Wikipedia talk:Autistic editors

ASD Strengths and why it correlates to wikipedia editing

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)

Simple neurodiversity wording bot (seeking early feedback and co-operators)

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)

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)

Thank you so much @Sundayclose for letting me know. I will work this in to the coding as well! Docmoates (talk) 23:35, 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. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

Dealing with it on Wikipedia

On the “For people with autism”, should we mention that every person with autism is different than you and be aware of that? WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that's already stated directly or implied throughout the essay. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

What I meant to say is knowing that other people have autism is still relevant to people with autism as well as well as those without on the section Dealing with it with the autism? WikiGrower1 (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

If every person with autism is different, then a person with autism could still easily misunderstand another person with autism WikiGrower1 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)