Checklist

Checklist

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

Checklist

As reported on by The Telegraph and The Guardian, apparently Sandi Toksvig is working with the University of Cambridge on the Mappa Mundi project, which aims to supplement Wikipedia and other portals with more information about women in academics.

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...

Anyway, this should be an interesting story, and I can work on it myself, now that I should have more time to contribute again! Oltrepier (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Also The Spectator, paywalled, author Toby Young. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Now also a critical Opinion column in The Irish Times. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Bri Ok ok, I think it's enough, let's cover it! : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

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 others up 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.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Checklist

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

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

I boldly started the upcoming Signpost "In focus" section as an adaptation of "Two Roles, One Wikimedia Education Ecosystem: Lessons from WikiConference North America 2026" from Diff. @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) and Bukky658: I'm hoping that this content will remain on track for publication in the upcoming Signpost issue. Before publication there will be reviews from at the Signpost editor-in-chief and possibly additional contributors, and plans may change. However, please feel free to boldly edit the Signpost adaptation as needed. I hope that this will be published in the next issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply

This essays seems to conflate Wikimedia education with Wikimedia in education. - Wil540 art (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Wil540 art: perhaps LiAnna or Bukky658 will respond to this concern, and possibly edit the text to clarify. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist