Without getting into the underlying debate (something about Islam), I was struck by how accurate this statement is.

A lot of the frustration outsiders feel when they argue with people who are heavily immersed in the Wikipedia culture (let's just call them Wikipediots), is that they take everything you say, pick one or two words, and create a diversion based on wordplay.

Most of the time it doesn't even matter what the words meant, only that the Wikipediot is looking for an opening to argue, or trying to find some inconsistency in what his opponent is saying or some way to bash his self-esteem.

Yes this is a common internet arguing tactic but Wikipediots in their pack mentality take it to a whole new level. They remove all of the information-sharing, bond-forming, and good things out of conversation and replace them with a game-like exhausting blabberfest.

And yes if you met someone this annoying in real life you could most of the time shoot them a look and make them behave. It's just more evidence that having encyclopedias written using methods that favor irritating nerd-like behavior is going to exclude normal people from the process.

Maybe this is obvious but I figured why not start a new thread.

Perhaps you haven't been around them much, but this technique is highly prevalent among teenagers, especially socially maladapted ones. Of course Wikipedia is rife with these types.

This is closely related to a behaviour known as "vicious compliance". Seen especially among the powerless, this is when someone (again, often a teenager, but sometimes a bitter employee) follows directions so precisely and slavishly that the desired outcome is not reached.

Example: Kid piles up everything in his room just outside it, in the hall. Then: "But you told me to clean my room!"

Wikipidiots of all ages are often nerdy, socially maladapted, powerless geeks. When they find leverage over another by willfully misinterpreting what they say, it feels like winning.

I believe this thread is looking for this video:

This used to be known in the Navy as a 'White Mutiny' and often led to those obscure little news items about a ship running into a dock or not having essential items on board, followed closely by the Captain being removed from command.

Also known as Argumentun Ad Infinitum Stupidum — the attempt to win arguments by pretending to be stupid, and doing it so habitually that one becomes ass-simp-totically brainless.

It's the sort of tactic that works only in Wikipedia and Ripofflican Mass Debating Societies.

Jon

I imagine it's more like a chess game in their heads. They could care less what you're actually talking about; it's just positions on a board. The best part for them is, no matter how stupid you are you can't lose, as long as you keep playing.

er maybe that proves your point, they've been acting stupid so long they've become stupid.

Seriously, extreme literalness is well known to be associated with certain types of autism. Very compulsive behaviour, a desire to fix errors and keep making minor improvements to things, is also a symptom. No doubt people with the second symptom are attracted to Wikipedia. I expect that many new change patrollers are in that category. So it is no surprise to find many there with also the first symptom!

Can we have a new abbreviation: IANAP (I am not a psychiatrist).

No doubt Wikipedia has a higher percentage of autistics involved than there are in the general population. That's a good point. There are probably also a certain number of impressionable non-autistics who don't have to be that way but emulate the behavior to fit in.

[Mod note: I want to put everyone on notice that if the conversation doesn't veer back into something specifically about Wikipedia editors, it (or some of it) is moving into "Politics, Religion, and Such". Alternatively, feel free to start a thread there (or the "Support Group") to discuss Autism in general, and leave a link here.]

It might be a good fact for the book club types to get a hold of, i.e. what percentage of Wikipedians self identify as autistic? What percentage of administrators? Does the WMF do surveys about that kind of stuff? My guess is it's in the double digits for the admins.

Thing is most new editors are shocked when they encounter admins with poor communication skills who seem to argue about the craziest stuff and in the weirdest way possible.

Oh and isn't this Awbrey's forum?

(Sorry Gomi, I do bite when it probably won't do any good sometimes I just try anyway, I still need to learn to just leave it sometimes)

Yeah, it's kind of an inmates running the asylum thing, I think most people are used to automatically respecting authority figures too much that it just doesn't register with them that the administrators are often less capable to do their job than the more casual editors with real jobs and real academic qualifications rather than "barnstars" innocently assuming the admins must be in any way professional

Maybe when they look at making people admins some kind of social IQ test, or maybe start looking more at talk contributions more than just article edits could be a good idea, a filter to specifically look at all NON article changes and gather them together before giving adminship - and also monitor when people use the sendemail thing to sneak around it: wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=36279&view=findpost&p=294853

@CL, RE autism I am guessing when gomi said autism in general he meant general discussion about it rather than it being specifically about Wikipedia's editors? @Emperor I'd definitely be interested in some kind of census on that. There used to be a user group that would have helped but I think that probably got wiped away in the great purge years ago, at a rough guess there looks only about 2.5k(?!) but I suspect most like in real life probably tend to not say because of the baggage attached (e.g. people forgetting it's a spectrum and that a lot of autistic people are not nasty or obnoxious and often can be quite caring, I suspect possible even more likely to be than "normal" people - it's just the bad ones you really hear about, as well as the ones that have never actually been diagnosed with autism but falsely claim to have it to try push away responsibility for activities they undertake): google site:wikipedia.org inurl:"user" -inurl:"user_talk" "autistic" OR "autism" OR "asperger" OR "aspergers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Glida7/autism_and_bacteria was an interesting read.

I guess this statement isn't supported in any relevant literature, since CL failed to support the statement with anything but a bunch of hand-waving and personal stories.

As for you, Selina... that video was of Joshua Zelinsky. He was one of the most antagonistic Wikipedia administrators of his day. That video mocks his own arrogance and condescension, not his autism or Asperger's. But, feel free to interpret things for your own personal agenda, if that helps you.

It was more the way you posted it as a reply to the posts about autism then in the comments people saying MONGMONGMONG and you joining in the chorus without batting an eyelid... yeah, that guy clearly has a lot of problems, but you can't really hate someone like that... can you? I mean, genuinely asking you that. I just feel pity... like the comment I pasted that a couple of people upvoted - it's just sad that someone can be so utterly, totally unware of how they seem to others to the point where it seems like they are irredeemable, that there's no hope in their future at all. I can't hate someone like that. Sure I'd be annoyed if I had to babysit them on Wikipedia or anywhere else (which is why I wouldn't be a good carer though I respect hugely those who can - I agree from his attitude I would probably start wanting to do terrible things to him lol) but yeah, not hate. *shrug* Some people are more a product of their genes and environment than others really. Sorry that I misunerstood, just seemed like you keep poking at me and I've seen some depressing people, it's annoying when you know you just can't do anything to help...

I was once on a panel at a Science Fiction convention on the psychology of SF fans. Some of the other panel took the line that a lot of SF fans were on the autism spectrum, I took along the APA definition of Schizoid Personality Disorder. I would tend to think that Wikipedia too has more than its fair share of people with SPD.

I don't know, kid seems alright. He's like one of those guys just wanders around and will be friends with anybody. Maybe a little irritating sometimes, but you can always just walk away. Except on Wikipedia (keeping it on-topic). He'd be awesome to have at a poker game.

Most kids on Wikipedia are just genuinely stupid, I think.

[Mod note: Off-topic, argumentative, one-liner, and other non-informative posts split to a thread in the "Politics, Religion, and Such" forum.]