While I admit that these processes work for consistency of content, I cannot in the least observe any noticeable quality improvements, and the reason is that valuable contributors with deep domain knowledge will not invest the time to satisfy the OCD of some arbitrary editor suffering from Asperger.
Is it really necessary to use mental illnesses in a pejorative way to make your point ? How do you think it makes people feel who legitimately suffer from those illnesses ?
I know these words are "ugly" or "not politically correct" but I think just looking the other way is not helping anybody.
That's not even a disorder, it's just plain stupid.
It's not about PC. It's about violating their rights. Please, post your full medical charts, prescription lists, and any mental health counseling notes or treatments for addiction you've ever undertaken, so I can use them to mock you.
And I'm not violating the rights of somebody by pointing out they have an illness, sorry.
He's not. That is, actually, the real problem. He's not just using it as some sort of insult but explaining the specific problem.
I've run into editors like that (they even proudly boast about it on their user page, so I'm not just projecting). I've had enough run-ins with them, and people like them, that I gave up on editing.
So all wikipedia editors have Asperger's and OCD ? That seems astronomically unlikely, don't you ?
It's enough that it's some, to make it impossible to edit anything. In fact it can even be a small minority, but given that they spend (as far as I can tell) almost their entire day on it, a small number can have a huge influence.
> I used deal with a self declared Asperger who was top class in his field. The thing is whenever I asked him do you know how to fix this problem. The answer was invariably, 'sorry I don't know how to do that'.
From your comment above:
> The worst [group of people] who shall remain nameless, were either augmentative dishonest or lazy and some were as thick as two very thick planks glued together. You had to speak to them in very short sentences and not use big words and still they didn't get it.
So...how do you know that either:
A. The "self-declared Asperger" is actually quite reasonable and you just happen to be in his "worst" group of people...I don't mean that you necessarily have those qualities, just that he's chosen to treat you as if you did, based on his past experiences with people of your kind?
B. That you yourself don't have the stereotypical behavioral symptoms Aspergers and that this "worst" group of people may not really deserve your harsh judgment?
"PC hypersensitive" coward
If you care about how you come across: You sound as ignorant as someone saying "I want my accountants to be Jews. They're good with money". (Although I accept that this level of ignorance about OCD is very common.)
http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-h...
>> Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is described as an anxiety disorder. The condition has two main parts: obsessions and compulsions.
>> Obsessions are unwelcome thoughts, images, urges or doubts that repeatedly appear in your mind; for example, thinking that you have been contaminated by dirt and germs, or experiencing a sudden urge to hurt someone.
>> These obsessions are often frightening or seem so horrible that you can’t share them with others. The obsession interrupts your other thoughts and makes you feel very anxious.
[...]
>> Compulsions are repetitive activities that you feel you have to do. This could be something like repeatedly checking a door to make sure it is locked or repeating a specific phrase in your head to prevent harm coming to a loved one.
>> The aim of a compulsion is to try and deal with the distress caused by the obsessive thoughts and relieve the anxiety you are feeling. However, the process of repeating these compulsions is often distressing and any relief you feel is often short-lived.
You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. There is zero bureaucracy in adding content. The bureaucracy comes into play with there is unresolved conflict and disagreement, when there is a controversy over how an article is written. In that case, there are definite, objective(ish) standards and rules by which those arguments can come to a resolution of some kind. I suppose in a more hierarchical structure there would be less bureaucracy when there are disagreements and the next person in charge would simply decide which view he thought was more correct. But the traditional structure of writing an encyclopedia is filled with gatekeepers who have the final, single decision without much of a need to reach consensus. Depending on your view this could be good or it could be bad.
You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save.
Seriously, though, it's disingenuous to suggest that editing is so simple - to be pedantic, yes, the edit itself is free of bureaucracy, but in the majority of cases I've observed, the real effort is in making an edit (not even a controversial one) stick.
Generally I'm either making minor fixes (basically nothing you would dispute), or when I add something, it's cited.
When there is a conflict, it's probably beyond most people to figure out how to handle the conflict resolution process (which generally, in my experience, is fruitful), but if you're adding high quality content, that rarely comes up - it's just that when it does it takes up a disproportionate amount of your time.
Why contribute when the idea of others actually seeing the benefit of doing it is so painful?