Monday, March 10, 2008

Wikipedia Supports Amanda Baggs' Fraud

This is just one example of the unprofessional nature of Wikipedia. Note how the editor here references blogs and forums as hearsay and not acceptable when one wants to expose the fraud of Amanda Baggs and Neurodiversity. At the same time, these jackasses defend Amanda Baggs' right to have her fraudulent blog posted as though it was a respectable reference. Nonsense.

Wikipedia consistently allows Neurodiverse nitwits to say anything they want on their inane excuse for an encyclopedia. They also consistently delete everything that points out the deranged nature of Neurodiversity and fraudulent autistic people like Amanda Baggs.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is just a propaganda factory for frauds.

The following is an exchange that took place on Wikipedia where some people, including myself, were trying to illuminate the fact that Amnanda Baggs is a fraud impersonating an autistic person. Dave Seidel was involved, deleting comments from sane people and writing untrue things that an editor deleted.

Upon being given a link to Tim Bolen's report that describes how neurodiversity and Quackbusters manipulate Wikipedia, the editor deleted the whole exchange. I saved it below before they could delete it. Here's the link to the Wikipedia page about Amanda Baggs after their editor deleted the truth.

I just removed a passage that I believe violates WP:BLP guidelines. It lacks NPOV and fails to provide any reference to the so-called "controversy". - DaveSeidel 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The article cites American Chronicle article references her "harsh critics" who dispute that she is a low functioning autistic. Her background to the contrary has been discussed in several autism community forums and blogs as well as a recent mention at It is my understanding that forums and blogs are not good references, but perhaps they would fit here better than the American Chronicle article? How many forums/blogs would I need to include to have this accepted as a controversy?
Also, please point out the NPOV language so that I can remove it.
Thanks. 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)oddmountain
As a rule, blogs and forums are not acceptable per WP:RS, so your question of "how many I would need to include" is irrevelant. Wikipedia is not about hearsay or unfounded opinion. If you wish to discuss a "controversy", especially one in reference to a living person, only a reliable source is acceptable. I don't see any problem with referencing the American Chronicle article in and of itself, but this entry is entirely one-sided in a negative sense, and thus NPOV, since no balancing views or references are provided. There is also no reference to any source for the Simon's Rock information, nor to the fact that she left after one year and was institutionalized after she left there. -- DaveSeidel 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, controversy may indeed exist, but because of WP:BLP in general, and the personal nature of the issues in specific (which revolve around medical and psychological diagnoses), the bar must remain high, and WP:RS is a must. - DaveSeidel 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
For HiEv and others: I agree that appropriately verified material should be included when summarized properly and adequately weighted. However, I'm not sure that meets WP:SOURCES. Is it a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", or is it (as this article suggests) more of a republisher of material, e.g from blogs?
Regarding the Donna Williams interview reprinted at American Chronicle, I noticed that the original piece (from Ms Williams' blog) had been previously cited in the article, but deleted as non-reliable. That makes sense in WP terms, since per WP:SOURCES "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."
If Ms Baggs posts the interview on her own site, then we can use it (in this article, involving claims only about Ms Baggs herself and no one else). Otherwise, it appears that we can't, unless we can agree that is a reliable source, i.e., that it has the resources to vet the accuracy (and not merely to boost the google ranking) of material it republishes. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank, Jim, excellent points. According to the American Chronicle's Author Agreement, they rely entirely on the author's word that "[t]he Content is based on true facts and diligent research"; nothing there (or in any other part of the site that I've been able to find) about any editorial oversight or fact-checking whatsoever. IOW, they don't even claim to be a reliable source -- how can we treat them as one? - DaveSeidel 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, then "American Chronicle" is out as a reliable source. I also note that Tim Langmaid, a managing editor at CNN Medical News, commented on the questions about her diagosis and mentioned in general some of the resources they checked to verify her story.[1] -- HiEv 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential COI
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appto 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that the sources used to verify content in its articles are reliable enough (see WP:RS). Blogs are not reliable enough sources. In addition, special care needs to be taken to make sure articles do not contain potentially damaging information about living persons (see WP:BLP). This information is potentially damaging so cannot be included with sources as poor as blog entries. Also, I have looked through the sources you gave on this talk page and they did not even verify this information. In the final four URLs you gave in your post, the first three made no reference to Baggs, and the fourth gave no information about who the author of that "letter" was. That is only the beginning of the problems with those sources that makes them unreliable. Q0 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was requested to the editor that the matter be investigated.--Appto (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, something's off in the talk page history here: both of the old AfDs are supposed to be listed on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please post the relevant AutismSpeaks threads here to the talk page; they can't be used to source the article, but they are relevant to COI issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This LiveJournal [8] article is done by a witness to Amanda Baggs' who knew her at 14 years old and testifies that she was not autistic in any sense then, and onward during their friendship. This is in the last sentence of the first paragraph...and there is other statements in this LiveJournal initial post. Then note the response posts by the author, and the often biased intense replies by supporters of Baggs, including Dave Seidel (who is it seems a major contributor to this wikipedia article on Baggs).
Some threads, the first [9] of which has an introduction to the controversy, then 251 posts and 10,000+ views, which is many times the level of typical involvement; I note this just to indicate the level of interest and apparent importance of the matter. Other links which began to promote Baggs, and which ended in critical discussion about the legitimacy of her diagnosis per the testimony of a multitude of witnesses who observed her at Simon's Rock College in 1994-1995 and elsewhere, and continuing for one witness to 1998. [10] [11]--Appto (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought the Dispute of Neutrality would remain until the matter was fully discussed and resolved. Some contributors of this article, especially Dave Seidel, are not neutral. Note in the above linked threads that Dave Seidel is a highly personal supporter and defender of Amanda Baggs, and not an objective reporter of information, and has a highly biased interest in the promotion and defense of Baggs. Also, as moderator SandyGeorgia noted "By the way, if it came to AfD again, I'd be a "delete"; the entire article is nothing but quotes from a CNN blog, and I don't see notability here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"--Appto (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Appto, slow down. First, I am not a "moderator" nor am I an admin. Second, please stop including my sig in your posts, as that makes it appear that they are my posts. Third, there is not a neutrality dispute here; you are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:COI. Please take some time to learn policies and guidelines; this isn't an "emergency", and the rest of us will catch up as soon as we have time. Post reliable sources here to the talk page, and we'll deal with it. Also, take time to read WP:BLP, lest you post here info which is not based on reliable sources; if you do, we are obligated to delete it. I'm still trying to catch up with your posts, as you are altering old AfDs. Please slow down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note: and autismspeaks forums are not reliable sources. We can't write an article based on what they say. That info is relevant to notability and conflict of interest, but please take care with WP:BLP. Those are NOT reliable sources by WP:RS and WP:V policy; they are self-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to Hating Autism should be left here because it has a year's worth of discussion that, all together, shows unquestionably that Amanda Baggs is not autistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. That blog appears to be nothing but hearsay. - DaveSeidel HERE WE SEE THAT DAVE SEIDEL HAS TOLD US THAT HIS WIFE KASTHLEEN'S BLOG IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A RELIABLE SOURCE.(talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the entry made here by DaveSeidel due to unfounded allegations of a personal nature, and an untrue and unsupported reference to a particular person's name, and untrue and unfounded allegation that this person is doing something on the Internet, and a personal allegation about the nature of this person's website. I'd like to note that DaveSeidel does this peristently as shown in the above mentioned links and LiveJournal link (see my post above with the references), and I'd like to note that DaveSeidel is a contributor and editor of this article on Amanda Baggs, and reiterate my request that his contributions and editings be reviewed for neutrality, and be strickened due to his clear and intense personal involvement with supporting and promoting Amanda Baggs - he is not a neutral nor objective source.--Appto (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Appto, it is not OK to delete someone else's comment: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. You would benefit from taking some time to learn the policies around here. If you have a specific WP policy to invoke, then please do so, but you can't just invent your own. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Appto, you are making unreasonable requests, not grounded in wiki policy. We delete items that violate WP:BLP or that aren't sourced to reliable sources. The last time I went through this article, it was reliably sourced. There is nothing to be deleted, and who added it is not relevant except to the extent that we need to be aware of future WP:COI editing. Seidel, attempting to out the real life identity of any wiki editor is a serious offense. If you do it again, I'll make sure it is dealt with. Both of you need to get some perspective and slow down; there is nothing urgent here. I'm going to post to an admin noticeboard to get some attention on this, as you both appear to be dragging an off-Wiki dispute on to Wiki, and that needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the name from my comment and reinstated it. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If Amanda Baggs' blog is relevant and can be used as a link, Hating Autism should also be allowed as a blog that, with Amanda's own words, disputes the veracity of everything that Baggs claims. Hating Autism elaborates on the disingenuous nature of Neurodiversity and Amanda Baggs.
Neurodiversity is simply an opinion, and a deranged opinion at that, that tries to dissuade anyone from trying to cure autistic children. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPS; blogs may be used to source one's own entry, insofar as they make statements about what one says about oneself. They may NOT be used to source other content. Seidel, yes it is acceptable under some circumstances to remove talk page posts, for example, personal attacks, attempts to out someone's real life identity, and BLP violations. Bettwice33, you are violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA; stop now or you can be blocked. I've removed part of your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to also refer the readers to the Talk page and recent entries at the article on Donna Williams [12] under "Controversial Diagnosis". There are several parallels between this matter and the matter with Amanda Baggs.
ABC Radio National[[13]]. The Health Report. From Australia (Williams lives in Australia). "Autism - a special report by Kathy Gollan" An investigation by Kathy Gollan. There is considerable proof and evidence undermining the legitimacy of Donna Williams's diagnosis of autism, as discussed by autism experts and others, including Donna Williams doctor, a former college professor, Yale's Fred Volkmar, a former friend, and others. The article is a serious investigative report. A similar situation, and even far more supported and compelling, appears to be true of Amanda Baggs, and efforts are being made to secure several third-party investigations into this matter.--Appto (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought this was a discussion page. How can we discuss this matter if everyone's deleting comments? Please read the page in the Bolen Report that I have provided the link to. It explains exactly what's going on with Amanda Baggs and Neurodiversity's attempt to obfuscate the truth about autism.----

I've directed this page to the relevant policies.
* Please read WP:BLP regarding violations on biographies of living persons.
* Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SPS regarding self-published sources like blogs.
* We must/should immediately remove any material that violates WP:BLP from talk pages and articles.
* Also see WP:TALK for talk page guidelines.
We do NOT repeat blog-sourced information that maligns a living person on either talk pages or in articles. If anyone here continues doing that, they can be blocked. Further, bringing off-wiki blog wars on to Wiki is not likely to be viewed well by uninvolved admins. Please keep your on-Wiki discussion confined to reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Did you read what Bolen had to say about how Neurodiversity, AKA Quackbusters, manipulates Wikipedia? Whether you block me or not, that won't change the truth. The truth can never malign anyone. Exposing a fraud is not maligning the fraud. When a fraud's own lawyer admits that her client is a fraud, as you can plainly see on Hating Autism "When the Music's Over", and Wikipedia ignores that, you are taking part in the fraud. ----
Retrieved from ""

After Wikipedia deleted my posts above, I left the following message for them.

So, Wikipedia deleted my comments. I copied them and will be sending them to your owners. I showed you the Bolen report that described how 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.
John Best----

Retrieved from ""


Anonymous said...

You can pretty much guarentee that any website beyond the most basic ones has a bunch of gullible aspies involved in the inner workings, programming, doing database crunching, obsessing over porn, etc. Amanda is their hero and it would be trivially easy to get them to do dirty work for neurodiversity and quackbusters. Then their little fantasy world gets to stay a happy place with the elves and Baggs the Corpulent and all they have to do is just keep believing.

Reality has a nasty habit of biting aspies in the ass though.

Anonymous said...


just registered and put on my todo list

hopefully this is just what im looking for looks like i have a lot to read.