Wikipedia censorship reaches a new low

Post Reply New Topic

We all knew that wikipedia articles are subject to the arbitrary bias of the entreched cabal of editors. Past attempts to introduce legit, well-sourced info about asperger's and neurodiversity has been systematically scrubbed off articles there.

Now, they're scrubbing the Talk pages where people just talk about the article!

On the neurodiversity article, someone mentioned that neurodiversity is a "fringe group with a media presence at best."

Another editor replied that the neurodiversity tribe is HUGE, pointing to wrongplanet.

Embarassed, wikipedians deleted the whole discussion. See links below (scroll to the bottom).

Before (from archives) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =265753358

After (current version):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neurodiversity

I've never found wikipedia a reliable source of information. Anyone on the internet can edit it

Wikipedia is worthless. I like what they tried to do but it just isn't reliable.
It's a shame that they are having such a negative influence, but no one who does anything serious about autism will get their info on Wikipedia.

*sigh* editing at it's best.

I think that wikipedia is a nice idea and it would work well in the ideal world, but many nice ideas will fail in the real world becuase of the way that real life people are.

Because wikipeida has no quaility control other than voting by the editors, then it can contain all manner of popular nonsense as well as useful content. I think that people who use wikipedia should read the disclaimer which wikipedia comes with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... disclaimer

Which reads (in part)

"Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

(edited once to remove a spelling error)

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

Well, yes. Talk pages aren't message boards. They're for improving the article.

If anything it was just some vandal and not an admin. You can revert the removal of that information if you feel like it.

Wikipedia actually has guideline about them not being censored. The whole Virgin Killer controversy was from another party (an ISP I believe) blocking an the cover of an album from the mid-70's by the German rock band the Scorpions which was rather inappropriate, and didn't even make it to US shores in the first place and was replaced by the time it was released on CD anyway.

In fact here's Wikipedia's no censorship policy: WP:NOTCENSORED

Why did you post this thread again?

I thought that they hit a new low when all the bad stuff about DAN and Autism Speaks mysteriously disappeared one day never to be seen again yet all the good stuff was left.

Wikipedia is good for general information. That's what most people use it for. If they want fine details they'll look elsewhere. I don't really mind.

Yep if we are really so displeased with what is portrayed in Wikipedia, we can just edit it if it is not objective. If not, anything's just fine.