Wikipedia - removing AS from disease database

Post Reply New Topic

I'd need some help in keeping the disease database out of the Wikipedia AS-entry.

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

Do it like this:
1. Edit this page
2. Remove "DiseasesDB = 31268 |"
3. In edit sumary indicate that this is inapropriate
4. Save page.

I just tried it did it work?

Thanks.

Yes, it worked, but people will probably insert it again. We'll need to watch this and keep removing it.

did it myself, I know I'm eventually getting banned from wikipedia because I disagree with a lot of what they do

That's a really dumb idea. If you read the rules about Wikipedia, your point of view isn't allowed to come into the edits you make. Wikipedia is entirely fact, not opinion. You feeling that AS isn't a disease isn't a fact, it's your opinion.

The fact is that it's classified as a disease and thus belongs in the category of diseases.

People with red hair and freckels get their a$$ beat at school so
I say based on your logic that red hair and freckels is a disease to

Oh I love this! This is way way better than anything on television! (Just the simple plain nature of the beast). It's the logical straight to the point comments going back and forth that puts me in a great mood, and the humor! I'm serious when I say, you all make me proud to be part of the Asperger Family!

Later.

homosexuality was classified as a disease too....

wikipedia harbours opinion, it just harbours opinions of people with budgets, or websites, and ability to be cited as innacurate sources

edit: forgot an or

Last edited by Quest_techie on 24 Jan 2007, 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Doesn't mean the opinion isn't entirely based on nothing, Mnemosyne. I think what you mean is that you can't just go around changing anything. I mean, that website would have all it's religious databases utterly changed if OWA came along with his Garlic idea (no offense to any Garlic followers).

TM1, I noticed that too (the disease listing), but the fact is that it goes by MEDICAL listings, that is, if it is officially listed as a medical disease, then wikipedia has to oblige. Think of it this way, ***STAR WARS SPOILERS***





Imagine that wikipedia was around when the first Star Wars was released in 1977. Now, you are a scriptwriter, and Luke Skywalker's father is officially listed as unknown, and you know it's Darth Vader. Do you go and change it? Not unless it was a prank, otherwise it'd have hilarious results!! !




***END STAR WARS SPOILERS (you never know )***

Okay, so that was a crap example, but you get what I mean, right?

If it's "officially classed as" a disease right now, it's "officially classed as" a disease. That's no reflection on anyone WITH AS, it's just a statement of fact. The medical profession has classed AS as a disease. In that sense Wikipedia is accurate.

The guy that gave homosexuality gave the perfect example of past
things labeled as a disease. The sure numbers of homosexuals in
the world (perhaps 10 times as many as aspies) insure that the
establishment does not label them diseased anymore.

I think RDOS is merely saying we should stand up and say we are not diseased. I'm not in the political correct camp of aspies so
in truth the issue really does not matter to me. I'm just more an
a$$ than aspies so I naturally want to be an anarchist and make
the medical establishment pi$$ed.

I suggest people go to the article's discussion page, and add their views to the ongoing discussion about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asper ... 22_reverts

No, it is not correct. It is classified as an disorder, not a disease.

[quote="Quest_techie]wikipedia harbours opinion, it just harbours opinions of people with budgets, or websites, and ability to be cited as innacurate sources[/quote]

Unfortunately true. Wikipedia is not the open-minded, neutral place they want to pose as. The "majority rules" mentality of Wikipedia unfortunately puts Aspies at an disadvantage, and NTs can push neuropsychiatric conditions as diseases because of their greater numbers. They also put higher obligations of verifiability on views of AS because it supposedly is a "disease". I mean, nobody needs to cite peer-reviewed disease-research when dealing with homosexuality anymore.

I wonder if the disease-database also includes homosexuality?

Then I think we just need to see what a "disease" is for Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
"A disease or medical condition is an abnormality of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, distress, or death to the person afflicted or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories. In the narrow sense, a disease is the invasion of the body by pathogens."

I think they are consistent. By the way, even obesity is a disorder now.

so the wikipedia definition of disease is wrong, which points to a pervasive failing of wikipedia

which points to a pervasive failing of the system

ruh roh

so, now, if we can admit that wikipedia is broken and move on in a happy healthy manner with our campaign to make wikipedia a more reasonable facsimile of the truth