Wednesday, March 12, 2008

More Proof of Dishonesty from Wikipedia

I was told yesterday by some disingenuous editors at Wikipedia that blogs were an unacceptable resource for their childish encyclopedia.

Upon looking back at some of this dishonest discussion, I noticed they had some concerns about a page they have about Dr Mark Geier.

On Wikipedia's page about Dr Geier, there are links that take you to controversies, to Neurodiversity, to the Neurodiversity Movement (where they have a course description of to become a neuroinsane simpleton). There, Wikipedia has links to blogs. They link to Kathleen Seidel's completely dishonest and disingenuous rantings where she bashes people who help autistic children. Wikipedia also links to about 50 blogs run by complete and total morons associated with the Autism Hub.

So, Wikipedia has allowed links to a mass of crazed, lying bloggers who bash esteemed scientists like Dr Geier, who is curing autistic children. Yet they refuse to allow a link to a blog that takes great pains to point out the fraud of a phoney autistic woman named Amanda Baggs who is spreading false information about autism.

This bit of deceit by Wikipedia is really all we need to know to conclude that Wikipedia is not a respectable source for anything. It is manasged by liars and they help to promote an agenda that harms autistic children.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia is a collaborative site building an encyclopedia, edited my millions of different people.

You can challenge poorly sourced information (blogs can usually only be sources about the blogs themselves) by placing "{{fact}}" next to them, or you can delete the information and use a edit summary like "Removed poorly sourced (a blog) information per [[wp:v]]."

Blogs are more permissible in external links sections than as sources.

Foresam said...

That's a good theory about how Wikipedia works. In practice, it is obvious that some neuroinsane knuckleheads are on the staff of editors.
No legitimate editor would assassinate my character for trying to point out to them that an article was fraudulent. They also would not allow links to the Autism Hub of insanity to smear Dr Geier.

Wikipedia is corrupt.

Natalie said...

There's no "staff" of editors at all. And blogs that are considered more legitimate or official, such as a news organization's blog, are reliable sources provided they undergo the same fact-checking the news organization uses. Additionally, a notable person's article will usually link to their personal blog, but again this is just an external link, not a source. You do not have an article on Wikipedia and your blog is not subject to fact checking and editorial control by a legitimate news agency, which is why it's not allowed as a source.

Foresam said...

Natalie,
I see you don't have much use for the truth.

Wikipedia allows the Autism Hub as a link that is accessed from the page about Dr Geier. The Autism Hub is nothing more than about 50 insane people who campaign against curing autism.

News blogs that do not allow comments that show Amanda Baggs to be a fraud are far from legitimate sources. They are hiding the fact that they were conned by these insane people who are opposed to curing low functioning autistic children.

Wikipedia is engaged in fraud by refusing to consider the truth that has been discovered about Amanda Baggs, that she was a normal person before she abused LSD and magic mushrooms, etc..

Wikipedia completely discredits itself by editors invoking my online reputation that was provided to you by the insane people from the Autism Hub who I expose as frauds. So, Wikipedia has been conned by Amanda Baggs and this collection of idiots who intentionally put forth untrue rhetoric about autism.

Anonymous said...

Natalie

No staff but lots of nurodiversity. You are letting your "encyclopedia" be edited by people who think they are actually a superior species and that treating autism is akin to genocide of the species. Do you actually want to have this group representing you? It would be a good idea to not link to their blogs or websites, and especially not the autism hub.

Anonymous said...

you only have to look at the "People speculated to have been autistic" to realise how Wacko the thing is.
how about "murders speculated to have been autistic" to balance things

Foresam said...

To the anonymous commenter whose comment will not be published.

You can criticize me all you like if you act like an adult and back up your criticism with your given name.

Natalie said...

"No staff but lots of nurodiversity. You are letting your "encyclopedia" be edited by people who think they are actually a superior species and that treating autism is akin to genocide of the species. Do you actually want to have this group representing you? It would be a good idea to not link to their blogs or websites, and especially not the autism hub."

Huh? It's not my encyclopedia. It's not really anyone's encyclopedia.

If you disagree with blogs that are linked, you are going to have to venture into the community, learn the content policies, and discuss the issue with other editors. So far, only one editor who has joined the conversation has behaved reasonably and attempted to understand the various policies that govern the site.

"Wikipedia is engaged in fraud by refusing to consider the truth that has been discovered about Amanda Baggs."
What definition of fraud are you using? Even in the word's broadest sense, fraud is a deception made deliberately for personal gain. Wikipedia is a website, a community, and gains nothing either way. However, there are standards there, and content has to meet those standards.

"Wikipedia completely discredits itself by editors invoking my online reputation."
You identified yourself, and you invoked your own reputation by making statements like "Wikipedia is perverted by disingenuous editors and, I guess, a disingenuous editor deleted it. Well, fuck you, I'll just put it on my blog and let anyone who cares see how Wikipedia is engaged in fraud. Amanda Baggs will be exposed as the fraud that she is and you bastards won't prevent that." How does name calling and swearing help create a civil discourse? How does it contribute one iota to the conversation? You might have gotten a better response, and avoided being banned from the site, if you had remained calm and engaged in civil discussion.

Foresam said...

Critic,
Sorry, I hit the "reject" button on your commeny by mistake.

Foresam said...

Natalie,
"Wikipedia completely discredits itself by editors invoking my online reputation."
You identified yourself, and you invoked your own reputation by making statements like "Wikipedia is perverted by disingenuous editors and, I guess, a disingenuous editor deleted it. "
You'll note that I didn't curse the idiot that deleted my statements until after he proved he was disingenuous and there was no further point in discussing the matter with him.
This jackass could only have deduced that I had a poor reputation by listening to idiots from Neurodiversity who assassinate my character because they can't refute my words. Ergo bonehead, you did not listen to my words at all, you had already made up your mind based on the words of the people who are perpetrating the fraud. Does that explain the "Fuck You" sufficiently for your limited intelligence?

""Wikipedia is engaged in fraud by refusing to consider the truth that has been discovered about Amanda Baggs."
What definition of fraud are you using? Even in the word's broadest sense, fraud is a deception made deliberately for personal gain. Wikipedia is a website, a community, and gains nothing either way. However, there are standards there, and content has to meet those standards."

The whole fraud is explained in 150 blog posts here. Why do you think Neurodiversity goes to such pains to prevent themselves from being linked to it? They do not want that fraud exposed. You can't make a valid decision on this without reading the whole blog. Instead, you have taken neurodiversity's deranged point of view and accepted it as sane. Sanity is the issue here. If you can state that it is sane to promote an agenda that is opposed to curing autistic children, then, and only then, can you accept one word of opposition from Neurodiversity to my blog being linked to.

You don't understand everything that is involved here. Neurodiversity is a sham that purports to advocate for autistic people. That's the lie. What it actually does is try to prevent any autistic people from being cured of autism. It has made mildly autistic people who can speak for themselves believe that curing their condition would be destroying the person that they are. The mildly autistic people who fall for this lunacy are not intelligent enough to know better. You have been scammed.

Anonymous said...

"If you disagree with blogs that are linked, you are going to have to venture into the community, learn the content policies, and discuss the issue with other editors. So far, only one editor who has joined the conversation has behaved reasonably and attempted to understand the various policies that govern the site."

Well, Natalie, since much of the community and editors are part of neurdiversity and quackwatch, there is not much good going to them to ask to block their links.

If wikipedia wants to be known as a place to find real unbiased knowledge, wouldn't it be a good idea to not allow obviously biased and mentally ill people from running things behind the scenes. But that is what you get when your whole deal is just a wiki page, you get lots of people with time on their hands to manipulate information for their own political and personal gain.

Clearly you are just here to defend wikipedia and you don't seem to care either way if Baggs is a fraud. Maybe editing a wiki is just your hobby. great.

Amanda Baggs' hobby is impersonating a real autistic woman and trying to persuade parents to not treat their kids's autism. You don't have to care, but that's all this is about, horrible propaganda.

laurentius rex said...

Do you know what the problem is?

You have shot yourself in the foot, if you had been more moderate on this blog, you may well have been taken more seriously, but really wikipedia is a two edged weapon, if both sides are complaining that it is unfair to them then it must be doing something right in maintaining a balance.

The origins of the term neurodiversity are in less dispute than the origins of the term Autism, in that although most accept Bleuler as the first citation there is one of us out there who seems to think it belongs to some totally obscure guy called Rosanoff who hardly makes it into the literature. I expect if it could well turn up in some ancient graffiti on the wall of the Parthenon, it is a Greek word after all.

You misrepresent neurodiversity, so does anyone who claims it as a synonym for autism alone, and to use it that way to bludgeon a small set of people with a set of beliefs you disagree with is disengenous, it is like saying that everyone who calls themselves French sells onions.

There is scholarship and there is scholarship, some wikipedists are scholars and others just do there research via google or plagiarise out of copyright encyclopedias.

Whatever, if one wants to be taken seriously in this world, one needs background and qualifications. You can't just waltz into court and declare yourself an expert, you can expect to have that tested.

Above all getting back to the question of whether Amanda Baggs is an Elf or whether you are a Fairy, well I don't think there are jurisdictions that can pronounce on such matters.

I had a diagnosis of laryngitis a couple of months ago, I don't now, it's cured :)

Anonymous said...

"Whatever, if one wants to be taken seriously in this world, one needs background and qualifications. You can't just waltz into court and declare yourself an expert, you can expect to have that tested."

King Larry,
Michell Dawson did exactly that on behalf of ND and was taken seriously.

Popular culture is swayed in the direction of ND at the moment. That will shift, as all trends do. There was a time not long ago when anyone claiming to have been used in Satanic rituals was taken seriously. No more! Thank God!

ND is trend, it is a fad. It will pass.

Foresam said...

Larry,
I don't misrepresent Neuroinsanity. Perhaps Kathleen Seidel, Autism Diva, Chew and Leitch misrepresent it from what it was before those yo-yos got involved with it. It's no misrepresentation to point out that, as it is now, it exists to bludgeon autistic kids into never gaining relief from mercury poisoning.
One could take a scholarly approach to this but it's so insane, it makes more sense to simply make fun of them. As if anyone would believe Amanda Baggs was a low functioning autistic girl before she fried her brain with LSD. Do you really buy that BS, Larry?

Anonymous said...

Dr Geier's cure is so effective and side effect free, I have gone off the daily shots for my son and he's made gains even after that. Before some clown posts saying that that means the shots were hurting my son ... I have gone to oral aldactone and androcur, but the result is, we do any more and my son is going to lose the label and a lot of his services.
In any case he is doing great to the extent we are thinking in a year or so he's lose the label no matter what.
Cool.
Srinath.