Checklist

There was a private comment from one of the people mentioned in this piece that the Is Bernadette Salty? heading is more provocative than the actual text. To be honest I am engaging in a bit of headline journalism to promote engagement. I will leave it up to the other editors here to determine if a more neutral heading is better for the style The Signpost wants to achieve.Czarking0 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I might note that Sohom is associated with salt so this was meant to be a reference, but now I think maybe that is too inside baseball. Czarking0 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

The RAW ran a great (fake) Wikipedia:Baby Globe interview that we could translate and republish: w:fr:Wikipédia:Regards_sur_l'actualité_de_la_Wikimedia#Ses_goûts,_sa_Wikimania,_sa_prochaine_tournée..._:_Baby_Globe_nous_dévoile_tout_! - Wil540 art (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I've posted a rough translation here. Warning: I am not a Francophone, rely on the translation at your own risk. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

We've dealt with a similar situation before at Cherchez une femme. I'd asked a couple of reasonable translators to check or redo the machine translation after they had already made a couple suggestions. They did very well with just a few more changes. Notice that no translation is perfect. For one thing a perfect translator would need to be perfectly fluent in both languages. (I'm not perfectly fluent in even one!) But I'd prefer that if there are "mistakes" translating into English that it reflects the French understanding, rather than the English - leave it closer to the author's intention. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm natively francophone (Canadian version), I could look into this and other translations (below). In my experience, machine translation between French and English is pretty accurate, so there likely wouldn't much to do save read and adjust tone/nuances. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Bri, @Headbomb, @Smallbones - I did some formatting here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour

This is a message from Noe via the French Wiki discord:

"Hey! Thank you for this article, it is a great idea! I think some cultural adaptation could help humour to be more adapted to this audience. For example, "Endive or Chicon" is a large debate that occured in the old days for the title of a page about a vegetable with regional names. I think it could be better to change for a similar debate on English Wikipedia, if you can suggest one."

Any suggestions?? Perhaps a famously extended renaming debate? - Wil540 art (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Gave it a spitshine and checked the translation, which was as expected, fairly accurate and not in need of much love. I credited Bri for the machine translation and Wil540 art and myself for the review. Feel free to tweak your roles if you feel that doesn't reflect what you did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Looks good @Headbomb. I found this phrasing awkward in American English: "But if I had to sum up my Wikimania experience, I’d say it’s primarily about meeting Wikimedians—people who reached out to me and hugged me when I least expected it... " in the response to the Question: "Is it a good position to be in—Baby Globe at Wikimania?" I don't want to be overly sensitive but this phrasing sounds like Baby Globe is describing nonconsensual touching? Is that how the French version reads as well? Am I misreading it? - Wil540 art (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Doesn't describe non-consensual anything, just surprise at being unexpectedly embraced (literally) by the community.

... des gens qui m'ont tendu la main = literally "people that put their hands out" meaning handshake/offer help/reaching out in general

... qui m'ont pris dans leurs bras = literally "who took me in their arms" i.e. hugged.

... à des moments où je ne m'y attendais pas = literally "at moments I did not expect"

It's a very wholesome description of an interaction. Their might be a cultural divide here for Americans, but to a French person (including I suppose a French-Canadian person), there's nothing to raise an eyebrow at.

I'm certainly open to better wordings if you have them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I think perhaps it's the least expect it. That might be too strong/the wrong word. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Maybe the English idiom "met me with open arms" is apt here? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Headbomb thanks for the breakdown, I concur that least expect it is the issue here. @Bri I like the suggestion of using the "met me with open arms" idiom. I've tried to simply incorporate it in the place of "least expect it". The only part that is missing is the element of surprise that I think the original wording was attempting to express? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I restored the unexpected moments sentiment, and removed the extra clause regarding being embraced (the original only has it once). The original has a comma; it's not the hugs that were unexpected, but the moments where the sensation of being welcomed occurred. Reaching out (with a hand or hug) are metaphors for being welcomed (though, of course, they could have also been literal; you'd have to follow up with Baby Globe :)). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I suspect they were literal here. It's how they read in the original anyway. Any, no objection to the current version. It might not be the most accurate of translation with respect to literal events, but the sentiment is better translated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I actually don't doubt the literalness, was just going for the joke. Nonetheless, my interpretation of the original is that the ending clause applies to both of the preceding clauses, and so applies overall to the welcoming sentiment as represented by the actions and the parallel metaphor. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

@Bri: I added a couple things and then saw you had already covered the Altman story. I think yours is better but i'll leave it up to you to delete what I wrote in case you want any of the content.Czarking0 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks, but first mention of the Altman thing was an edit by User:Mitchsavl. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

I think the part about bringing Articles for improvement to the main page would be better covered in the Discussion report.Czarking0 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

• @Jayen466 and Bri: please see Czarking0's point above. Also would you please mention the upcoming Wikimedia Café session in the Notes section? There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities in August. Both sessions will focus on the Next 25 initiative, including framing the initiative. Participants may attend either or both Café sessions:

1. 29 August 2026 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe
2. 30 August 2026 03:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific

Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I agree. It was User:Mitchsavl who wrote that little paragraph, but I am pretty sure he won't mind either if you move it across, Czarking0. --Andreas JN466 12:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

User:HaeB, would you have time to write up the section on Raju Narisetti's departure? I recall from Wikimedia-l that you are really au fait with the context (far more so than I am). Andreas JN466 16:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

• The edit line for embarrassed but not Ed Martin's fault was a reference to earlier pieces the signpost has run. It is just to draw attention. @Pine: Did you read the previous Ed Martin coverage regarding him wanting to embarrass wikipedia?

• −

  Trump administration's attempts to hurt the Wikipedia project

  +

  current United States Government administration probing the Wikimedia Foundation

  Is not a change I am willing to put my name on as an opinion. My version states the facts.

• −

  vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse

  +

  accused Wikipedia of bias

  I at least have the courage to stand by previous signpost reporting.

• −

  A year has passed since he instigated his shame campaign, but what has he actually done to bring shame on the biggest project for free information in human history?

  +

  Almost a year has passed since August 27, 2025. What has happened since?

  My version is stylistically better and more interesting

The rest of your edits I think are fine. I would be happy to collaborate, but I suspect our opinions of the matter are too far apart to make an opinion piece that we would mutually support.Czarking0 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

• @Czarking0: given that your name is on the byline, I'll leave this to your judgement, but please make sure that all facts and descriptions are well sourced. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  Did you read the previous Ed Martin coverage before making these edits? Czarking0 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  I did spend a few minutes looking for sources. The only source that I found which seems applicable was a New York Times article which may have exactly the needed information, but it is paywalled. With some effort I might be able to get the full article but I am busy and didn't want to look further, so I worked with what I could see. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 03:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  @Bri, Smallbones, JPxG, HaeB, and Bluerasberry: I am assuming good faith about Czarking0's reading of sources, and the person who runs the publication process may want to do their own check. With those disclaimers out of the way, unlike before, this time I will not object to publication, and I am leaving the piece in the publication queue. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 21:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  In the future I ask that you not comment on any draft pieces or edit any articles I have contributed to unless you have read the sources linked in the pieces. That seems like a bare minimum level of due diligence. Czarking0 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  I understand the request, and agree that this would be preferable, although given available time and other matters I can't promise that it will happen on every occurrence for Signpost drafts. When dealing with a draft for the Signpost, it is simple enough to say that a source which someone else can't access provides evidence for a point, and then people can discuss it further or leave it alone. Perhaps in this case it would have been better for me to edit fewer things at first and then save the rest perhaps for later if and when I can get a copy of that New York Times piece. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  I don't even mean the NYT piece. I am referring to the other Signpost pieces which I linked to in my op-ed. Though yes i do think the NYT piece is important for the total context. Czarking0 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  @Czarking0: I did look at other sources but they did not provide direct evidence for a claim made in your opinion piece that I don't see backed up in The New York Times article which I have now accessed. Now I have a request for clarification. Your opinion piece includes this statement: "Ed Martin, of the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group, has vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse." But the New York Times piece doesn't seem to make that specific assertion, and neither does this previous Signpost piece. There is this file providing evidence of the questions asked by Martin to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Times quotes Martin as saying "But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed", but the "they" seems to be referencing people who he believes are guilty of "weaponizing" the Justice Department, not Wikipedia. The Times piece contains a reference apparently to the letter in regards to Martin using it to communicate publicly his opinions regarding Wikipedia, which is not the same as specifically saying that he "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse." Possibly this Free Press article provides evidence that Martin specifically "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse", but I can't seem to access the TFP article at the moment. Can you be more specific about where there is evidence that Martin "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse"? Perhaps there is a source other than NYT that makes that clear, such an interview with Carlson or the Free Press article, in which case adding the additional reference to your opinion piece after the statement "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse" would help. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  Feel free to write your own opinion piece, but at this time I am happy with what I wrote. Czarking0 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I am not the EiC, but if I were, I wouldn't run this piece. It puts the cart before the horse. It also comes across a bit as grandstanding. IMO the correct way to proceed is to

1. either submit the FOIA request, replacing any and all references to the "Signpost" in the FOIA request with references to "community journalism" (or deleting them), and then reporting on the results received here or elsewhere,
2. or not submit the FOIA request.

If there is anything interesting in the response you get, Czarking0, I actually think and hope that you might get weightier publications than the humble Signpost interested in your story. But until the FOIA request has been submitted and responded to there isn't really a story. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I somewhat agree but @Bluerasberry: asked me to submit is here first and I trust his judgement. Czarking0 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

@Chorchapu: This draft looked interesting but I guess is now abandoned? Andreas JN466 06:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

For now, it is. I started writing it about a month ago but decided that it would be better to wait until the WikiProject's 20th anniversary and publish it then. There is more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_articles#Promoting_WP:AUG26. I've never written a Signpost article before - @Jayen466: should I keep in in the Signpost draft space or move it to my userspace for now? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

What do we think about translating this RAW article: La crise s'intensifie après le refus de la WMF de reconnaître le syndicat WWU (The crisis intensifies after the WMF refused to recognize the WWU union.) w:fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2026-08-05/WWU as a community view? It is interesting to read a French perspective on this news and I believe this story includes interviews and quotes that haven't been covered in the SP. Of course, it would need a good translation. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2026

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#French_Wikipedia_Signpost-equivalent_article_on_the_WWU_debacle An interesting conversation about this article is happening here. I'm not going to able to write this up for the next issue but if anyone else wants to, they should go for it. -Wil540 art (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist