Just noting for the sake of my fellow contributors that I plan to use this slot for the upcoming issue. I'll draft something up offline and post it here if I get it ready in time. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added the NYT article summary. This is my first attempt at writing in this column, so please review my work and give me feedback, if needed. I will get to the SF Chronicle article. I wish I had a gift link for that one. Is there any signpost policy around using gift links? For example, in the summary I just wrote, I swapped the NYT link with a gift article link. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a policy against gift links; however, NYT gift links only last for 30 days, so ... not a panacea. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined not to take up more matters related to the union signature/NLRB issue for In the media, lest the column become a turn-by-turn accounting of a specific workplace unionization effort, which I don't think is really what we want. And the coverage increasingly lays bare which outcome they prefer (e.g. today's 404 Media story). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing on in-depth interviews with 19 Jewish veteran editors of the English Wikipedia, this study outlines a four-phase model of editorial engagement: idealistic entry, emergent friction, emotional erosion, and adaptive coping or emerging silences.
— Lir, 2026
I found the JNS article link on the "In the media" draft page, but I think a academic analysis of this is warranted.
The link to the paper is here. I don't really understand what you mean by "I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided."
There is something that has to be said about the academic article. It is absolutely one-sided, in the sense that no Palestinian or Arab editors are interviewed. It might even be implied by the paper (or just inferred by this reader) that the author thinks the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim side is not worth considering. Stating this outright, the idea might be "How could Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims know anything about anti-Semitism?" Actually, I'd think they would know a lot about discrimination, hate, and even genocide. It could be essentially the same story, just with the ethnic/religious labels switched. In short, if we're not careful we could be stepping in some deep shit here. Let User:HaeB decide, maybe with the help of User:Bri and User:Piotrus and others. Smallbones(smalltalk)14:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
About "deferring judgement should be avoided": I think the op meant that the deprecated sources list should not be applied in this case. If followed blindly, it could lead to a sort of trapdoor where any critique of the community's decision-making process would be off limits to consider in order to re-evaluate the community's decision-making process. I'm not sure I follow it to that conclusion, but I do appreciate the thought that we should be extra receptive to criticism in our internal discussions, especially when coming from an academic source. To put it bluntly, I don't think WP:RSPS was ever intended to be prescriptive in terms of winnowing what we choose to present in the Recent research column. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been active in the modern Isreali politics, and I am trying my best to avoid historical too. I fully agree with the 4-step trajectory described, but if the article tries to argue it affects only Isreali editors, it's obviously is quite biased (and frankly that pattern can be generalized to most contentious topics). So in essence the research is finding that "some editors burned out after editing a contentious area for some time". Riiiight. News. Let's move on to the next paper about "Wikipedia articles about US politics can be edited by anyone", "Fooian propaganda actors are trying to edit Wikipedia" or "Zooian companies are spamming Wikipedia". Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here19:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article and related study appears interesting:
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
@Smallbones, @Bri: I just wanted to check in to wee what will be happening with this piece. It looks like it has a lot of content, but hasn't been edited in ~2 weeks. Is there anything else that needs to be done with it? Mitchsavl (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's only 1 day left to make any changes, and I haven't heard anything from @JPxG: as far as suggestions for changes or even a response from him to my question Did you even read the article I submitted before you rejected it? The article I submitted still stands on its own, and I submitted it so it can be published as is, with a few minor changes from me. Without an answer to my question, I don't think that any extensive changes (beyond simple copyediting) should be made. He hasn't addressed the fundamental issue that there are problems that we can deal with in his performance as E-i-C.
What I might be able to change in 1 day. First, to @Jayen466:'s assertion that the 1st quote in the green box was about Nupedia, not Wikipedia. I can just add the full title of Sanger's The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir. The whole article is about both Wikipedia and Nupedia. It may take awhile to go thru the whole 14,000+ word original, but Sanger did everybody a favor by condensing it to 2,800 words on-Wiki as User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia. It doesn't give the same quote but discusses the same topics and refers to Wikipedia about 10 times more than to Nupedia. So that's a very simple change to make. So is the piccy. @HaeB: quickly suggested another link to a Signpost article. It's quite relevant and I can include it. What I can't do is just include all of the 70 or so Signpost articles that I didn't include earlier. The article would then be about 4,000 words.
I could add an intro that previews the results of the investigation, and a conclusion that reviews them, but I wanted to exclude anything that would reflect my own opinions. But I can do it if folks really want that.
Along that same line I found something that @Bri: might be interested in. See the bottom section added in 2009 to Sanger's blog. It's very funny (but not ha-ha funny). I think he realized that his claim to being co-founder was utterly destroyed by the quote (according to the usual definition of founder used for businesses and other organizations), so he gives his own personal definition for the word. The funniest part is is the example he gives, saying that France could be described as the founder of the United States according to the business definition because it donated money to to the cause. And then he states a definition for social movements, etc. that gives credit to Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. That's not needed in order to call the signers of the Declaration or the Constitution "founders", I think it would be impossible to name the founder(s) of a social movement (other than of an organization related to a movement). It's just a bizarre definition.
There is a huge, effectively infinite, amount of information that could be added to the article, but it needs to stay at a reasonable length. Just tell me what you want and I'll see if I can do it. Smallbones(smalltalk)15:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He should just use the USN term "plankowner", and nobody would bat an eye. I also find his attempt to separate the usage of the English word "founder" into two flavors baffling. In my mind, the founder of a company is someone in a position of authority, not just original company employees. See History of Apple Inc. for a good example – the original business partners are listed as the founders. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where you say, Any inconsistency between being "merely a grateful employee" and being a "co-founder" — a word he used twice in the Memoirs — was not mentioned by Sanger, you would have to mention –
that Larry was indeed called a co-founder in early press releases and articles like the New York Times piece I mentioned ("I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. (He also works as the editor in chief of another online encyclopedia, Nupedia, which relies on a more traditional system of peer-review editing to assemble its contents.)), and
I fear you (and The Signpost as a whole) would be roasted if you skipped over that. There is a reason why the Wikipedia articles on the early days of Wikipedia use the co-founder term for both Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. We can't rewrite that history. AndreasJN46619:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
