably a 1 million fold higher readership than any Tony Attwood book ever will.

Hopefully others see this as problematic? The scientific literature is very specific that the difference in AS is with 'cognitive empathy' and not 'affective empathy' or 'sympathy'. This distinction needs to be explained in the article so people don't get the wrong idea.

And just for info., a lack of affective empathy (completely intact in AS) is actually central to psychopathy -- who wants people to see us like that?

Last edited by oceandrop on 02 Sep 2011, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As you know, not everyone agrees with your opinions, including me.

Good luck with your effort. I'll be following your progress, if there is any.

I thought about editing it, but I didn't see anything that needed to be changed. It seems fine to me.

Edit: probably too harsh. Peace.