Checklist

Checklist

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

Checklist

• July 17, 2026: Welcome to the high-stakes universe of World Cup Wikipedia editing - NYT/The Athletic article on a FIFA World Cup focused event hosted by Wikimedia NYC and WikiLatinos

Wil540 art (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

• July 14, 2026: In the age of AI slop and misinformation, we need Wikipedia more than ever - SF Chronicle opinion piece -

Wil540 art (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Wil540 art: I encourage you to add your findings to the draft ITM, add yourself to the byline too if you want – we need contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 23 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

Does anyone have access to https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/2504577/wikipedia-host-faces-union-recognition-demand ? Andreas JN466 21:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jayen466: Sent – Doc Taxon • Talk • 18:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Doc Taxon Cool. Thank you. Andreas JN466 18:44, 26 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

Checklist

Big discussion on the recent WP:LLM policy: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Recent changes to WP:LLM are too restrictive and actively harm some parts of Wikipedia Mitchsavl (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Started a Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026! News from Diff from this article: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/22/meet-the-wikimedians-of-the-year-2026/ I added some images and captions. I also slightly re-ordered the article because they had Hijiri last, while the Wikimedian of the Year article pairs him with Mari Avetisyan. That is how I structured it. -Wil540 art (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Wil540 art: I noticed this has a lot of wikilinks; the very first even links to the article about Wikipedia. Is this an intentional choice or an artifact from Diff itself? My first instinct was to remove them but wanted to check with you first. Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 08:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The links are an intentional choice. Puzzlingly, Diff hardly uses links at all. I was trying to show the other side of the coin, the power of links. Unless there is a MOS against them here on the Signpost, I prefer to leave them in. If they are too much, I'm ok with the removal of some basic ones. Thanks for asking. - Wil540 art (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Ok, thanks, just wondering! :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 21:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

An article from the Jewish News Syndicate was written about this publication from the University of Haifa.

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.

I found the JNS article link on the "In the media" draft page, but I think a academic analysis of this is warranted.

It does include references to several sources considered marginally reliable or generally unreliable on WP:RS/P, such as the Anti Defamation League (WP:ADLAS) and Pirate Wires (WP:PIRATEWIRES), though considering that this article is centred around the Wikipedia community, I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply

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

forgot to ping @Mitchsavl: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 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 here} 19:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply

This article and related study appears interesting:

1. https://www.psypost.org/female-biology-professors-are-now-more-likely-to-have-a-wikipedia-page-than-their-male-peers/
2. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.2566

Mitchsavl (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Added Czarking0 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

You should mention the effectiveness of previous drives briefly within the article. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

I copyedited this article, finding little to edit. User:Pine, I was wondering about the blurb? Before copy editing, it read: The World Cup, and Wikimania music. I edited it to: The World Cup and Wikimania music. Not sure if another element was going to be added to it? Perhaps Tour de France? Or perhaps I'm missing something? - Wil540 art (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Wil540 art: thanks. I revised that blurb and a few other things. Please do a quick check of the updates. ↠Pine (✉) 02:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Pine: All looks good except one capitalization question. How to write out wikipress? You have it: WikiPress, in the recap article I used: Wikipress, I just checked the slides and Noé used: wikipress, no capitals. Should we standardize here or is it ok for there to be multiple capitalizations for the name? - Wil540 art (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Noé - Where do you stand on what is the correct capitalization: wikipress, Wikipress, or WikiPress? Or is there more than one correct way to capitalize it? Some light research informed me that German Wikipredia had a short-lived publishing initiative called Wikipress in 2005 where they published books under that name. German_Wikipedia#Wikipress_series is where Wikipress currently redirects to. (Perhaps this should be re-redirected towards a Wiki-news outlet page?) WikiPress goes nowhere... - Wil540 art (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

@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
• that Jimmy described himself as "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" in 2002.

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. Andreas JN466 19:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jayen466: You're being a bit overdramatic aren't you? The early articles can be covered briefly to the extent they haven't been already, but do you really think that I'd mind being "roasted" by Sanger supporters? I get the occasional hate-email from supporters of much more terrifying people than Sanger. It's not a big deal.

If you know where I can find the press release(s) from 2001, I'd love to see them. There should be one from July 2001 just before there were half-a-dozen articles about Wikipedia, including the Sept. NY Times article. BTW that article in no way gives equal billing to Wales and Sanger. Wales is mentioned about 6 times at the top of the article. Sanger gets 1 mention in the middle. And both get mentioned in the caption of the one pic, which appears in the archive at the end. The supposed first press release from Wikipedia was in January 2002, just after the first anniversary, and not too long before Sanger was laid off.

Wales did say that he was "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" to the yahoo tech blog in August 2002. He just didn't mention Sanger (or anyone else) as being another co-founder. It would seem that since he'd laid off Sanger 6 months previously, he'd more likely be talking about his business partners at Bomis, or even to the whole group of Wikipedia editors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

See Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 (archive.org record of prnewswire copy)

• The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.

That page was created in January 2002 by Larry Sanger and subsequently edited only by Brooke Vibber and Erik Möller.

Similarly, edited by Jimmy personally: Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003

• The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger.

There is a broad range of people who are familiar with that history and who'd expect the Signpost team to be familiar with it too. Andreas JN466 07:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

I'm considering covering this presentation: Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist / Commons:File:Actualités, Kurier, Signpost…wikijournals, wikizines, wikiletters, wikipress?.pdf from Wikimania on Wikimedia journalism. Recording can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKOImdtm9jg&t=885s Are there plans to cover this elsewhere? Wil540 art (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

• @Wil540 art: I mention this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/On the bright side but don't go into detail, so more coverage in a separate Signpost piece should be fine. Please also note Clovermoss' plan mentioned above on this talk page. Thanks for volunteering to write about the presentation. ↠Pine (✉) 22:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

  @Pine: Will do, thanks. I'm aiming for a deep dive here that includes quotes and a selection of the Q&A. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply