Checklist

I think a reference / link to the PassBlue report is neededCzarking0 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

I was a guest presenter in a podcast. Here a proposal for covering it in the "in brief" section. I feel reliable in reporting the contents of the one-hour podcast to save the effort of editors here listening to it, but anyone else here can make a call on what to do with this.

• Exploring Wikipedia starting with the penis Interviewer PJ Vogt of the Search Engine podcast talks about the illustration choice in the Wikipedia article for human penis with user:Bluerasberry. To arrive at understanding, other topics discussed include Wikipedia's editorial process, its coverage of sexuality, online age verification laws by country, and the incarceration of Wikipedia editor Osama Khalid.

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

OK, wow, that caught me by surprise. What's this vandalism in our newsroom??? Oh, okay then... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply

If you load up this article on mobile the Dolly Parton images make the next look terrible. I noticed this issue in an article from the last publication after release as well. I think the problem is the image template, but I am not sure what the right fix is. I think this is effecting all articles.Czarking0 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

Are there any sources for this section? Czarking0 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Czarking0: If you see fit then you can reference the notes for

• meta:NARWHAL/June 2026

An obituary is not the place to explain, but also, anyone interested in joining monthly video chats among Wikipedians in the United States who do in-person organizing is at meta:NARWHAL/Meetups. The news of his passing comes from people who have remained in touch with the group of others who talk in this way, and the authors are participants in meta:Wikimedians of Minnesota User Group.

The piece came from the submissions desk at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Obituary_for_Gobonobo.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

He was a student of biology at the University of Minnesota. For two decades, his Wikimedia work addressed content gaps and systemic bias Sounds like he was currently a student when he died, but also had been editing Wikimedia for >20 years. Is that true?Rest of the article looks good. I wanted to ce and this is the only thing I'd flag before approving.Czarking0 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

A 48 year old student. Makes sense to me. It is backed up by his obituary in the Mpls newspaper of record. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

the CEO didn't even actually know about her in the first place The CEO being David? This doesn't make sense. Czarking0 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

It's easy to think about why this would be a problem if CBS was already ruled reliable, and that there's not much problem with a CNN takeover. @CatPencil: I think this is too poorly written to be copy-edited.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Seeing as this is explicitly an opinion and the piece for Community View is also an opinion, I think CatPencil should be limited to one opinion piece per publication. I think neither piece is good for publication in its current form, but this one is closer.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

hey @Czarking0 got your feedback, and fixed per your comment. I'm sorry that neither piece lives up to the standard. If its better this piece can be published and other can be postponed. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Based on your interests and writing I assume you are are young American. I am also a young American. Phrases like that harmless are something I would say casually, but I do not think these colloquialisms make for good press.Czarking0 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hey @Czarking0 Changes are made per request, thank you! let me know how it looks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Starting to look better / get close but this is a run on Now per WP:RS, reliability depends on the context and where, or how the topic is presented by the network; as in, if CBS were to cite somewhere like Reuters, in their coverage, you can pass that as reliable information, however, changes in outlets' management can affect their wording and toning of that specific news, in a somewhat negative coverage despite the source it comes from. Czarking0 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That would definitely be a long-debated discussion, and don't worry; as usual, I'll cover it in here, at the Signpost. I recommend against this. Czarking0 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

changes done. @Czarking0 I was gonna change the first part to something better but I suppose how reliablity is established was explained in the third part already, so yep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

To be blunt, while I appreciate CatPencil's efforts here and agree with a lot of the substance, I do not know why the Signpost would run this piece. It seems to be partly a recap of skepticism about CBS, which is something that seems outside the scope of the Signpost (and which has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere), and partly a belated/extended RfC !vote (or effort to offer an alternative closing statement to an RfC). Commentary about an RfC or type of RfC is in scope, but I don't see anything here that wasn't already articulated in that RfC? FWIW, sorry. (Also, I am a mere passerby and not a Signpost editor FYI.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

hey @Rhododendrites lets establish what is this and what is this not; this is an opinion piece on the events of CBS and CNN deal, why wikipedians arguing about it, the skeptism of the RfC despite it being ruled as reliable, and the possible effects of CNN deal. Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened, Signpost has both editor and non-editor readers who might be interested in this, and its pieces can get pushed to mainstream media. As for the coverage, Opinion pieces, are definetly more subjective, and full of opinions per the name, might not be an usual signpost article. This opinion specifically comes with a skeptisim vibes, that's beacuse I'm writing it, have enough sources to be skeptic, and the RfC was skeptic too. You can think like The New York Times publishing an opinion piece about therapy when obviously the times itself generally does not cover opinions about theraphy.

I really like your feedback though, so to see what may make one see that way, I will make some changes to the tone of the article. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened I have no idea what you are saying Czarking0 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere I certainly agree with this. CatPencil seems to have no special insight about the topic which the average reader could not gather from reading Wikipedia pages about the situation. However, I am still inclined to publish if CatPencil so desires and we have no alternative opinion pieces. I do not think such a publication would actively harm The Signpost. Publishing it may develop CatPencil's authorship, and it may attract other readers or opinion authors. Czarking0 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hm, I was not able to reply this for some reason. Oh well, I would be happy if this get published, if not, theres always fish in the sea, try till happens. For the first part, I was refering to fact that this is, in fact, not that objective nor important compared to other pieces. Thanks again. Now me going to sleep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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) 23:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

gender war is there really a base for saying this? I am not sure we should make this remark without following othersCzarking0 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

I started the draft to show that I have content in mind. I plan to complete this by the end of Saturday. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Wikipedia and fandoms

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view

We have a new contributor, CatPencil, who has gone through some rounds of editorial development of this submission with me at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Fandoms_and_the_Wikipedia. I think the submission is in good shape for consideration from others here, and I recommend it for publishing.

I would like to request further review. Please ping the author with comments and suggestions, as they are responsive and able to react. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

If you're from China, have you hit up 银河科幻大会? Why this? @CatPencil: are you Chinese? Very few of our readers can read chinese characters so this seems like a really random and poorly presented thing to bring up.Czarking0 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Heyo, @Czarking0: actually hm, I suppose should've seen this coming. When I was adding that, it was my third round of editorial editing the article and I was supposed to globalize the outlook, I put it to the intro, but then I moved most to the other parts of the article instead, seems like I missed that, as to where I should place it; as per this request I changed the place, and change it to the native chinese version. However, I did not change the name. I put similar spanish and french articles with their native names, so I feel like it would be unfair to treat the chinese one diffrently, instead I rather describe the article shortly so anyone would have an idea what it is. Thank you again. :) let me know how it looks! 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I am in favor of using some foreign words and text in our articles. I know these characters are inaccessible to many, but English Wikipedia also supports many other languages. There is a lot of anti-Chinese propaganda in the world, and to show that China has fandoms would be surprising to some and humanizing otherwise. We are in an age when mainstream United States media uses non-English language casually without subtitles or captions, such as the heavy Korean language use in the Netflix's most popular movie, the English language film KPop Demon Hunters, or the unapologetic dropping of Chinese cultural concepts in the very popular The Three-Body Problem media franchise which that Chinese con has promoted. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean culture are the basis for perhaps half of the fandom cultures, and a wikilink in context leading to more information is not so confusing or surprising.

I recognize that non-English characters do not appear in, for example, The New York Times. With English Wikipedia's global scope, and for a global article like this one, I think it is an experimental but not a poor choice. Good call Czarking for raising the issue, and also, good call CatPencil for doing editorial experimentation. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hm, I saw some changes and the edits about changing the chinese articles to the english wikipedia ones(and not other ones), and thanks a lot. They're awesome, but like said here, I'm aware that there's english versions for the other language articles, but I feel like I'd rather use the chinese text and version, as per the projects listed in the piece are directly connected to those articles as well. Another reason is, I feel like it's a much more genuine way of telling the reader that 'hey, look at these awesome conventions in their native language', as thus I did the same with french and spanish as well. Plus, I don't really see them effecting the overall understanding of the piece, nor how it comes off to the reader. If anyone would like to change them, discussing here would be definetly nicer :D 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm all in favor of wide latitude for Signpost contributors. This discussion helped me understand the motivation for showing the Chinese Wikipedia article. I'll go back and reformat my changes later today. My main preference here is that we use wikilinks not external links (e.g. not https://zh.wikipedia.org...) , but wikilinks to Chinese Wikipedia are just fine.

tl;dr I'll return to copyediting hopefully consistent with contributor's preference. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I just wanted to highlight that some of the ideas here are very vague. I don't feel like I can copy edit to fix this. Phrases like not so full-fledged and go a long way could be clarified.Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

(Unless you're interested in the Meta parts, cause man, that's beyond me.) I recomend cutting this. I don't know if I have support for saying this but I think that The Signpost needs to have a tone that is significantly more refined than a twitter post and I think this phrasing does not support a refined tone.Czarking0 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

infest @CatPencil:Is this really what you mean?Czarking0 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

WP:WikiProject Video games has made efforts to bring a larger cooperation of editors to Wikipedia I do not think this is true. Is there a source forthis?Czarking0 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Now, we have concluded the main reason is flexibility of Who is we? I do not agree or believe this without evidenceCzarking0 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

which isn't really much when its wikis, because there are so many non-niche, and very mainstream fandoms that yet to primarily use Wikipedia as form of information gathering. This just does not make sense. I recomment cutting the end of this paragraph starting with the prior sentence.Czarking0 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Fandom-based wikis such that is were called out for being AI-slop and advertisement filled, yet they have not seen any competition and still attract many people across the Internet without one drive-through our Wikipedia I have no idea what you are talking about. You are writing for global audience of all ages.Czarking0 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I could keep going with this, but I think as the piece currently stands the CatPencil needs to do more work for copy-editing to be a fair use of other Signpost editors' time. Also CatPencil do you know Fandom the website and Wikipedia are both started by Jimmy Whales?Czarking0 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Czarking0 heyo, ooh ping shower, hmmmm lets see. So the first meta part I see, yeah thats fair, deleted, nice reflection on your part, though I feel like its nicely playful.

Okay on the second thing is, thats not a claim, or wasn't supposed to sound like one, it is meant to support the later part that is WikiProject Video games who have raised an mind-blowing 2,600 GA-Class articles, however reading this, it seems like mid way I forgot the first part. So changed that, and softened it.

I have overhauled other parts, thanks for big feedback, I've added some sources for traffic claims and the rest are basically hey check out these cool projects on wikipedia anyway.

one request, could you please write all of this in a single message next time, I get autopinged and when I saw the 8-9 pings I was very scared to say the least, haha. I'll revise most of it tonight though. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

such that is were I don't think this is ever a grammatically correct expression. Can you please spend more time ensuring your writing uses good grammar?Czarking0 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Czarking0 ah, yes, though I think this piece will not make it to publishing in the given time, so shall we postpone it? It'll give me enough time to revise the whole article too. In the meantime, the CNN CBS opinion piece can get published.

Thanks again, and my deepest apology since you spent a good time copyediting this. I'll be better next time, and improve myself more for this. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Eh, don't worry about it you are learning. I think either piece can be ready for publication but I recommend choosing one of the two. Czarking0 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Let's go with the second one for now, I can publish this next time with a lot more revision. :) 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@CatPencil I put a POSTPONED - notice in the title of the fandom article. I hope to see it next issue! Don't be too hard on yourself, you are doing good, genuine reporting, and you are still evolving as a writer, as we all are. Additionally, the collaborative nature of writing for the Signpost takes some getting used to. Try not to take feedback personally. Don't give up and keep writing! You have a unique perspective and people will be interested to read it. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report

Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call II By Christophe Henner (schiste)

In January 2026 we ran Christophe's first piece about declining Wikipedia readership.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15/Special report

That piece got lots of engagement here.

• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15/Special report

Could I get comments from others on these points?

• Signpost does not have a firm AI policy, except to inherit the Wikipedia policies, and to check in here about AI submissions. This piece was supported with AI. Would anyone identify any AI aspects of this which need to be addressed, other than disclosure, for this piece to get editorial consideration?
• This piece was previously published in the author's userspace on 26 August. Are there any aspects of the prior publication which hinder editorial consideration for Signpost publication, which would need to be addressed?

If this piece were to be published in Signpost, then it needs to be adapted in certain ways. Before I rally to organize that, would anyone like to speak up in support or opposition to opposing this, for any reason? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply

At the very least, disclosure should be upfront, at the very top: most readers won't scroll all the way to the bottom if the disclosure is hidden there, and a disclosure visible to all readers is essential for intellectual honesty. Clarifying in which ways AI assistance took place (e.g. whether it was writing whole paragraphs, copyediting, compiling data, bringing the structure, etc.) would also be needed, as "supported by AI" will not tell the reader much. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Chaotic Enby: The author put a notice at top. Could you please check what they did and comment on the sufficiency of this disclosure?

I really appreciate the feedback, as Signpost increasingly gets submissions including AI. Any comments about balancing contributors' desire to use AI to express points versus readers' desire to connect human to human is helpful. I am sympathetic to all sides and not sure what to do. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The notice is helpful. As AI use becomes more widespread, this is indeed a question that deserves to be raised. Wikipedia is relatively cautious regarding the use of AI in reader-facing content, and I would expect readers of the Signpost to have similar expectations here. In the same way as our article guidelines will tend to prioritize the benefit of readers rather than the convenience of editors, it makes sense to have similar guiding principles here.

An issue we've had when writing guidelines for LLM use is the inherent broadness in meaning of "copyediting", which notably differs across varieties of English. Even despite the explicit link to basic copyediting, our WP:NOLLM policy had to be amended to clarify its intended meaning. The Signpost, as far as I know, doesn't have an equivalent guideline, but I expect its readers to be left wondering if this term is being used in the same way here, namely spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Chaotic Enby: I do not have an opinion on what Signpost policy should be, but we have had multiple disruptions here which I feel could have been prevented by having a Signpost AI policy. These disputes are in the archives and I may not remember them all. I think there were 3-5. Here are some posts with Open Knowledge Association's submission. The part that I do not like about this outcome is that I feel like Signpost is in an ambiguous state of both accepting but really not wanting AI submissions, and also that Signpost sort of looks to the existing English Wikipedia policy but also does not accept that because of specific needs.

• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_48#Tomorrow's_Issue
• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_48#22:5_publication

Enby - if you have interest and availability and attention, and because I know you developed English Wikipedia AI guidelines which the project adopted, I would appreciate any advice or recommendations you have on how Signpost can routinely regulate AI submissions. They keep coming in. I am uncomfortable because I am in a position of recognizing AI submissions but not having clear advice on what to tell submitters, and my fellow editors are in a likewise difficult place of facing these AI submissions that I bring forth and neither being enthusiastic about running them nor quick to reject them. What do you think The Signpost should do? I do not know how to set the dial and disclosures between rejection and acceptance.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks a lot! I will admit that I am less familiar with how the Signpost establishes its internal policies (i.e. whether they are decided on by Signpost volunteers alone or by a broader community consensus). Having a clear line in the sand prevents wasted effort, even if it is just along the lines of:

Although AI tools are not fully prohibited, be aware that many readers see in the Signpost an opportunity to connect human-to-human with other contributors, and learn about their perspectives. AI assistance is tolerated for basic copyediting, but the extent of its use should be disclosed upfront. We expect the prose itself to be human-written and the points expressed to be yours.

While I don't think cosmetic edits really require an AI disclosure, I know that people will interpret this in a more permissible manner, which is why being upfront about the extent seems like a necessary measure here. The other option would be to allow assistance to a broader degree but mark the AI-assisted publications on the main Signpost page itself and place them in a separate category, where they wouldn't compete with purely human-written ones, but I don't want to add disproportionately more work for Signpost volunteers while unwillingly encouraging a schism in readership. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

We should publish this after submitting it through the normal review process. Czarking0 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I certainly do not support a disclosure like this "those who find this offensive, disturbing or unpleasant may wish to avoid reading it." Is is especially ridiculous to have this in an issue where we are linking this image with no disclosure

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

traffic has hit an all time low I do not believe this is true. I do not think we should run this piece without a source backing up this claimCzarking0 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

read across the Kerala’s Backwater to Kashmiri Wikipedia read across Kashmir’s Dal Lake @Abhinav619: what does this mean?Czarking0 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

has an active Wiki Project Med on Kashmiri Wikipedia I'd prefer if this was a link to the project on that wikiCzarking0 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

A language with limited readership, advocacy under open source could even become more challenging, those in publishing may find you as a challenger than collaborator. The point is not clear here Czarking0 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

They aim to build a structured heritage collection for making knowledge reusable under free license to support asking not just "What was tradition?", but "How is the tradition practiced, understood and transmitted today?" Love this part, just wanted to give some positive feedback Czarking0 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

travelled I think this is the correct spelling in the Indian English dialect but it is not in mine so I just wanted to double checkCzarking0 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist