@Soni: Please revert anything I've done today in this article, including the piccy, where I have a COI. I'll note with special emphasis: don't apologize. Your writing is fine. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a copyeditor here, and will prefer to not be. So I'll let someone else handle this if they need to.
I just would like some sort of note explaining "Hey this is a new section we are trying out. We will try to bring news from enwiki from last few months that will be missed in the weeds, but ultimately important enough. We may continue this if people like knowing about discussions." With that being the central meaning in mind, I would like a declaration in "recent discussions" phrased however you'd like. Soni (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @Soni:, I see my confusion. I don't think that a regular page on discussions is anything new (maybe it was just getting old - just too far back), as was Arb report (just. not common enough). Combining them occasionally should work fine IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk)14:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I agree with the concerns raised by JPxG in this discussion that we've still got too little information, except for this article, about the reported request of block of Wikipedia in India, so it's very difficult to say what's going on at the moment.
I suggest we should move that blurb elsewhere, more specifically over at ITM, which is running pretty thin in lead stories, and maybe add some more context. Oltrepier (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to our content guidance, News and notes is "broad coverage of going-ons within the Wikimedia movement.. cover[ing] all major internal news". So I think a block for one of our top readership populations (and a lot of contributing editors) does qualify for NaN. That said, I dont mind a short item at NaN with more expanded discussion of the media angle at In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It fits both places, but news is scant on both sides also. Wikipedia community members are hesitant to publish personal opinions because they do not want to gain media attention which could over-emphasize their personal comments, and there is no wiki organization in India that broadly speaks for the country. On the media side, the news is lacking, and although multiple sources exist I think they are all copying some original source because they have the same very shallow information. As this is an ongoing legal issue the WMF is not commenting either. Bluerasberry (talk)17:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia community members are hesitant to publish personal opinions because they do not want to gain media attention which could over-emphasize their personal comments, and there is no wiki organization in India that broadly speaks for the country. I can get anonymous (perhaps non anonymous) opinions from individual editors from India on recent news. Just need someone (ideally not User:Bluerasberry) to coordinate with me on questions we're asking. Soni (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for corroboration of the Cyber police request to block, and haven't found any. Maybe this should be booted from News and notes, and just treated as something spurious at In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This month's section seems to be very large, and probably should be split off into two or even three pages. I suggest "News from Enwiki" and "News from the movement" as broad categories. But someone else can suggest better. This is kind of bound to happen any issue where I'm writing, or any editions where we're summarising WMF newsletters. So, a general "how we do this" could be nice. Soni (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I wanted to note that one of the 11 conference grants from last year, Wikiconference India 2025 had its grant cancelled. This is relevant to the CIS news story by User:Bluerasberry etc, but I shall not be writing for the story due to COI. I can give others information or pointers about the same. Soni (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni I've gone ahead and added a short note about WikiConference India in the CIS story.
To be honest, the section doesn't look outrageously large to me at the moment, but yours might be a good idea if we realize there's too much meat left on the grill, so to speak. Actually, I almost prevented myself from adding a note about WLM 2024 winners, because there's already so much going on... Oltrepier (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier It looks roughly double the size of usual N&N to me already. And I haven't started my 2-3 paragraphs on 2 WMF newsletters, as I usually do. And like you said, there's often more shorter notes we like adding, like WLM 24 winners.
As for the wording you added, I'll note the WCI25's grant was basically affected for the same reason as the CIS license (that the story above already covers). The current wording currently implies a different set of regulations coming in play. Soni (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know @JPxG and the others would be OK with splitting N&N up in two different sections for this issue, but I guess a good compromise would be moving the stories about Tinucherian's removal from ArbCom and other recent discussions to "Discussion report", which should be an equally fitting column. Does it sound good to you and @Smallbones?
We could also save the story about WLM 2024 for next issue, if @Bluerasberry is still fine about it. It would actually help us to elaborate on the contest a bit more.
I'm good with that (Discussion report). I personally do not care what subheadings we call them under, I just have a strong preference for a N&N that does not go too long. The CIS report feels less like News and Notes and more like a detailed report anyway, so that's another strong option to spin off. Soni (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a newsroom suggestion earlier this year about AI-summarising recent discussions and WP:RFCs that happen across enwiki. As I despise the use of gen-AI, I shall not be attempting that. Instead, here's a hand-curated section summarising WP:CENT discussions from this year. If we choose to continue this section, it could be a "local news" segment of N&N, where we cover important enough RFCs that have happened over the last few months.
I don't know if any other place curates something like this, I don't follow the dozens of newsletters that currently exist. Keeping the scope to relatively successful CENT notices restricts us to more globally relevant RFCs, and would skip a bunch of snow rejected ones. Both of these are desirable for me
It's not just that you are generally heavily involved as a volunteer in the organization that your Signpost article praises in glowing terms (e.g. as one of few examples [of] truly global collaboration in the Wikimedia Movement). It also appears that you were specifically working on the hiring yourself that is at the center of your news piece, and were one of the proposal managers for the grant that funds these hires (presumably - your Signpost article is mum on finances).
This is especially disappointing since you have long been very active in calling for scrutiny and accountability regarding other professional organizations in the Wikimedia movement, and love to represent yourself as Signpost journalist when reporting about these (recent example). It seems that this principled stance goes out of the window as soon as it's about an organization you are yourself involved in. I also can't help recalling how the need to formalize the Signpost's COI policy arose just a few years from concerns about a story authored by someone from the same organization (not you, but IIRC someone you had encouraged or invited to contribute).
@HaeB: Perhaps I have a conflict of interest. I would appreciate you or anyone else having a conversation about that with me. I am ready to comply with whatever there is consensus to do.
I do not believe that I have what would be called a conflict of interest of the sort that a United States company or institution would expect me to report. I am not being paid or managing a budget, and that grant is not mine.
I do not think that I have a conflict of interest in the wiki community sense, but wiki community opinions vary.
I am not paid from that grant. I am heavily involved in wiki community organizing in many directions, including and especially LGBT+ issues, and in Wikimedia LGBT+. I am not on the board of that or any other Wikimedia organization, nor have I ever been an officer on a Wikimedia community board. Part of how I address problems of conflict of interest is not taking WMF money, and not being on boards. I am sometimes on grants as non-funded investigator. I do go to many public wiki community governance meetings in many contexts - probably 2+/week for 10+years?
My biggest conflict of interest is being a Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia, because that is my salaried job. I feel that this is known.
Yes, the grant you mentioned is the source of funds for the staff. I am listed as "proposal manager", but "advisor" is the more conventional term. I do not get money, I am not responsible for any grant reporting, and I have no promised commitment related to that grant.
I would comply with any policy or do any kind of disclosure necessary, but I feel like I already do sufficient disclosure. I submitted another piece - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report - the grant is somewhere on meta. I am not associated with that grant, but I interviewed everyone and produced the videos, so the conference report is my idea, and I did not clear the piece with anyone on the grant or conference organizing committee. I also write India news in the context of some India related wiki grants which again, I do not receive or manage, but I comment on these and do collabs with people in India and Bangladesh. I have been involved in Wikimedia India affairs and grants as long as I have been for LGBT+. With the LGBT+ report, I wrote that, and did not consult with the organization about it, because it is my own voice and not that of the organization. They did not know that I am running that story, and although it is positive, I am sure that it is not the way the organization or those staff would present themselves.
The only wiki organization on which I ask for scrutiny in the Wikimedia Movement is the Wikimedia Foundation, because they go through US$200,000,000 million a year. Wiki LGBT+ has a US$131,000 grant. That is not important now because this convo is about me, but to explain myself, I think having control of money is the primary indication of conflict of interest, and that scale matters. I am open to receiving instructions or criticism, and I certainly make mistakes, and also circumstances change, but I am not immediately seeing the conflict in my activity here. Bluerasberry (talk)00:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather tone-deaf response.
that grant is not mine. - the Wikimedia Regional Grants Committee who reviewed and approved the grant evidently saw that differently (my bolding):
[N.N.], BlueRasberry, and [N.N.]: Congratulations! Your grant is approved in the amount of 131,000 USD with a grant term starting 1 July 2024 and ending 30 June 2025. [...] can you update us on your search / hiring progress? [...] We look forward to learning about your project outcomes.[1]
(In the final grant report about those project outcomes, are we going to see something like "positive coverage in the Signpost"?)
I am listed as "proposal manager", but "advisor" is the more conventional term. - again that is inconsistent with the fact that the Wikimedia Regional Grants Committee repeatedly addressed you as one of the owners of that grant proposal, e.g.:
Hello @Bluerasberry and [N.N.], Thank you for this thoughtful proposal.[2]
I am not being paid or managing a budget / I am not paid from that grant / I do not get money etc.: Nobody had claimed that; I had already noted that yes, you are involved in this as a volunteer, so these wordy clarifications are besides the point. But in any case, I hope you are not seriously suggesting that it can only be a COI if money changes hands? By that logic, there also wouldn't be a problem if a Wikipedia editor who has been sanctioned in an ArbCom case writes the Signpost's Arbitration report about that case.
I am not on the board of that or any other Wikimedia organization, nor have I ever been an officer on a Wikimedia community board. - I suppose that is technically true, but you are in fact listed in their "Membership of the board" section as former member of their governance committee.
As for the Disinformation report and the India story in this issue, nobody had raised COI concerns about these, so it's unclear to me why you devote space to debating these above.
It would have been great if you would have diverted a fraction of the time you invested in this obfuscatory and misleading response to instead making an effort to comply with said COI policy, by adding a disclosure of your involvement with the grant and the organization to the current draft. That wouldn't yet fix the journalistic problems with the article's content (lack of neutrality etc.). But it would be a start, to help our readers avoid mistaking it for independent coverage.
I would very much like to pull Wiki LGBT story from this issue, and include it in next issue. This COI is undeniable and it looks likely we will not be able to resolve it imminently. As the primary writer for half of the sections most N&Ns... I do not feel comfortable having blueraspberry's puff piece without a COI declaration occupying the same space as my informative "summary of everything else".
I have a great deal of sympathy for @Blue Rasberry: and I'll note that, with only occasional exceptions, Signpost writers need to be Wikipedia editors and participants, in order to understand what they are writing about, though it can be a problem being too close to the specific subject matter. We all spend a great deal of time living in this "small town" we're reporting on, with some of the same problems any small town reporter has to deal with. And I remember several cases where Br has covered important stories that would have been difficult for others to cover.
The other side is that this does look like a significant COI and and the content guidance for N&N does make clear that it should be "ruthlessly objective." (I'm feeling a bit too ruthless now). I'll make drastic cuts to that story. Later folks can decide a) to revert my changes, or b) just take the story out of this issue (and deal with it however you'd like in the next issue), or maybe even keep my changes. Smallbones(smalltalk)08:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of making a hill to die on, I plan to not write for future Signpost issues unless a COI declaration comes with any Wiki LGBT story that comes from the current draft, however modified it becomes. I started writing N&N because I saw a need; people were requesting experienced editors who are well versed with the movement and can help inform others. I have made COI declarations myself, when I wrote about topics like Admin recall (or this very issue, where I refused to actually write about WCI).
If the Signpost does not believe in enough journalistic principles to mandate a simple but necessary COI declaration on a story, I do not believe in the principle of Signpost enough to spend my very limited volunteer time here. Soni (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance if it does look a bit thrown together, but still, I hope it will serve as a good compromise to clear up the air on this situation and help us get the issue over the line. Oltrepier (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a comment from another ex-EIC is useful, this is indeed an obvious conflict of interest and I'm very surprised to see that this objective fact is being debated. Our own conflict of interest article notes that they happen when a person is "serving one interest could involve working against another" and can exist even in the absence of money. HaeB has already pointed out that Blueraspberry co-wrote the funding proposal and appears to have been extensively involved in the hiring process. Given the short deadline I'm seeing above, it may be worth considering pulling the story (even with the edits made by others) entirely from your edition while this discussion plays out. YMMV. Ed[talk][OMT]21:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re your move here: I know this has happened before, but I'd like to remind us all that the "Technology report" section was conceived as independent journalistic reporting (in the sense of "reporter") about "news and developments in the technical platforms used by the Wikimedia project", analogous to the "News and notes" and "In the media" sections (see also the template). The WMF reporting about its own work is a different report genre, and I think using this section title for it muddies the waters for our readers. More practically speaking, in this case it also effectively blocks the section from any independent reporting that Signpost team members may still be able to contribute before publication (I don't know about NightWolf1223, but I might be able to add one item in the next day or two). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
