Wrong Planet--"Not a Reliable Source"?

Post Reply New Topic

So I tried editing Wikipedia's article on Autism Speaks to mention that it had no autistic members and forbade people with autism from speaking at their conferences (according to the Ten Myths About Autism article), only for my edits to be reverted because this site "wasn't a reliable source". Thoughts?

Tell them that Autism Speaks is an unreliable source.

I had tried putting it under the article's "Controversies" section, but I suppose the info I added got removed because Wrong Planet isn't a newspaper, or something...

Wrong Planet is a reliable source no matter what other websites say. The truth of Autism Speaks needs to be know to the whole world for its lies.

Clarify 'reliable.' In what respect does this source mean 'reliable?' True, Wrong Planet is not a science journal, nor is it intended to be. However, it is written, and designed by, autistic individuals with a membership of now 17,492. We are, by definition, a forum of Auties/Aspies. We have no agenda but to communicate with each other, share insights, goals, troubles, releveant observations, and just have fun sometimes. So, in this way, we are 'spot on' accurate. NTs writing 'about us' cannot begin to reach the truth of our writings.

Duke, ask them why this site fails their rules on "reliable sources". That way we know what we are dealing with specifically.

I dont see wikipedia using forums at all unless the usage of a forum is part of the information about a subject/person. A forum is just like a chatroom or conversation and isnt really considered published and reliable for that reason.

if sandyGeorgia is the one who reverted it, you should just revert it back to your version. She's a wikipedia troll who attempts to control articles on wikipedia. she has no authority, however.

It was SandyGeorgia. I reverted her edit. The only way to stop her is to not let her bullying pay off. Make sure to watch the page and revert ok?

yes she was. I guess she's someone who doesn't grasp WP:RS or any other of Wikipedia's myriad of rules.

I think as long as the source is accurately identified, the readers of the Wiki can decide for themselves if they wish to consider it reliable or not. Glad you all got that fixed!

In general I agree with Tensho that forums aren't normally considered reliable sources, but in cases like this one, there isn't anything more "reliable" to be had. And I think you all have every right to make sure that information is out there!

Duke, for mainstream sources for this info, go to the autism speaks forum and PM "Thomas" or PM him on www.neurodiversity.com Believe me, he's a heavyweight dude and dislikes AutSqueeks as much as we do...

we have a problem. need major backup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... cles_again

I've never Wiki'd, but I would like this group to be able to insert some sense of the controversies they see into the article.

Perhaps wording along the lines of the following would be appropriate:

"Austism Speaks has also come under fire from various internet communities founded and populated by individuals on the autistic spectrum. A summary of the issues seen by these groups can be found in this article written by Alex Plank, founder of WrongPlanet.net, and posted at his site <link>"

It seems to me that this sort of wording puts the issues out there without trying to state them as facts that need to be strongly sourced. And it hopefully keeps the personal issues out of the discussion.

I am also a member at Aspies for Freedom, and they feel similarly to this forum, and would no doubt be willing to provide back up on the concepts expressed.