Are we embarrassed yet?

Opinion

Are we embarrassed yet?

Background

The Signpost and others have previously reported on the Trump administration's attempts to hurt the Wikipedia project.^[a] In particular, Ed Martin, of the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group, has vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse.^[1] A year has passed since he instigated his shame campaign, but what has he actually done to bring shame on the biggest project for free information in human history?

Freedom of Information

Unfortunately, The Signpost does not have the answer for you right now, but this draft Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request may soon illuminate matters. The author (User:Czarking0) plans to personally submit the request via MuckRock after hearing feedback from the community. Names and addresses have been redacted.

Draft

FOIA Request — DOJ Office of Information Policy Weaponization Working Group / Wikimedia Foundation

Dear FOIA Officer: I hereby request access to and copies of the records described below.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2025, then-Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward R. Martin Jr. sent a letter to then Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander, which alleged that Wikipedia "allows foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda" and requested documents concerning the Foundation's compliance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This request was submitted on DOJ letterhead and under the auspices of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi established the Weaponization Working Group ("WWG") within the Office of the Attorney General, pursuant to her memorandum titled "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice." The WWG is tasked with reviewing the activities of all departments and agencies and has drawn upon resources across the Department, including the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and other personnel. Mr. Martin subsequently became the director of the Weaponization Working Group. This request seeks to determine whether the WWG has independently taken up, reviewed, referred, continued, or expanded any inquiry, investigation, or action concerning the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia. The Signpost has previously published investigative reporting on the Martin letter, the House Oversight Committee inquiry of August 2025, and the Senate Commerce Committee inquiry of October 2025. This request is made in direct furtherance of that ongoing coverage.

II. RECORDS REQUESTED I request all records created, received, transmitted, or maintained from October 1, 2025 to December 1, 2025 held by the Weaponization Working Group which include any communications between Mr. Martin and other WWG staff discussing:

The Wikimedia Foundation, including any memoranda, or meeting notes referencing the Wikimedia Foundation, its officers, its tax-exempt status, or its editorial or operational practices.
Wikipedia, including any memoranda, or meeting notes referencing Wikipedia's editorial policies, content, bias, reliability, alleged foreign influence operations, or editor identity.

III. FORMAT OF REQUESTED RECORDS Please provide responsive records in electronic format (PDF or native format) where available.

IV. FEE Category I request a full fee waiver on these grounds: Disclosure of whether and how the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group has exercised (or declined to exercise) investigative authority over the Wikimedia Foundation contributes significantly to public understanding of government operations. The WWG is a novel executive entity whose activities have been almost entirely opaque since its creation. Records showing how and if its leaders have targeted a major nonprofit directly illuminate how federal power is being exercised toward civil society organizations. The April 2025 letter from then-Acting U.S. Attorney Martin that explicitly threatened the Foundation's tax-exempt status and promised to use the office to "embarrass" the Foundation regardless of legal findings is of special public interest. This request is made solely for journalistic purposes. Neither I nor The Signpost has any commercial interest in the Wikimedia Foundation, any financial relationship with any party involved in the matters described, or any interest in the outcome of any investigation beyond accurate public reporting.

In the alternative, if a fee waiver is not granted, I request that this be processed under the news media requester fee category. I have previously been credited as an author in The Signpost, a newspaper that has covered Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the broader free knowledge movement continuously since December 2005. The Signpost satisfies each element of the regulatory definition of a news organization. The Signpost actively gathers, investigates, and reports on matters of public concern relating to one of the world's most widely used reference sources. This request is made in connection with active investigative reporting on the exercise of federal government authority over the Wikimedia Foundation and its volunteer editor community which is a subject of documented public interest that The Signpost has previously reported on at length. The Signpost volunteers publish original journalism. Records obtained through this request will be analyzed, contextualized, and incorporated into original reporting. They will be submitted to The Signpost for editorial review. The Signpost is published on the Wikipedia platform and is freely accessible to the public worldwide. It is among the most widely read publications directly focused on the Wikipedia community, with a documented readership and a public archive of reporting spanning two decades. The Signpost has published a draft of this request which has drawn support from the readership and the publication plans to publish additional articles on the topic herein. The Signpost operates with full editorial independence from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not paid, directed, or editorially supervised by the Wikimedia Foundation or any affiliated entity. Its coverage regularly includes critical reporting on the Wikimedia Foundation, its leadership, and its institutional relationships — including the congressional inquiries that are the subject of this request. Courts and FOIA reviewing bodies have consistently held that news media status does not require large circulation, mainstream institutional affiliation, or commercial operation. The Signpost's two-decade publication history, independent editorial structure, and demonstrated record of original investigative journalism place it squarely within this category.

V. EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUEST I also request expedited processing on the grounds that there is a compelling need for the records. The subject matter is of current public and journalistic significance. There is a risk that delayed disclosure could affect ongoing public discourse, editorial decision-making at Wikipedia, and chilling effects on the anonymous contributions of Wikipedia editors. I certify that my need for expedited processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Please send all correspondence and responsive records to REDACTED

If you have questions about the scope of this request or require clarification before proceeding, please contact me at the above information before making any adverse determination. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Footnotes

^ According to The New York Times, the administration official described here has said in his official capacity that he "plans to use his authority to expose and discredit those he believes to be guilty, even if he cannot find sufficient evidence to prosecute them".^[1] We believe that discrediting Wikipedia as an information source would hurt its fundamental mission to freely provide knowledge to humankind. Multiple sources add further detail to this threat.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Sources

^ ^a ^b Thrush, Glenn; Feuer, Alan (21 May 2025). "If Justice Dept. Can't Prosecute Trump's Foes, It Will 'Shame' Them, Official Says". The New York Times.
^ Signpost piece on Ed Martin, May 1, 2025
^ Signpost piece on congressional probe, September 9, 2025
^ Ropek, Lucas (28 August 2025). "MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs". Gizmodo.
^ Cervantes, Fernando (August 27, 2025). "Republicans in Congress open probe into Wikipedia for alleged bias". USA TODAY.

← Previous "Opinion"

In this issue

24 August 2026 (all comments)

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

For transparency, this piece saw extensive discussion in the Signpost's newsroom before it was published. While I am personally less concerned than some others about the Signpost's name being used in such a FOIA request to the USG, I am very puzzled by the author's insistence to publish a Signpost piece about it before anything has happened yet. I hope he will devote at least as much energy to the actual journalistic work of going through with this planned project and reporting about the results. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Where did the signpost connection land? Is this a request formally associated with the Signpost? Its name is mentioned 17 times on this page above the refs. FWIW I left a few suggestions here last month. Looks like one of the dates were updated since then and Cruz was removed, but there are still a few things in there I'd suggest changing, especially that this doesn't go back far enough (a span of three months that takes place several months after the letter and the start of Martin's affiliation with the WWG). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The request states of the submitter (real-world name redacted) I have previously been credited as an author in The Signpost and sets out the bona fides of The Signpost, in which recitation the word "Signpost" occurs multiple times. But it does not claim to be made on behalf of anyone or any entity other than the submitter himself/herself/themself. One could infer that the submitter could plan to incorporate this information received in the FOIA into some reporting at The Signpost or elsewhere. But I did not see that statement explicitly. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

"Records obtained through this request will be analyzed, contextualized, and incorporated into original reporting. They will be submitted to The Signpost for editorial review" Is the closest I come to saying that. Czarking0 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

OK, there it is, I missed it. And there is the important distinction submitted for review versus requested or directed in any way. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Rhodoendrites. It looks like I am going alone on this one. That is way the request is narrower than you suggest. I agree with your suggestions but I am not confident, at this time, in my capacity to handle more than what I requested in this draft. Czarking0 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Handle in the sense of going through the documents? As Andreas said, there would likely be broader interest in this story. I can think of a couple journalists that would probably be interested off the top of my head, and I'd be surprised if there weren't at least couple Signpost writers who'd want to help dig through it. I'd certainly be interested to look. I'd encourage you to ask for the full scope of relevant communications, even if you only plan to look through a smaller part of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Insistance is a very poor/ bordering on dishonest way to characterize my statement which you are obivously aware of as you responded to it. You should retract this comment.

If there is anything interesting in the response you get, Czarking0, I actually think and hope that you might get weightier publications than the humble Signpost interested in your story. But until the FOIA request has been submitted and responded to there isn't really a story. Regards, Andreas JN466 1:28 am, 17 August 2026, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−6) I somewhat agree but @Bluerasberry: asked me to submit is here first and I trust his judgement. Czarking0 (talk)

Czarking0 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

It does seem unfair to criticize czarking for "insistence" as though czarking is someone with power at the signpost. A signpost editor explicitly invited this piece, then other signpost editors made the decision that it was worth publishing. If it shouldn't have been published, it's not on the author. FWIW announcement of an intended FOIA request doesn't seem like a necessary step to me, either, though I'm glad someone is doing this. I'd like to see more of it, actually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

There has been a lot written about this on the newsroom talk page, but the main point is still missing. We should encourage User:Czarking0 to to keep on writing articles for The Signpost. There were many mistakes IMHO but he got one thing right. He found the biggest story about Wikipedia over the last 2 years (along with AI and its intersection with this story - Elon Musk and Grokipedia): the US federal government took on Wikipedia and apparently got nothing out of it, just a meaningless letter from the DOJ that complained about us being influenced by non-US citizens, and therefore somehow violating our non-profit tax status, as well as 2 congressional investigations that never actually got to the hearing stage. Czarking0 took this story head on and started writing about it. That's the most important step in writing a good newspaper article! I went to review the article before publication and thought I was going to agree with User:Jayen466 that it shouldn't be published. Well, all the discussion seemed to have had an effect - the rewrites made it a much better article (Thanks Pine and Bri). Still a few rough edges though (e.g. timing -write about this after you get some answers). But the most important things he got - find the most important story that hasn't been fully explained, write it and be prepared to defend it from its critics. I predict that Czarking0 will be an excellent Signpost writer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I sense a lot of confusion here.

He found the biggest story about Wikipedia over the last 2 years - what?! I agree that the Ed Martin episode was kind of important, but of course it was not Czarking0 who "found" it. To his credit, this opinion article acknowledges that right at the beginning, by mentioning that the Signpost had already covered these things repeatedly last year, including by re-reporting (in June 2025) the NYT's observation that Martin's tenure had ended without him following through on his threat to get WMF's tax-free status revoked (which honestly not many experts had taken seriously anyway).

Czarking0 took this story head on and started writing about it. That's the most important step in writing a good newspaper article! - no, the most important step in writing a good newspaper article is having something newsworthy to write about, which is absolutely not the case here, as this article acknowledges itself: Unfortunately, The Signpost does not have the answer for you right now. To be sure, if Czarking0 actually, finally goes through with filing that FOIA request, that might indeed result in something newsworthy and I'll be the first to applaud that. But that's different from writing an opinion article whose information value is basically just "FYI, I'm planning to submit this FOIA request" (and causing lots of the Signpost team's capacity to be wasted with his aggressive pushing through of this vacuous piece, going as far as trying to prohibit anyone from comment[ing] on any draft pieces or edit any articles I have contributed to unless they meet the conditions he sets).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@HaeB: I suppose people can disagree about what's the most important story about Wikipedia over the last 2 years, but you gotta admit that the US Federal government effectively declaring that they are going to take down the WMF and the encyclopedia has to be up there. What, in your opinion, was the most important story?

He found the biggest story about Wikipedia over the last 2 years Yes, this was much more important than say the Indian government getting mad at Wikipedia over several incidents or the child protection movement. It does overlap with AI, Grokipedia, and Musk (you remember the guy with the chainsaw, who became effectively the 2nd most important guy in the government for 9 months and is also the richest person in the world). So the Feds and Musk (via Martin and both houses of Congress) were "putting pressure" on Wikipedia, threatening its tax status and propagandizing against Wikipedia's credibility. Just like they "put pressure" on universities, legal firms, the media in general and especially public media, various charities, businesses and organizations that support DEI, and humanitarian and art organizations among others. The difference between these groups and Wikipedia is that the government's efforts just bounced off. They just gave up. When did "just gave up" happen? HaeB seems to argue that this is a non-event, since ultimately nothing happened similar to the serious damages to the groups mentioned above. HaeB and I obviously disagree on what is newsworthy. The gov't did not prevail - that is certainly newsworthy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

the conditions he sets Ultimately I think the drivel HaeB chooses to attack me with will have little to no influence. For transparency the sole condition I set for collaborating with me is that collaborators read the sources I cite. Czarking0 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Thank you, I sympathize with those that disagree with you. More importantly, you are the inspiration that made me want to start writing on The Signpost Czarking0 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Do not count on a quick response. About eight years ago I submitted an FOIA request for any records from the 1970s that the FBI held on me. I had to wait five years to receive them (the Covid lockdown was part of the reason for the delay, but I had already been waiting a couple of years when that hit). - Donald Albury 15:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About