Requested update to Wikiversity:Interface administrators

Currently, Wikiversity:Interface administrators is a policy that includes a caveat that interface admins are not required long-term and that user right can only be added for a period of up to two weeks. I am proposing that we remove this qualification and allow for indefinite interface admin status. I think this is useful because there are reasons for tweaking the site CSS or JavaScript (e.g. to comply with dark mode), add gadgets (e.g. importing Cat-a-Lot, which I would like to do), or otherwise modifying the site that could plausibly come up on an irregular basis and requiring the overhead of a bureaucrat to add the user rights is inefficient. In particular, I am also going to request this right if the community accepts indefinite interface admins. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

And who will then monitor them to make sure they don't damage the project in any way, or abuse the rights acquired in this way? For large projects, this might not be a problem, but for smaller projects like the English Wikiversity, I'm not sure if there are enough users who would say, something is happening here that shouldn't be happening. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Anyone would be who. This argument applies to any person with any advanced rights here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to allow for longer periods of access than 2 weeks to interface admin and support adjusting the policy to allow for this flexibility. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Koavf I agree that the two-week requirement could be revised, but wouldn’t people just request access for a specific purpose anyway? Instead of granting indefinite access, they should request the specific time frame they need the rights for—until the planned fixes are completed—and then request an extension if more time is required. We could remove the two-week criterion while still keeping the access explicitly temporary. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I just don't see why this wiki needs to be different than all of the others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn’t really much of a need for a permanent one at this point in time PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I quite agree with this proposal, so long as they perform the suggested changes as mentioned here. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I support indefinite interface admin status. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think there is decent consensus for lengthening this, but not necessarily for indefinite permissions, so does anyone object to me revising it to the standard being 120 days instead of two weeks? I'll check back on this thread in three weeks and if there's no objection, I'll make the change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Curators and curators policy

How does it come, that Wikiversity has curators, but Curators policy is still being proposed? How do the curators exists and act if the policy about them havent been approved yet? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks as if it is not just curators. The policy on Bureaucratship is still being proposed as well. See Wikiversity:Bureaucratship. —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 18:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think its just the nature of a small WMF sister project in that there are lots of drafts, gaps, and potential improvements. In this case, these community would need to vote on those proposed Wikiversity staff policies if we think they're ready. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What? I thought you were getting it approved, Juandev... :) I'm Mr. Chris (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think this one is important too and we need to aprove it too @I'm Mr. Chris. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I thinks its ready to made into a policy, it seems to be complete and informative about what the rights does and how to get it. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:AI-generated

After going through the plethora of ChatGPT-generated pages made by Lbeaumont (with many more pages to go), I'd like community input on this proposal to Wikiversity:Artificial intelligence that I think would be benefical for the community:

• Resources generated by AI must be indicated as so through the project box, Template:AI-generated, on either the page or the main resource (if the page is a part of a project).

I do not believe including a small note/reference that a page is AI-generated is sufficient, and I take my thinking from Wikiversity's OR policy for OR work: Within Wikiversity, all original research should be clearly identified as such. I believe resources created from AI should also be clearly indicated as such, especially since we are working on whether or not AI-generated resources should be allowed on the website (discussion is here, for reference). This makes it easier for organizational purposes, and in the event if we ban AI-generated work.

I've left a message on Lee's talk page over a week ago and did not get a response or acknowledgement, so I'd like for the community's input for this inclusion to the policy. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe that existing Wikiversity policies are sufficient. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and usefulness of the content that is published. This policy covers AI-generated content that is: 1) carefully reviewed by the author publishing it, and 2) the source is noted.   Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A small reference for pages that are substantially filled with Chat-GPT entries, like Real Good Religion, Attributing Blame, Fostering Curiosity, are not sufficient IMO and a project box would be the best indicator that a page is AI-generated (especially when there is a mixture of human created content AND AI-generated content, as present in a lot of your pages). This is useful, especially considering the notable issues with AI (including hallucinations and fabrication of details), so viewers and support staff are aware. These small notes left on the pages are not as easily viewable as a project box or banner would be. I really don't see the issue with a clear-label guideline. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: I noticed your reversions here & here. I'd prefer to have a clean conversation regarding this proposition. Please voice your concerns here. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Subjective Awareness, I distinctly recall the effort I went to to write that the old-fashioned way. It is true that ChatGPT assisted me in augmenting the list of words suggested as candidate subjective states. This is a small section of the course, is clearly marked, and makes no factual claim. Marking the entire course as AI-generated is misleading. I would have made these comments when I reverted your edit; however, the revert button does not provide that opportunity.

Regarding the Exploring Existential Concerns course, please note this was adapted from my EmotionalCompetency.com website, which predates the availability of LLMs. The course does include two links, clearly labeled as ChatGPT-generated. Again, marking the entire course as AI-generated is misleading.

On a broader issue, I don't consider your opinions to have established a carefully debated and adopted Wikiversity policy. You went ahead and modified many of my courses over my clearly stated objections. Please let this issue play out more completely before editing my courses further. Thanks.   Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood, and I respect your position. I apologize if my edits were seen as overarching. We could change the project box to "a portion of this resource was generated by AI", or something along those lines. Feel free to revert my changes where you see fit, and I encourage more users to provide their input. EDIT: I've made changes to the template to indicate that a portion of the content has been generated from an LLM. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. The new banner is unduly large and alarming. There is no need for alarm here. The use of AI is not harmful per se. Like any technology, it can be used to help or to harm. I take care to craft prompts carefully, point the LMM to reliable source materials, and to carefully read and verify the generated text before I publish it. This is all in keeping with long-established Wikiversity policy. We don't want to use a  one-drop rule here or cause a satanic panic. We can learn our lessons from history here. I don't see any pedagogical reason for establishing a classification of "AI generated", but if there is a consensus that it is needed, perhaps it can be handled as just another category that learning resources can be assigned to. I would rather focus on identifying any errors in factual claims than on casting pejorative bias toward AI-generated content. An essay on the best practices for using LMM on Wikiveristy would be welcome.   Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The new banner mimics the banner that is available on the English Wikibooks (see b:Template:AI-generated & b:Template:Uses AI), so my revisions aren't unique in this aspect. At this point, I'd welcome other peoples' inputs. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I start making pages?

Is there a notability guideline for Wikiversity? What is the sourcing policy for information? What is the Manual of Style? What kind of educational content qualifies for Wikiversity? All the introduction pages are a bit unclear. VidanaliK (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK: Welcome to Wikiversity! I've left you a welcome message on your talk page. That should help you out. Make sure to especially look at Wikiversity:Introduction. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It says that I can't post more pages because I have apparently exceeded the new page limit. How long does it take before that new page limit expires? VidanaliK (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a restriction for new users so that Wikiversity is not hit with massive spam. As for when this limit will expire, it should be a few days or after a certain number of edits. It's easy to overcome, though I do not have the exact numbers atm. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think I got past the limit. VidanaliK (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Why does it feel like Wikiversity is no longer really active anymore?

I've been looking at recent changes, and both today and yesterday there haven't been many changes that I haven't made; it feels like walking through a ghost town, is this just me or is Wikiversity not really active anymore? VidanaliK (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is fewer people editing these days compared to the past. Many newcomers tend to edit in Wikipedia instead. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s a little slow, but I’m happy to know that Wikiversity is a place that I think should provide value even if the activity of editors fluctuates. If it’s any consolation your edits may be encouraging for some anonymous newcomer to start edits on their own! I think it’s hard to build community when there is such a wide variety of interests and a smaller starting userbase. Also sometimes the getting into a particular topic that already exists can be intimidating because some relics (large portals, school, categories, etc.) have intricate, unique and generally messy levels of organization. IanVG (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Inactivity policy for Curators

I was wondering if there is a specific inactivity polity for curators (semi-admins) as I am pretty sure the global policy does not apply to them as they are not fully sysops. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see an inactivity policy, but if we were to create such a new policy for curators, it should be the same for custodians (administrators). Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste There is currently none, that I could find, for custodians either. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should propose a local inactivity policy for custodians (and by extension, curators), which should be at least one year without any edits and logged actions. However, I don't know which page should it be when the inactivity removal procedure starts. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste In theory, there should be a section added at WV:Candidates for custodianship PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

To be consistent with the global period of 2 years inactivity for en.wv Custodians and Bureaucrats we could add something like this to Wikiversity:Curators:

The maximum time period of inactivity without community review for curators is two years (consistent with the global policy described at Admin activity review which applies for Custodians and Bureaucrats). After that time a custodian will remove the rights.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with Jtneill, there is a policy proposal for Wikiversity:Curators, where it should be logically deployed. The question is if we are ready to aprove the policy. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but we should notify the colloquium about inactive curators, just like a steward would do for inactive custodians and bureaucrats per AAR. What is the minimum timeframe an inactive curator should receive so they can respond they would keep their rights? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Artificial intelligence to become an official policy

New titles for user right nominations

I would like to propose the following retitles should a user be nominated for any of the following user rights:

• Curator: Candidates for Curatorship
• Bureaucrat: Candidates for Bureaucratship

The reason is that many curator (and probably bureaucrat) requests have run solely under Candidates for Custodianship, but that title might sound misleading (especially in regards to the permission a user is requesting). CheckUser and Oversight (suppressor) are not included above since no user was nominated for these sensitive permissions, probably. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

And it's not that when someone at the beginning misplaced the request, no one thought to move it and the others copied it. Even today, it would be possible to simply take it all and move it. Otherwise, for me, the more fundamental problem is that there is no approved policy for curators than where the requests are based. Curators then operate in a certain vacuum and if one of them "breaks out of the chain", the average user doesn't have many transparent tools to deal with it, because there is no policy. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not talking about the curator page (policy proposal). Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Juandev I'll see if I can do an overhaul of Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship, just like I recently did with the Requests for adminship page on English Wikiquote. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Technical Request: Courtesy link..

Template_talk:Information#Background_must_have_color_defined_as_well ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't edit the template directly as it need an sysop/interface admin to do it. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Also if the Template field of - https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/night-mode-unaware-background-color is examined, there is poential for an admin to clear a substantial proportion of these by implmenting a simmilar fix to the indciated templates (and underlying stylesheets). It would be nice to clear things like Project box and others, as many other templates (and thus pages depend on them.) :)

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be best to grant you interface admin rights for a short period of time to make these changes. However, I still have doubts about the suitability of this solution, which may cause other problems and no one has explained to me why dark mode has to be implemented this way @ShakespeareFan00. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I would have reservations about holding such rights, which is why I was trying to do what I could without needing them. However if it is the only way to get the required changes made, I would suggest asking on Wikipedia to find technical editors, willing to undertake the changes needed. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

WikiEducator has closed

Some of you may know of a similar project to Wikiversity, called WikiEducator, championed by Wayne Mackintosh.

It seems their foundation has closed and they are no longer operating.

They had done quite a bit of outreach (e.g., in the Pacific and Africa) to get educators using wiki.

The WikiEducator content is still available in MediaWiki - and potentially could be imported to Wikiversity (CC-BY-SA is the default license).

The closing of WikiEducator arguably makes the nurturing of Wikiversity even more important.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I was never active there. If anyone has an account or is otherwise in contact, we may want to copy relevant information here or even at outreach:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikinews is ending

Apparently mainly due to low editorial activity, low public interest, but also failure to achieve the goals from the proposal for the creation of the project, the Wikinews project is ending after years of discussions (some reading).

And I would be interested to see how Wikiversity is doing in the monitored metrics. We probably have more editors than Wikinews had, but what about consumers and achieving the goals? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikiversity's biggest issue in recent times was the hosting of low-quality, trash content. Thankfully we've done a great job in removing pseudoscience and other embarrassingly trash content (Wikidebates, for example), but the biggest concern moving forward is proper maintenance IMO. I've caught several pseudoscience pages being created within the last few months that could easily have flown under the radar (ex, The Kelemen Dilemma: Causal Collapse and Axiomatic Instability), so I'd urge our custodians/curators to be on the lookout for this type of content. Usually an AI-overview can point this type of content out relatively well.

In terms of visibility, I believe Wikiversity is a high-traffic project. I remember my Mathematical Properties showing up on the first page of Google when searching up "math properties" for the longest time (and is still showing up in the first page 'till this day!). Besides, Wikinews hosted a lot of short-term content (the nature of news articles), while Wikiversity hosts content that can still be useful a decade later (ex, A Reader's Guide to Annotation).

I think we are on a better path than we were a few months ago, and I do want to thank everyone here who has been helping out with maintaining our website! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the group that did that study has since disbanded, so no one is monitoring the other sister projects in the same way. Additionally, Wikinews had some catastrophic server issues due to the maintenance of m:Extension:DynamicPageList which don't apply here. Your questions are still worth addressing, but I just wanted to cut off any concern at the pass about Wikiversity being in the same precarious situation. Wikiversity is definitely the biggest "lagging behind" or "failure" project now that Wikinews is being shuttered, but I don't see any near- or medium-term pathway to closing Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down (Wikipedia Signpost) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Action Required: Update templates/modules for electoral maps (Migrating from P1846 to P14226)

Hello everyone,

This is a notice regarding an ongoing data migration on Wikidata that may affect your election-related templates and Lua modules (such as Module:Itemgroup/list).

The Change:
Currently, many templates pull electoral maps from Wikidata using the property P1846, combined with the qualifier P180: Q19571328.

We are migrating this data (across roughly 4,000 items) to a newly created, dedicated property: P14226.

What You Need To Do:
To ensure your templates and infoboxes do not break or lose their maps, please update your local code to fetch data from P14226 instead of the old P1846 + P180 structure. A list of pages was generated using Wikimedia Global Search.

Deadline:
We are temporarily retaining the old data on P1846 to allow for a smooth transition. However, to complete the data cleanup on Wikidata, the old P1846 statements will be removed after May 1, 2026. Please update your modules and templates before this date to prevent any disruption to your wiki's election articles.

Let us know if you have any questions or need assistance with the query logic. Thank you for your help! ZI Jony using MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I didnt find such properties, so we are probably fine. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 (agreed). Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Enable the abuse filter block action?

In light of Special:AbuseLog/80178 (coupon spam), I would like to propose enabling the block action for the abuse filter. Only custodians will be able to enable and disable that action on an abuse filter, and it is useful to block ongoing vandalism. Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, almost all of the users which create such pages are spambots so this shouldn’t be a problem. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain some more (I am new to abuse filters)? It looks like the attempted edit was prevented? Which abuse filter?

Note on your suggestion, have also reactivated Antispam Filter 12 - see WV:RCA. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I am proposing that we activate the abuse filter block action, which if a user triggers an abuse filter, it would actually block the user in question - the same mechanism that a custodian would use to block users. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, thankyou, that makes sense. And, reviewing the abuse filter 12 log, it would be helpful because it would prevent the need for manual blocking. But I don't see a setting for autoblocking? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it probably adds an autoblock. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Jtneill and PieWriter, given that a little bit more than a week has passed and there is minimal consensus to activate the abuse filter block action, I filed phab:T424053. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Advice needed: A Neurodiversity-inspired Idea/observation

If I want the greatest participation of others to "provide constructive criticism to my idea" or to "shoot down my idea" or "idea".

What I've called it so far is "The Neurodiversity-inspired Idea". At other times I used more sensationalist wording but here on Wikiversity I don't dare do that. I actually woke up with thinking about putting this into my userspace draft: "Personal Observations Made By Meeting Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults".

My ultimate goal is to stop blathering about my "idea" to friend and family without feeling my "methodology" is going into any progressive direction whatsoever. My latest encounter was somewhat constructive though. A friend of a friend who worked with people presenting ideas in attempting to getting grants. I don't want a grant. I just want to figure out how I can express my "idea" in a way so that I can more clearly figure out what flaws it got.

At the same time I tend to overthink. If anyone thinks etherpad might be a good place and considering Wikimedia already got an etherpad at https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/ if anyone feels like they know me better in the future feel free to suggest a "session" on etherpad.

If I don't receive a reply to this in 1 week's time I will begin to explore this "idea" into my userspace unless you replied and refrained me from doing so, of course. Then maybe after "developing it there" I might reference it to you another future time here in the Colloquium, with my "idea" still in my userspace draft. This "idea" is sort of a burden, I'm happy I've made the choice to get rid of it and hopefully move on with my life, unless there is something to this "idea".

My failure is probably evident: I feel I haven't told you anything. Same happened to when I talked to friends and family. In danger of overthinking it further I'll publish this right now. I need to "keep it together" ThinkingScience (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Good on you putting it out there ... and hitting publish :). I'd say go for it (no need to wait), give birth to your idea and share about it here and elsewhere. Let it take shape and see where it might go. In many ways, this is exactly what an open collaborative learning community should be doing. Others might not know well how to respond, so perhaps consider creating some questions to accompany the idea. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for encouraging me in developing the idea.

I have created a "questions" section in the draft which is visible in the table of contents now. My brain was "frozen" today metaphorically speaking in that I felt I had like a "writer's block" so the draft has more "AI/LLM" content than before. I used the LLM for generating questions. The answers are so far human-only.

I've also created a subsection where I could add the prompts that made the LLM generate the questions. That could help people make better prompts perhaps. I've described what it is about inside of it and there are some chaotically written notes.

Draft:The_Neurodiversity-inspired_Idea#Questions_that_might_encourage_the_development_of_this_idea_and_its_methodology

My draft is missing stuff. Any questions that you contribute to my draft will probably help me and if I don't understand the questions I'll probably notify you and also at the same time "feed them" to an LLM and ask in my input like "explain in simple words what this question means, what is it searching for?" etc. while I wait for an answer. If you have any more feedback please give it to me here or on the Draft page, its talk page or my user talk page. Thank you for helping me! ThinkingScience (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Today I woke up with not only thinking about supplying questions along with the "idea" but also answers. ie. Is it possible to "test" this idea? Is it possible to create one or multiple hypotheses based on this "idea"?(etc.) I've thought about this before in this "idea" but since I'm beginning to add to Wikiversity what was previously 'locked in my mind' it's also easier for me to see what I've done so far. Thank you for this comment! ThinkingScience (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

May I think that you should not add deadlines ; being read, and rising interest for collaboration, or even simply for exchange of thoughts, such an effective meeting event loads a huge bunch of unprobability, which time can help to… somehow diminish. Maybe, I would advice you having a central place for developping your ideas, your needs, your advances, maybe a page in your own user zone, and from time to time, depending your feeling, it could be every trimester or so, or more frequently, you could write a short account of progress (or even of no progress), or a call for participation, in such a place as this present one ; I think that will increase much exposure of your projet. Maybe also, if you can find a project name, not necessarily very meaningfull by itseilf (at least it will gain signification with time, as your project develops), that will serve as a kind-of hook, and make your announcement titles more visible. Best regards (and my excuses for my poor command of English, which seems to be unplease an anti-abuse filter, "Questionable Language (profanity)", which I don't understand…). My few cents. -- Eric.LEWIN (discussion • contributions) 10:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the false positive on the profanity filter - I've fixed it. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

"May I think that you should not add deadlines ; being read, and rising interest for collaboration, or even simply for exchange of thoughts, such an effective meeting event loads a huge bunch of unprobability, which time can help to… somehow diminish."

Thank you Eric for this comment. Trust in time is how I interpret it. I should not feel like I need to be in a hurry. I'll try to give this time. Thank you!

"Maybe, I would advice you having a central place for developping your ideas, your needs, your advances, maybe a page in your own user zone, and from time to time, depending your feeling, it could be every trimester or so, or more frequently, you could write a short account of progress (or even of no progress), or a call for participation, in such a place as this present one ; I think that will increase much exposure of your projet."

A central place for developing or making "project notes" regarding the Neurodiversity idea on my userspace, I might need that, like a diary or "project notes" of the Neurodiversity idea similar to my course notes regarding my experience with Coursera.

Any actions I take are going to be related to my Userspace from now on but I'll also update the draft when necessary. Now in the beginning I might be working daily to once every 3 days on both the draft and the daily notes I plan to make.

"Maybe also, if you can find a project name, not necessarily very meaningfull by itseilf (at least it will gain signification with time, as your project develops), that will serve as a kind-of hook, and make your announcement titles more visible."

Thank you for the advice. I was brainstorming yesterday about it. I concluded that since I've not yet developed a methodology that adheres to "Do no harm" and this is my first time working my "idea" into a way that is compatible with how projects develop on English Wikiversity this is new to me. My methodology isn't developed and therefore trying to get attention to my project through a name can wait. Yesterday I figured out a silly title that has nothing to do with the project: "Planetary Awareness Potato Cabbage Rolls" or something like that. Google output read that no such thing exists so I wanted it mainly to be unique. I don't want to raise attention that I'm unsure whether I'll actually be capable of developing a methodology for but project notes is my best bet so far in tracking my progress. Every day I think about this "idea" but I need to improve the important parts.

"Best regards (and my excuses for my poor command of English, which seems to be unplease an anti-abuse filter, "Questionable Language (profanity)", which I don't understand…). My few cents."

You added great points and I felt that I was helped by you! I encourage you to post again and I can understand that interacting with any kind of automated filter can be discouraging and can be for me too! Thank you for giving me feedback! ThinkingScience (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Add some user rights to the curator user group?

By default, only custodians have the ability to mark new pages as patrolled (patrol) and have their own page creations automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). I am proposing both of the following:

• Curators can mark new pages as patrolled, helping on reducing the backlog of new, unpatrolled pages.
• New pages made by curators will be automatically marked as patrolled by the MediaWiki software.

Before we implement this, I would suggest implementing a proposed guideline for marking new pages as patrolled for curators and custodians.

Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree, also can we also allow curators to undelete pages since they already have the rights to delete them? PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the requirement that undelete NOT be included came from above (meta / stewards / central office). Having access to the undelete page gives access to information that is restricted by their policies to admins (custodians and bureaucrats). -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

PieWriter, unless if requests for curator and custodian should be RfA-like processes (that is, including voting and comments), then I have to agree with Dave above. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t realise that. Withdrawing my comment.. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Support Seems reasonable and would reduce overhead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree, implement it also to Wikiversity:Curators proposal please. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Curators to become a policy

I've looked at the discussions about the Curators policy, I've looked at the practices, and it seems to me that there is no dispute about the wording of the policy, and what's more, the community has been using this proposal as if it were an offical policy for several years. Therefore, I propose that Wikiversity:Curators become a policy. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Support —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Inactive curators

Hello, even though Wikiversity:Curators is not a policy yet, there are curators listed here that have been inactive for two years or more:

• Cody naccarato (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) (last edit on 13 Dec 2022, last logged action on 10 Dec 2022)
• Praxidicae (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) (last edit on 10 Sep 2022, last logged action on 12 Sep 2022)

Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in Neurodiversity?

Is anyone interested in Neurodiversity? Is there anyone here who is interested for Neurodiversity to be "something more" than it already is? Does anyone here consider Neurodiversity one of the "harder topics" to work on or discuss? Does anyone here have an opinion about the Neurodiversity Movement? So these questions don't appear like "out of a vacuum" I can tell you a bit about my background:

Many years ago I got a psychiatric diagnosis "Asperger's". After I stepped out of the office and my Äsperger's was 'concluded', I stepped out into the street and thought my first negative thought(but the positive thought followed after). The thought was about concentration camps in the second world war and that the world seemed to be going into the direction of "labeling others". I was unsure whether this was "real science" and sort of "challenged myself" to make up my own mind after meeting people that had been given this diagnosis. The more adults with this diagnosis I met the more I started seeing "patterns".

Was it a coincidence that the first person with Asperger's I met reminded me about my father later after I had plenty of times of experience with interacting with him? None of the people I interacted with online through IRC text chat...I felt I got any clue about how "their brains work". Only when I met one person from the Asperger's chat community in person we both realized that whatever we experienced was akin to the "chaos theory". He told me about "chaos theory" while I didn't know even what that term meant but I guess I 'read between the lines'. My question that I linger on still today is "did he understand about me what I think I understood about him?"? That our brains had the same configuration? Most autistic adults who meet other autistic adults usually get disappointed. They think the diagnosis will help them meet somebody like themselves and then they realize the great diversity in the autistic spectrum created by Psychiatry.

I later stopped interacting with autistic communities that much, I felt that it did not benefit me. Also Neurodiversity's "neurotypes" interested me for a while until I realized I had "misunderstood everything" about them and how they are used in the Neurodiversity Movement or "Neurodiversity community" if that even can precisely be defined? I doubt it but if you want to contribute to the Neurodiversity Movement. My previous attempts failed as I got more and more confused. I think a community project needs a community. With a lack of that I don't think it is worth my time. If any of you would like to work on that project let me know on my talk page.

So I was kinda lost and was talking to my friend and psychologist and I realized if I never talk about my idea to anyone in a "comprehensive way" or show that it matters to me nothing is going to ever happen. So I started talking about my "idea" more. Nobody could understand the "idea" because I had not developed my skills regarding where to start...although the process had already started "automatically" and that's why I often think of "well my brain sort of activated me". I don't feel like I did have a plan and this idea happened. It happened "by itself". My brain reacted to what I was seeing in a video or stream.

I value interaction highly in this idea. I think it would be helpful to make a community of people who are not paranoid about stuff that can express itself like "don't analyze me!", "don't compare me to anyone!".

On the contrary, more often than not those adults who were diagnosed were actually openly comparing themselves with each other and I think that is healthy in a "science" way if done the "right way" which probably means "Do no harm".

I found video material is important but I'm very unsure if uploading own video material to Wikimedia Commons would constitute a "reasonable" use of the resources there. Maybe somebody here needs to ask more questions to me that I should answer before that happens. I also know the be bold so I could just do what I think might be ok. Though I work better in a group as long as I know what "group configurations" help me. This is in a non-profit way. Since the state supported me this might be a way I am trying to "give back" to the state and "the world". May seem overly ambitious and crazy but this thing gives me energy. It gives me hope when trying to develop this idea. ThinkingScience (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)