February 20, 2015: My ban appeal has been rejected through the democratic process of users with no certified credentials appending the word "oppose" to the appeal, therefore my time here is done. It is unreasonable to expect a user to make productive contributions while tip-toeing around such a broad subject as autism, thus there is very little difference between a topic ban and a complete block. Besides, neurodiversity is the topic I was interested in– the topic that made me an active editor; why would I stay if I can't pursue my interest? As I've said countless times before, I wasn't here to "right great wrongs" as the essay describes. I was here to make Wikipedia better, i.e. more accurate in its information and more compliant with its own policies. At this point I no longer "believe in" Wikipedia as it currently exists and only want to change it because other people use it. If not for Wikipedia's entrenched popularity, and the resulting dismissal of anything less popular, it would be preferable to create a new wiki encyclopedia with better policies and administrators.
In preparation for the unlikely event that someone with ambition and/or power reads this, I feel the need to outline the main changes that need to happen to Wikipedia. If not for these problems, my appeal would never have been rejected, I would never have been banned in the first place, and the alleged reasons for my ban would never have even come up. Without changing the system, the only way to fix Wikipedia is to wait for it to follow changes in culture-level zeitgeists, a category of processes that can take decades or even centuries. The internet as we know it will probably no longer exist by then, let alone still hold Wikipedia as its most popular information source.
- Wikipedia administrators need to specialize in topic areas, to ensure expert treatment of those topics, and on the flip-side, be limited by a jurisdiction system, to prevent overreach. These administrators/specialists should be chosen based primarily on content knowledge, in addition to requiring a grasp of Wikipedia policy.
- Wikipedia needs to stop being a democracy. Currently most decisions, regardless of whether they're administrative actions, policy changes, or article content, are made through a voting process. The inherent problem with democracy is that the majority can decide to trample the rights of minorities. That is precisely what is happening on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the majority has biases that conflict with objective truth. There is already a policy page called "Wikipedia is not a democracy" which explains that consensus is based on the quality, not the quantity, of arguments. This policy needs to be enforced, which is why it is so important to have qualified administrators: The role of an administrator is to read those arguments and ensure that decisions are made based on the best one, not the most popular one (unless the most popular one happens to also be the best one). If Wikipedia continues to be a democracy, there is no need for administrators because those processes can be automated.
- The "reliable sources" policy must be updated to reflect the fact that certain institutional systems prevent people with the most relevant perspectives from being published and peer-reviewed. For example, the psychological and psychiatric industries actively exclude those who are not part of the neurological majority, relegating those people to autobiography books and personal blogs. In cases of extreme bias, high-level arbitrators must be willing to flag entire industries as unreliable.
- Punitive actions that restrict a user's editing privileges must be in response to decreasing the quality of articles, not in response to any "attitude" expressed in discussions about articles. Users must be allowed to be passionate about topics and about their edits, as long as that passion is expressed only on discussion pages and not used to bias article content. With frequent sanctions against users' communication styles, Wikipedia's policies stop being instruments for maintaining neutrality, and instead become instruments for excluding editors with unpopular perspectives, thus creating bias which is the opposite of neutrality.
On that last note, I leave you with the words of Martin Luther King Jr.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate,
- who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice;
- who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;
- who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action';
- who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;
- who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Below the line is the rest of my user page historically preserved as it last appeared on September 1, 2014.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Bite-sized info
General philosophy
 | This user believes in the right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia. |
Editing philosophy
 | This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. |
WikiProjects
Expertise
| LOG | This user is an expert in Logic. |
Interpersonal
 | This user avoids revealing information about theirself to preclude prejudice from other users. |
|
I'm just here to make Wikipedia better. I believe in it as a resource, but recognize that without constant improvement, it cannot serve its intended purpose.
My additions to Wikipedia are bold, but not reckless. Bold because I believe in common sense and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, reckful because I believe in Wikipedia's neutrality and avoid pursuing personal agendas. Consensus is important, but we do not need to lock down an article every time someone changes "but" to "and".
I correct typos I stumble upon in any article, but pay most of my attention to articles related to disability, especially autism.
As Wikipedia has given major preferential treatment to the autism cure movement and the medical model of disability, any editor who strives for neutrality may give the appearance of being allied with the autism rights movement and the social model of disability.
You might think that I'm autistic and therefore biased with regards to autism-related topics, or that I'm allistic and therefore don't have a frame of reference. Please determine which identity gives me more credibility, and assume I'm that.
This page is minimalist because I'm not here to self-aggrandize. If you wish to commend my good work, please do so on the talk page.
