Okay, you’re not gonna like me for this but: If that link is any indication of what editors at Wikipedia are disallowing, I’d argue they’re doing their job. The open letter is purposefully misleading and claim a lot of things that are highly exaggerated or simply aren’t true. Wikipedia is not a place of activism. If you don’t like something there are other outlets to voice your dislike. I’ll cover the misleading parts, and just so you know I’ve thoroughly read everything they link to (even the impossibly droll UN, DOJ and FDA pages).
The anti-vaccine sentiments of Autism Speaks’ founders have been well documented in the mainstream media. Several of Autism Speaks’ senior leaders have resigned or been fired after founders Bob and Suzanne Wright overruled Autism Speaks’ scientific leadership in order to advance the discredited idea that autism is the result of vaccinations.
They’ve also retracted those statements and now say the exact opposite, as I quoted previously. Misleading much?
Autism Speaks’ advertising depends on offensive and outdated rhetoric of fear and pity, presenting the lives of autistic people as tragic burdens on our families and society. In its advertising, Autism Speaks has compared being autistic to being kidnapped, dying of a natural disaster, having a fatal disease, and countless other inappropriate analogies.
Does it? That claim is extremely tenuous. Firstly they deceive by linking the 4 separate ideas separately, even though there are only two references.
The video they link to (under “tragic burdens” and “having a fatal disease”), if you actually watch the whole thing, actually makes an opposing point. The first half does include the negative perspectives they list but, this is supposed to be “the voice of autism” i.e. autism personified. The second half of the video goes on to smash those stereotypes by showing that parents of autistic children in no way see them as tragic burden or being ill. The point of the video is to smash the stereotypes that the open letter is actively fighting against.
The other page (linked under “kidnapped” & “natural disaster”) doesn’t use those words whatsoever. The part the letter is referring to is undoubtedly the opening, which includes the sentence: If three million children in America one day went missing – what would we as a country do?
But if you read it in context they’re not saying kids with autism have been kidnapped, they’re trying to phrase the idea in such a way that people without autistic children can understand the urgency of having to do something about the issue. Here’s the full opening.
This week is the week America will fully wake up to the autism crisis.
If three million children in America one day went missing – what would we as a country do?
If three million children in America one morning fell gravely ill – what would we as a country do?
We would call out the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. We’d call up every member of the National Guard. We’d use every piece of equipment ever made.
We’d leave no stone unturned.
Yet we’ve for the most part lost touch with three million American children, and as a nation we’ve done nothing.
We’ve let families split up, go broke and struggle through their days and years.
I won’t go extensively into the DOJ or FDA stuff, except to say that obviously the facility in question is pretty dodgy. The FDA page related to their electric shock equipment having been modified (to be stronger) above the level for which it was actually approved. The UN report on torture also says this about the facility:
although in 2011 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts‟ Department of Developmental Services (DDS) approved regulation changes that limited the use of Level III Aversive Interventions (including skin shock), this new regulation does still allow the use of electric shocks for those students who had an existing court-approved treatment plan as of September 1, 2011 (115 CMR 5.14). Under the revised regulations, only new students in Massachusetts are protected from Level III aversives, including electric shock or prolonged restraints.
Furthermore, a large part of the open letter’s rage is Autism Speaks supposed endorsement of the facility. The full extent of the endorsement is that they had a booth as a service provider at one of their fundraisers. Here is the flyer, with the relevant part highlighted.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
The one thing the letter addresses that I entirely agree is problematic is that Autism Speaks does not have anyone with autism in their management or senior ranks. Both that and most of the other controversies listed in the open letter are covered on the Autism Speaks wiki page, so I’m not really sure what is supposedly being censored.
PS: I just want to say that I’m not trying to claim that Wikipedia is perfect in any way. trollies exist. Sexism exists. When 9/10 wikipedia editors are men you’re obviously going to get an unbalanced final product. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t judge an entire site by the actions of a few asshole editors. A guy punched me once (*yeah - can you believe it!?! ME! I’m such an easy-going pacifist 
*). Should I claim that all men are violent and reject any interaction with men in the future? I could but I’d be missing out on a lot of friendships that would enrich my life.
