i think about the “Wikipedia is more reliable than most encyclopedias through the sheer power of concentrated autism” post every day. what an astounding example of something that is both not true at all and belies a bizarrely distorted belief that autism is some kind of superpower. truly reprehensible worldview.
the idea that autism special interest is inherently a reliable form of knowledge is so pervasive especially in autism spaces. like you don’t have to scientifically study your special interest for it to be valid but so many people go around saying absolutely wild things with the back-up “it’s my special interest” when their mode of research is reading Tumblr posts which, again, is a valid way to engage with a special interest but it’s not the same as critically ascertaining sources
i always thought that was about getting a bunch of rule followers who love efficiency and structure together and having them optimize a text for maximum clarity. resulting in an online resource with incredibly specific and consistent organization that IS sourced accurately by the people whose special interest is “sourcing things accurately”.
Yeah this is the impression I get whenever people talk about “autism” as an asset towards doing something thoroughly and well. To me that usually feels like the good faith interpretation.
Like, yeah, having an autistic-level fascination with something doesn’t inherently mean you know all the correct information about it– and, yeah, can actually bias you toward collecting wrong information if you are just obsessed with collecting any kind of lore on this topic
But, you do need a very strong fascination with something (and it helps for it to be autistic-level fascination) …in order to be the person who does research it thoroughly and accurately enough for Wikipedia.
It’s like. Not all (or most) A are B, but all (or most) B are A
and it’s understandable but it’s… not great