Wikipedia talk:Autistic editors: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 87: Line 87:

:Thanks for undertaking this important task. An example to consider: “deaf-mute” (or “deaf mute” without the hyphen). In almost all cases this can simply be expressed as “deaf”. Almost no deaf person is literally mute (i.e., unable to speak), and they do not find the term acceptable. Some deaf people ”choose” not to speak for a variety of reasons, including a history of being ridiculed for their speech. But it’s a ”choice”; they are capable of speech. The term “deaf-mute” at one time was seen as more acceptable than the pejorative “deaf and dumb”, but it is no longer considered acceptable by the [[Deaf culture|Deaf community]]. For more details see [[Deaf-mute]] and the talk page. There may some instances when the term “deaf-mute” can remain, such discussing its historical use. In terms of code, I think there would need to be some human decision making for identifying these rare exceptions. Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 22:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for undertaking this important task. An example to consider: “deaf-mute” (or “deaf mute” without the hyphen). In almost all cases this can simply be expressed as “deaf”. Almost no deaf person is literally mute (i.e., unable to speak), and they do not find the term acceptable. Some deaf people ”choose” not to speak for a variety of reasons, including a history of being ridiculed for their speech. But it’s a ”choice”; they are capable of speech. The term “deaf-mute” at one time was seen as more acceptable than the pejorative “deaf and dumb”, but it is no longer considered acceptable by the [[Deaf culture|Deaf community]]. For more details see [[Deaf-mute]] and the talk page. There may some instances when the term “deaf-mute” can remain, such discussing its historical use. In terms of code, I think there would need to be some human decision making for identifying these rare exceptions. Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 22:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

:This seems great! I do think there may be issues with some wording for some of these; for example, the sentence “he was a wheelchair-bound person” would be changed to “he was a wheelchair user person”, which doesn’t make sense. Additionally, “they were afflicted with autism” would be changed to “they were has autism”. This is a bit of rare wording, though, and I think that others would work fine. 🫀 [[User:Organhaver|<span style=”color:maroon;”>”’Crash // Organhaver”'</span>]] ([[User talk:Organhaver|<span style=”color:darkred;”>talk to me, maybe?</span>]]) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

:This seems great! I do think there may be issues with some wording for some of these; for example, the sentence “he was a wheelchair-bound person” would be changed to “he was a wheelchair user person”, which doesn’t make sense. Additionally, “they were afflicted with autism” would be changed to “they were has autism”. This is a bit of rare wording, though, and I think that others would work fine. 🫀 [[User:Organhaver|<span style=”color:maroon;”>”’Crash // Organhaver”'</span>]] ([[User talk:Organhaver|<span style=”color:darkred;”>talk to me, maybe?</span>]]) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the feedback, @[[User:Organhaver|Organhaver]]. Maybe I can change it to do specific corrected responses. This is my first bot and while I think I have it down, it will be a work in progress. I really do appreciate the support. [[User:Docmoates|Docmoates]] ([[User talk:Docmoates|talk]]) 23:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

They have a hard time collaborating with others.

They don’t know how to talk to people. They are sometimes obsessed with a certain thing or point of view and do not want to change that.

This includes me. This is why I quit editing Wikipedia years ago. 183.88.83.222 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make a strong point. All we can do is to work with the people we have. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily disagree. There are people with autism that have a heavy obsession with certain subjects or presenting and archiving information. I am sure they constitute a substantial percentage of editors in Wikipedia and if it were not for many of them, Wikipedia would not be as nice and tidy as it is now. They may act immature but that is the reason this essay was written, to spread awareness for neurotypicals on how to act when interacting with them (although a bit vague for my taste). SmallerClown (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the entire talk page history for this essay, I’m surprised no one sent complaints about the head image, which features puzzle pieces to represent autism. On initial glance, these two photos with the infinity/neurodiversity symbol are decent alternatives to me. But just in case, are there more options somewhere? Carlinal (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WikiProject Autism uses the infinity symbol rather than the outdated puzzle piece, so I would change the image. FishOnSkates (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support; would be fun to replace it with autism acceptance gatherings instead of awareness Lynxano (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second image you linked here is a good one as it uses the gold-flag, which both uses the infinity, as well as the symbolism of gold.
I replaced the problematic puzzle image with that one now, as well as adding the plain gold infinity symbol as well and linking them to the Autism infinity symbol link. Raladic (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it’s me again after a while. Thanks for the comments! I really enjoy the feedback, and I’m glad one of the head images I suggested was chosen. I should attend some autism acceptance events sometime… Carlinal (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🥰 community is awesome Lynxano (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a section listing the strengths and talents of ASD people specifically why this is an asset for wikipedia editors. Examples include:

  • deep diving on specific subject matters
  • archiving information
  • being particular about the way tables and sections are organized
  • module based design in efficiently creating and using templates

etc

I haven’t spent adequate time thinking it through in detail, but I encourage any wikipedia editors to please create a section in this article on strengths and talents (aka AUTISTIC SUPERPOWERS). That way this essay will more effectively highlight the reasons why wikipedia attracts autists.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I am planning a future BRFA for a small wording bot focused on neurodiversity and disability related articles. Before I file, I would like some early feedback from bot operators and anyone interested in co-operating.

Very short summary of the task:

  • Scope: pages in and articles tagged by WikiProject Autism and WikiProject Disability that are clearly about neurodivergence.
  • Function: perform only very simple, consensus based wording changes, for example
    • “suffers from autism/ADHD/etc” → “has autism/ADHD/etc”
    • “afflicted with autism/ADHD/etc” → “has autism/ADHD/etc”
    • “wheelchair bound” or “wheelchair-bound” → “wheelchair user”
  • Safeguards:
    • Mainspace only, respect and page level opt outs.
    • Skip text inside quotation marks and quote templates.
    • Low edit rate, with logging and a simple kill switch.

I am specifically looking for feedback on:

  1. Whether these replacements look suitable for automatic editing given the narrow scope and safeguards.
  2. Any obvious edge cases or patterns that should be excluded or handled differently from the beginning.
  3. Any additional phrase patterns in this space that are clearly safe for a bot and already have strong consensus replacements.

If anyone is interested in reviewing code, co-operating, or sharing examples of similar wording bots and their BRFAs, that would also be very helpful.

Thanks in advance. Docmoates (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undertaking this important task. An example to consider: “deaf-mute” (or “deaf mute” without the hyphen). In almost all cases this can simply be expressed as “deaf”. Almost no deaf person is literally mute (i.e., unable to speak), and they do not find the term acceptable. Some deaf people choose not to speak for a variety of reasons, including a history of being ridiculed for their speech. But it’s a choice; they are capable of speech. The term “deaf-mute” at one time was seen as more acceptable than the pejorative “deaf and dumb”, but it is no longer considered acceptable by the Deaf community. For more details see Deaf-mute and the talk page. There may some instances when the term “deaf-mute” can remain, such discussing its historical use. In terms of code, I think there would need to be some human decision making for identifying these rare exceptions. Thanks for your consideration. Sundayclose (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems great! I do think there may be issues with some wording for some of these; for example, the sentence “he was a wheelchair-bound person” would be changed to “he was a wheelchair user person”, which doesn’t make sense. Additionally, “they were afflicted with autism” would be changed to “they were has autism”. This is a bit of rare wording, though, and I think that others would work fine. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, @Organhaver. Maybe I can change it to do specific corrected responses. This is my first bot and while I think I have it down, it will be a work in progress. I really do appreciate the support. Docmoates (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version