Hi JPxG, I have boldly written content for this issue's essay's section. I am fine with moving my essay to a different section or postponing this if there are other needs to use this essay section. If my essay needs to be postponed then I would be fine with you copying my content to a new page in my user space, then replacing my content on the Signpost page. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)22:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note to the person who is acting EIC for the upcoming publication: unless I change this draft to say that copyediting is complete, please assume that this is not ready for publication. I may not have time to improve this essay before the upcoming publication deadline, and I may want to postpone this to a later Signpost issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)04:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Without a doubt, this looks like a lovely initiative, and Toksvig is right to point at the wide information gap that still exists on Wikipedia, but I don't understand why she focused this much on firing shots at the site, instead of giving more insight on her own project...
Saw this ABC Science video [1] which talks about the Philosophy game, but across different Wikipedia languages. I may be underselling it but it is fascinating. I’ll try to cover later, but if anyone wants to get a head start, go ahead! Mitchsavl (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Mitchsavl Ok, yesterday I added a short item about the video, and I must confess that I was blown away by the effort that journalist had put in that project!
I've restrained myself of turning it into a whole blurb, though, just because you might have understood the video better than me, and so you should a better job at trying to explain it... : D Oltrepier (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its sixteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I do not believe that the results will be a surprise to most Wikimedians who have been curious about generative AI. It is however disheartening to see that the journalists and science communicators we may be trusting to provide high quality, verified information, do not seem to share our caution. This is not an opinion piece so authors should not express their beliefs and what disheartens them personally. Czarking0 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
RR has been inviting opinions in the form of paper reviews (a very standard format, cf. wikt:review#Noun #2) for fifteen years now, as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to. Happy to hear your arguments if you believe that this should change, but for now we'll stick with the existing format. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
"as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to" do you really have to start with this insufferable attitude? Best regards you could ever have, Czarking0 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Czarking0, while you have made various good contributions to the Signpost in recent months, and I don't mind healthy disagreements and unvarnished feedback, I am starting to worry that you might have been getting a mistaken impression that insults (such as insufferable), passive-aggressive dismissal of feedback, or trying to shut othersup are effective means for getting your way here - despite our editor-in-chief having called you out for such things back in July already (This is a really pointlessly inflammatory comment and I'd prefer you not say stuff like that). We are having lively debates here in the Signpost team all the time, but I can't recall any other team members behaving like this in recent years. Since you were just partially blocked for several weeks for a similarly combative attitude in another area (including accusations and suspicions that other editors judged as unfounded), and seemed to be oblivious that this is not something that is acceptable on English Wikipedia, now might be a good moment for you to reflect and make some changes.
As for your edits to E_mln_e's review: Separate from whether opinions are allowed in reviews (I hope we could clear that up above), things should be attributable to the bylined author(s). That doesn't mean that the bylined author has carte blanche for offtopic rants or is granted the ultimate authority over what is being published in the end, or that others can't make some uncontroversial smaller factual additions sometimes if they can reasonably assume that the bylined author is OK with them. But there is no NPOV policy here.
While occasional expressions of frustration happen, and sometimes those expressions of frustration become focused on a specific person, I share HaeB's concerns here regarding a pattern of incivility in Signpost discussions, and I would ask Czarking0 to please become more of a team player. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)04:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, what's there is ready for copyediting (and I think the first piece has already been copyedited quite well). I'm adding some finishing touches as we speak. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I see plans just changed again (from EICAWOL and Bri publishing this evening Pacific time, to JPxG suddenly showing up for duty a few days after the deadline). Anyway, so this will have to be in the next issue, I have changed the heading accordingly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I suggest moving Christophe's essay from "Special report" to "Op-ed". Then the lead section about the wishlist in what is currently the "Tech report" could become a standalone "Special report", and content related to the "Wiki.gg shutdown for PHP critical security issue" discussion could be added to the "Tech report" without making it huge. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)05:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like we have a leftover draft that already has some good material but which was left out of last month's issue because nobody got around to editing and fleshing it out a bit more, and was just skipped again for today's issue. I think it covers some important topics and should work with just a little additional editing (e.g. the author of the piece about the "Journal Cited by Wikipedia" reports might want to add a disclosure of their own involvement in it; also, @Mitchsavl: does the Wishlist item need any updates?). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2026 (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.
Somebody needs to make a final decision on whether the "postponed" draft that's been sitting in the "next issue" slot for the community view column since August will ever be run by the Signpost. Either copy-edit and run the piece or decline it (I'm leaning towards the latter TBH). Either would be preferable to letting it rot in limbo for even longer. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Wil540 art@ Thanks for raising this point. I agree that distinguishing between Wikimedia education as a broader movement and the use of Wikimedia projects in educational settings is important. Our intention in the article was to highlight the complementary roles of Wiki Education and EduWiki Hub, particularly the distinction between classroom-based support and global, community-driven support for education communities.@Pine It may be helpful to make this distinction more explicit in the Signpost adaptation so that readers can better understand the different scopes of work. Bukky658 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi @Bukky658: would you like to modify the Signpost version to make this improvement? I would prefer not to significantly modify your work myself, so that you and LiAnna can remain the only authors listed in the byline of the Signpost piece. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)05:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Pine How about putting that blurb in "WikiConference report", and leaving a list of the remaining articles on Diff at the end of the column?
@Oltrepier: I am teeing up "In focus" to be the piece about education systems. I think your comments here about blurbs might be in the wrong section. It appears that you left a similar comment in a different section. Should the comments here be struck? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)05:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Oltrepier: there was an update to the text. What do you think now? @Bukky658: thanks for the update, and I wonder if you can also mention that Wikipedia might also be used in read-only education activities such as analyzing how talk page discussions occur or how certain topics are covered such as the relative counts of biographies; see Wikipedia:Research help/Librarians and Teachers and Meta:Research:Index. I believe that read-only activities are considered to be outside of the scope of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in Education and are instead categorized as research, even if that research is happening for class assignments. Do you think that stating in the Signpost piece that read-only use of Wikipedia in education, such as for analyses of Wikipedia content, seems common but these activities are generally outside the scope of the Wiki Ed Foundation and the EduWiki Hub? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)19:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I suggest moving Christophe's essay from "Special report" to "Op-ed". Then the lead section about the wishlist in what is currently the "Tech report" could become a standalone "Special report", and content related to the "Wiki.gg shutdown for PHP critical security issue" discussion could be added to the "Tech report" without making it huge. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)05:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
