Autism spectrum wrongly described in wikipedia

Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

onks
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Finland

20 Nov 2012, 3:19 am

only talking about disorders in the beginning.

This is so wrong!

It is just totally against the idea of the word spectrum.
If you're on spectrum then you dont necessary have a disorder or how it is supposed to be understood?

I mean the spectrum is not sharply edged at the bottom



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 4:01 am

It's not unusual for Wikipedia to be wrong.

I used to be the head of R&D for a company that is a major part of one entry since we basically pioneered the US portion of the industry. There is lots of misinformation about the company. I've given up trying to correct it because they want "verified sources" whereas what I can tell from personal experience as one of the top people in the company (and the very first employee) is not verifiable from news stories.

And sometimes people make a statement and provide a source to verify that statement, but if you actually go look at the source, it doesn't verify the statement at all. I corrected one such statement several times but someone would always change it back.

Consequently, I generally refuse to use Wikipedia as anything more than speculation.



Kairi96
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 426

20 Nov 2012, 8:27 am

Quote:
If you're on spectrum then you dont necessary have a disorder or how it is supposed to be understood?


Well, though it has many forms and differences, autism IS a disorder, even in its mildest forms. Even AS, that is the mildest form on the spectrum causes in the 90% of the people who have it problems functioning in every day life; the other 10% have very mild forms of AS.


However, about all the other things that you find on wikipedia about autism/AS, I think that they're all stupid stereotypes.


_________________
Please write in a simple English; I'm Italian, so I might misunderstand the sense of your sentence.
You can talk me in Spanish and Italian, too.


onks
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Finland

20 Nov 2012, 9:09 am

Kairi96 wrote:
Quote:
If you're on spectrum then you dont necessary have a disorder or how it is supposed to be understood?


Well, though it has many forms and differences, autism IS a disorder, even in its mildest forms. Even AS, that is the mildest form on the spectrum causes in the 90% of the people who have it problems functioning in every day life; the other 10% have very mild forms of AS.


However, about all the other things that you find on wikipedia about autism/AS, I think that they're all stupid stereotypes.


Well that depends on the definition of the term disorder. Clinical significance or how was it. And there read (now what was it):
Was it significant problems?
Well, depending on what you see as significant.

I really think you can be on autism spectrum (AS) without getting the diagnosis ASD autism spectrum disorder.
Even if it is not significant.

I mean there are lots of people that are very stress sensitive and otherwise weird for example. But otherwise no problems. They are maybe on spectrum but will never qualify for ASD. (Depending on what youd consider significant)



kotshka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 653
Location: Prague

20 Nov 2012, 10:56 am

Image

Anyway there seems to be a complete lack of agreement in the world about whether autism is a disorder, a disability, or just a "difference." I have my own strong opinions on that matter, but when it comes down to it, I'm not going to persuade anyone that I'm right over the internet, and I'm not going to change the convoluted way Wikipedia works (any system that doesn't accept "original research" as a source and only acknowledges secondhand information is fundamentally flawed). Rather spend my energy educating people I know in reality (and I'm actually finding a lot of success). More useful and less like slamming my head against a brick wall (I do enough of that when I'm overloaded).



Scaurie
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 91

20 Nov 2012, 10:56 am

Wikipedia is open to the public to edit and newspapers/magazines/media is often used as a source, making it more likely to be wrong than right. If you want a true definition, you are going to have to go to something that doesn't allow itself to be changed by anybody who thinks they are smarter than all the people who have worked to define the Spectrum as it is so far.


_________________
Scaurie/Koshinuke454/Ksntrk/Maria
Blog, Occasionally NSFW: http://ksntrk.tumblr.com/
Officially diagnosed, On Medication with Therapy


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

20 Nov 2012, 11:04 am

You can tell the plain truth, without embellishing, and opinionated people will correct you, because they felt like it.



onks
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Finland

20 Nov 2012, 11:29 am

Scaurie wrote:
Wikipedia is open to the public to edit and newspapers/magazines/media is often used as a source, making it more likely to be wrong than right. If you want a true definition, you are going to have to go to something that doesn't allow itself to be changed by anybody who thinks they are smarter than all the people who have worked to define the Spectrum as it is so far.


The definitions should just make sense and help people on spectrum, not refraining them from help !



onks
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Finland

20 Nov 2012, 12:26 pm

Scaurie wrote:
making it more likely to be wrong than right.


Well I would say making it more likely to be wrong. But not that most of is wrong. It is quite a good starting point. And if youll have some citations there that you can follow,
that helps me quite often a lot, also some links to other articles.
So it does get you there where you want to go and you're lucky and of course follow the citations.

That btw you should do always. And not take results from scientific articles as granted. never a good idea.
The reviewing process is so prone to that errors are overseen, or that the wrong experts review them

I like wikipedia, but the articles on autism arent that good, I agree totally !



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

20 Nov 2012, 12:37 pm

Wikipedia? Really?

It changes daily. Why bother with it? Especially for topics like autism or AS, where there is so much controversy and Wikipedia policy allows anyone with an internet connection to edit articles.

There are unofficial "committees" of people who watch those articles and tend to ensure that whatever they say reflects their own views. Some of the people involved with watching them are almost Nazi-like in their devotion.

Don't ever take Wikipedia seriously for such controversial topics. It's a terrible source for them, and a waste of time getting emotionally involved. Ignore it.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

20 Nov 2012, 1:03 pm

Wikipedia is a great source of information. It is much more accurate than most websites, despite the ill informed opinion that it must be inaccurate because anyone can edit it.

The article on autism has nearly 200 citations, largely to academic journals, with 5 books and (as far as I can see) very few links to news organisations- the only one I saw was a link to an article about autistic people who don't want to be cured.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

20 Nov 2012, 1:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Wikipedia is a great source of information. It is much more accurate than most websites, despite the ill informed opinion that it must be inaccurate because anyone can edit it.

The article on autism has nearly 200 citations, largely to academic journals, with 5 books and (as far as I can see) very few links to news organisations- the only one I saw was a link to an article about autistic people who don't want to be cured.


You presume much. Ill informed? Um no. I spent quite a bit of time (about a year) as a regular editor on the Asperger article. Trust me, a lot goes on behind the scenes the average user isn't aware of unless you know where to look. Articles about extremely controversial subjects like autism change DAILY, and even HOURLY.

There are edit wars on those articles very regularly. They slant from one extreme to another regularly. Read them one day, then the next for a long time, and you will see all kinds of erroneous information inserted and removed with extreme regularity.

Each time you read one of the articles on autism, you're only getting a snapshot of what is there at that moment. That isn't accuracy. That's a free for all environment that is offers a confusing mish mosh of information that isn't reliable at all.

Are you aware that hardly any college professors will ever accept Wikipedia as a source for any college level assignments?

If it so accurate, why do you suppose that is?

I will give you this: I do find Wikipedia a good place to START research, because I can go from there, following the sources, to truly reliable information. But that's about all it's really good for. I would never trust information there as accurate without checking the sources.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


Kairi96
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 426

20 Nov 2012, 1:42 pm

onks wrote:
Kairi96 wrote:
Quote:
If you're on spectrum then you dont necessary have a disorder or how it is supposed to be understood?


Well, though it has many forms and differences, autism IS a disorder, even in its mildest forms. Even AS, that is the mildest form on the spectrum causes in the 90% of the people who have it problems functioning in every day life; the other 10% have very mild forms of AS.


However, about all the other things that you find on wikipedia about autism/AS, I think that they're all stupid stereotypes.


Well that depends on the definition of the term disorder. Clinical significance or how was it. And there read (now what was it):
Was it significant problems?
Well, depending on what you see as significant.

I really think you can be on autism spectrum (AS) without getting the diagnosis ASD autism spectrum disorder.
Even if it is not significant.

I mean there are lots of people that are very stress sensitive and otherwise weird for example. But otherwise no problems. They are maybe on spectrum but will never qualify for ASD. (Depending on what youd consider significant)


According to psychiatrists, that are the ones I trust more, you qualify for an ASD diagnosis only if the symptoms you show interfere with your every-day life. This is what is considered significant. If your symptoms don't interfere with your every-day life, psychiatrists will probably think that you aren't on the spectrum.


_________________
Please write in a simple English; I'm Italian, so I might misunderstand the sense of your sentence.
You can talk me in Spanish and Italian, too.


howzat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,802
Location: Hornsey North London

20 Nov 2012, 3:42 pm

I wouldn't trust wikipedia totally as it is prone to make some mistakes.



onks
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Finland

20 Nov 2012, 3:53 pm

Kairi96 wrote:
onks wrote:
Kairi96 wrote:
Quote:
If you're on spectrum then you dont necessary have a disorder or how it is supposed to be understood?


Well, though it has many forms and differences, autism IS a disorder, even in its mildest forms. Even AS, that is the mildest form on the spectrum causes in the 90% of the people who have it problems functioning in every day life; the other 10% have very mild forms of AS.


However, about all the other things that you find on wikipedia about autism/AS, I think that they're all stupid stereotypes.


Well that depends on the definition of the term disorder. Clinical significance or how was it. And there read (now what was it):
Was it significant problems?
Well, depending on what you see as significant.

I really think you can be on autism spectrum (AS) without getting the diagnosis ASD autism spectrum disorder.
Even if it is not significant.

I mean there are lots of people that are very stress sensitive and otherwise weird for example. But otherwise no problems. They are maybe on spectrum but will never qualify for ASD. (Depending on what youd consider significant)


According to psychiatrists, that are the ones I trust more, you qualify for an ASD diagnosis only if the symptoms you show interfere with your every-day life. This is what is considered significant. If your symptoms don't interfere with your every-day life, psychiatrists will probably think that you aren't on the spectrum.


That is at least a more useful definition.
But still there is some common things in all people that are on spectrum, i would say,
some genetics or some brain structure. This definition would be much more useful.
I expect that there are tons of people on the spectrum where it doesnt interfere with every-day life

BAP broad autism phenotype kind of things



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

20 Nov 2012, 5:48 pm

MrXxx wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Wikipedia is a great source of information. It is much more accurate than most websites, despite the ill informed opinion that it must be inaccurate because anyone can edit it.

The article on autism has nearly 200 citations, largely to academic journals, with 5 books and (as far as I can see) very few links to news organisations- the only one I saw was a link to an article about autistic people who don't want to be cured.


You presume much. Ill informed? Um no. I spent quite a bit of time (about a year) as a regular editor on the Asperger article. Trust me, a lot goes on behind the scenes the average user isn't aware of unless you know where to look. Articles about extremely controversial subjects like autism change DAILY, and even HOURLY.

There are edit wars on those articles very regularly. They slant from one extreme to another regularly. Read them one day, then the next for a long time, and you will see all kinds of erroneous information inserted and removed with extreme regularity.

Each time you read one of the articles on autism, you're only getting a snapshot of what is there at that moment. That isn't accuracy. That's a free for all environment that is offers a confusing mish mosh of information that isn't reliable at all.

Are you aware that hardly any college professors will ever accept Wikipedia as a source for any college level assignments?

If it so accurate, why do you suppose that is?

I will give you this: I do find Wikipedia a good place to START research, because I can go from there, following the sources, to truly reliable information. But that's about all it's really good for. I would never trust information there as accurate without checking the sources.

Nearly all you say here is true. I think you overstate the extent of edit wars on the autism and Asperger's pages. The Asperger's page has been edited only 50 times in 7 months. Autism has had that number of edits in 6 months.

The average Wikipedia article has been shown to be of similar accuracy to the equivalent article at Encyclopaedia Britannica. Errors are corrected quickly, often so quickly they practically never appear.

The reason it isn't accepted as a citation is because it can be wrong if you happen to click on an article that has been vandalised and not put right. If you encounter a fact you think is dubious, you should check the citation, but on a regularly visited article (like the autism article) then the citation for most facts will probably already have been checked several times.