Wikipedia and the mentally ill

[Graaf Statler]

I wish I had the opinion of a professional, Flip. But there is something very strange going ome on WPNL, and there is a lot of "the spectrum" What exactly the connection is is hard to say, anyway, they don't write articles, and if you are a content writer you are very unwelcome. Shall we leave this discussion?

[sashi]

Hello again! I figured you'd eventually land in this topic, Flipflop.

If you have access to Science Direct there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6714001779

and this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-3385-9

The free summaries don't go into much detail. The bibliography of the second (Springer) article probably has some leads...

[CrowsNest]

Who can really say wtf was going on with Secret.....or if they're even still around. My memory of his story arc is certainly shot to pieces. It's a nightmare trying to even unpack all his comings and goings and promotions/demotions, let alone the finer points of how and why.

A couple of good links for anyone wanting to go through it all.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:U ... ldjslak901

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... p/Secret_3

[Flip Flopped]

Hello again! I figured you'd eventually land in this topic, Flipflop.

If you have access to Science Direct there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6714001779

and this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-3385-9

The free summaries don't go into much detail. The bibliography of the second (Springer) article probably has some leads...

Indeed, the free summary of the second one doesn't discuss the effect sizes at all or the selection criteria for the studies that were meta-analyzed (my hunch is that they looked for kids in special ed since they were looking at other "struggling writers"). The result was pretty devastating for the hypothesis "people with autism can't write well" since it found differences relating to "length, legibility, handwriting size, speed, spelling, and overall structure." None of that is surprising in a population that overlaps with what in layman's terms could be described as "clumsiness" or that has issues with executive function. There's still no reason to generalize about people with autism when you look at Temple Grandin or Stephen Shore or any of the innumerable professors with autism who have made unique contributions to human knowledge while dealing with prejudice and put-downs. Of course, they may very well have poor handwriting anyway.

[Flip Flopped]

I wish I had the opinion of a professional, Flip. But there is something very strange going ome on WPNL, and there is a lot of "the spectrum" What exactly the connection is is hard to say, anyway, they don't write articles, and if you are a content writer you are very unwelcome. Shall we leave this discussion?

Graaf, you have clear ideas about what's true about autism and editing Wikipedia. You and I agree that it's an environment attractive to people on the spectrum and that there can be conflict between people with autism and allistic people on a wiki. We also both agree that people with autism make up a larger part of the editing community than they do the general population. You have some weaknesses in what you try to assert based on these realities as it relates to Wikipedia criticism. Mostly, I'd say that over-generalizing weakens your argument in this area, but there are undoubtedly kernels of truth in what you assert. Can you see at all where I'm coming from in my critique of your assertions as "over-generalizing?"

I've mentioned Temple Grandin and Stephen Shore to you before (I think I even provided a YouTube link though I despise YouTube). In the end you'll either learn more about that stuff or you won't.

The only upshot for this place is that your critic isn't wrong when he continues to point out that you're making this stuff up a lot of the time. That's a shame because you are, again, undoubtedly right about some salient aspects of autism and Wikipedia.

[Graaf Statler]

Hello again! I figured you'd eventually land in this topic, Flipflop.

If you have access to Science Direct there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6714001779

and this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-3385-9

The free summaries don't go into much detail. The bibliography of the second (Springer) article probably has some leads...

Indeed, the free summary of the second one doesn't discuss the effect sizes at all or the selection criteria for the studies that were meta-analyzed (my hunch is that they looked for kids in special ed since they were looking at other "struggling writers"). The result was pretty devastating for the hypothesis "people with autism can't write well" since it found differences relating to "length, legibility, handwriting size, speed, spelling, and overall structure." None of that is surprising in a population that overlaps with what in layman's terms could be described as "clumsiness" or that has issues with executive function. There's still no reason to generalize about people with autism when you look at Temple Grandin or Stephen Shore or any of the innumerable professors with autism who have made unique contributions to human knowledge while dealing with prejudice and put-downs. Of course, they may very well have poor handwriting anyway.

I said in general, there are exceptions and I don't think it's right to compare the advanced wikipediaan with professors.
What I have seen on the Dutch wikipedia most of them have something in "the spectrum" are not able to write a good article. And it's up to the science to find out that connection. But in the way I am reading this articles it is belike there is a connection, what isn't a surprise.

[Flip Flopped]

Hello again! I figured you'd eventually land in this topic, Flipflop.

If you have access to Science Direct there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6714001779

and this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-3385-9

The free summaries don't go into much detail. The bibliography of the second (Springer) article probably has some leads...

Indeed, the free summary of the second one doesn't discuss the effect sizes at all or the selection criteria for the studies that were meta-analyzed (my hunch is that they looked for kids in special ed since they were looking at other "struggling writers"). The result was pretty devastating for the hypothesis "people with autism can't write well" since it found differences relating to "length, legibility, handwriting size, speed, spelling, and overall structure." None of that is surprising in a population that overlaps with what in layman's terms could be described as "clumsiness" or that has issues with executive function. There's still no reason to generalize about people with autism when you look at Temple Grandin or Stephen Shore or any of the innumerable professors with autism who have made unique contributions to human knowledge while dealing with prejudice and put-downs. Of course, they may very well have poor handwriting anyway.

I said in general, there are exceptions and I don't think it's right to compare the advanced wikipediaan with professors.
What I have seen on the Dutch wikipedia most of them have something in "the spectrum" are not able to write a good article. And it's up to the science to find out that connection. But in the way I am reading this articles it is belike there is a connection, what isn't a surprise.

You and I probably don't agree that "most" of the people there are on the spectrum whether diagnosed or not. I am not at all surprised that multiple people you got pushed around by are also autistic. I attribute that more to Wikipedia projects attracting both people who are autistic and people who are assholes. Some people with autism are also assholes so it's no surprise to find them on a Wikipedia either. As Crows Nest is pointing out there are also a number of editors who have severe mental illnesses. Some of them are probably assholes, too.

If you wanted to make a thread on autism in the Wikipedias I'm sure there would be plenty to say. In the meantime I can't blame Forson for pointing out when you over-generalize or when you unfairly attribute stuff to autism that isn't necessarily related to autism.

This is the first time that I've seen you differentiate between highly successful people with autism and the people with autism that you ran into on the Dutch Wikipedia. I think we can agree that Wikipedia doesn't attract a lot of highly successful people, autistic or not. It's always interesting to me when someone with some success, like Drmies, spends a huge amount of time editing a Wikipedia.

[Graaf Statler]

I think autism is underestimated, especially on Wikipedia. We agree Wikipedia isn't attractive for highly successful people, but for the in between group Wikipedia is very attractive in my opinion. Because autism can make someones life very difficult. Someone is different, feels different, the society doesn't accept you, but you have finished a good education. So you can't fined easy a job or one at a very low level. Often they don't have relation, and often they fail in many other things. So, wikipedia is a very attractive surrounding for you, where you are accepted with your autism.

So, I am not talking about the professors in the spectrum , and I am not talking about people who are beating all the the day with there head to the wall in a institution. No, I am talking about a middle group of the spectrum. And it is easy to lie about what you really are on Wikipedia. I am talking now in general. It is easy to pimp yourself. I think if I am telling I am a high educated employer on a Dutch university you believe me, but the true is a I am a old handcraft man with a old van. A old grey worker in working cloths where you see hundreds of daily. And that makes Wikipedia so extreem dangers.

I am not sure they are mental ill or ash holes. In my opinion they got trapped in the lies of themself and there friends, the hotel California effect. Because I am sure many people who screwed me up (what they did) are deeply ashamed now, but they can't go back. They are trapped in the spiderweb Wikipedia, and have to trol and lie till they drop.

Not long ago someone, I really don't know for sure who it is, has started to doxx the wikipedia top of the Dutch wikipedia. And there are many people involved what makes me think how is it possible you are playing this childish games. Because if you look at what happend to me you have to agree, as far you can understand it in Dutch, it look the most of the work of children in a kindergarten. It is not even trolling, it's insane. Trolling openly a global lock with the help of Meta stewards, a SanFanBan, now the crazy act on Wikisage to hide the list of articles I wrote over and over in the most silly way. Claiming in the arbcom case of Ymnes I am not able to write a article with the multiple trolling account De Wikischim. Trying to blame me over and over for writing that doxxing articles. I have not even a clou who they are.

And that is what wonders me in general. People who should known better who are trolling themselves into heaven, with the risk if there behaving ever get public a career in a hamburger restaurant is waiting for them (if they are lucky). Successful people with a good jobs, and who have everything there want.
Are they trapped in Hotel California? Where they to naive because of there autism, and because of that trapped in that hotel? And when they got aware what they had done starting to lie and troll to hide there stupidity?

It's a very good question, Flip. Why are people like this behaving themself as a bunch of idiots? Because Drmies is not the only intellectual who is doing that. And in my opinion there is a connection to autism, but I don't know which one. But anyway it's far from normal what happened to me, I hope you agree with that. And I hope you understand I want to know what is going on and why I am rewarded with the rare sanFanBan and the rest. Why was everybody shouting troll to me form day one on for instance. And treating me like a troll. My theory is they mixed me up with someone else, a old troll friend. And are now deep in the shit and trying to fix it by..... yes, trolling.

[sashi]

I think autism is underestimated, especially on Wikipedia.

I agree, but everyone probably measures it differently. I measure it with regard to my own distance from it, which I sometimes choose not to estimate. One thing I like, though, is cognitive dissonance, and and from the first, your posts have been full of, well, often there misspillings. |-c..

It may have just been my connection, but you should know that feeding your Dutch messages to the googlebot has also caused even it to drown tools & walk a few times.

However slowly, my ability to read Dutch might get better...