"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.
The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.
We say Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one?
Discussion: This article would be a 1 year review of my goal to add short descriptions to all articles lacking one. The article was published February 27, 2025 so ideally this article would come out around that time this year. I wanted to put forth the article submission early to ensure it can come out in this time frame.
@Urban Versis 32: We have arrived at the one-year anniversary. Can you get this submission in shape to submit in a week?
I staged it for formatting as a "tips and tricks" piece. Thanks for the early submission.
Please add an image in the header template, consider adding other images. Please link to the challenge from a year ago which you mentioned. When you are ready to submit, mark it "yes" for "ready to copyedit". If you have questions, ping me to ask. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk)17:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Madhav Gadgil was a proponent of Wikimedia movement in India. He was among the very few Indian public intellectuals of his stature to engage directly with the Wikimedia movement, participating in its outreach and other activities. This piece is about him as he recently passed away. Pavan Santhosh (OKI) (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry Thank you very much, and apologies for not being able to review this earlier. I’ve now added a blurb and a lead based on my understanding—please take a look and let me know if this works. I’m happy to add more details if needed.
About Madhav Gadgil: yes, I cherish my collaboration with him, even though it was a limited one. I was able to invite him to speak with Telugu-language Wikimedians, and we later shaped an idea he shared into a full-scale project. Pavan Santhosh (OKI) (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:AI slop is flooding the internet, and it is harder and harder to find reliable information. The digital divide of the future will be between people who can afford to pay for high quality, fact-checked content, and people who only have access to cheap, AI-generated texts full of hallucinations, promotional content and scams. In this world, the Wikipedia must remain a reliable and trustworthy source that is free to all users. To stay reliable, the Wikipedia has to keep relying on human editing, because LLMs are not reliable and they are not accountable for the words they generate. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15/Special report argues that using LLMs will help Wikipedia serve the Global South better. I disagree - to use LLMs means we will lower quality to the extent that the Wikipedia will lose its role as a reliable encyclopedia accessible to anyone. I'm both a Wikipedia editor and a professor doing research on LLMs and their cultural effect so would like to write something about this if it seems suitable for the Signpost. Lijil (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: We'd like to share OKA's story — how we went from a small experiment in 2022 to coordinating translation work across 80+ editors who published 13k+ articles, what we've learned (sometimes the hard way) from community feedback, and what our recent empirical study revealed about which LLM models actually work well for translation versus which ones just make things worse. Recent ANI discussions surfaced real concerns about our quality control processes, and we want to walk through how we're addressing those issues, including our upcoming peer review system. 7804j (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j: Please develop your submission at User:7804j/OKA: grants for translators assisted by LLMs. If it is not burdensome, then submit as much content as you would like, perhaps 500-2000 words. If you want interim feedback, then at least make a few section headings and put a few sentences under each, even if it does not tell a full story. I think you know your way around wiki and have a good sense of how to talk with the Wikimedia community, but this story does hit multiple hot topics including paid editing, inclusion of people in lower middle countries, AI, and putting a process on the table to address decades-old cross-wiki translation backlogs. I am grateful for your submission. Also I want to connect you with feedback before publication, to get some confirmation that you will not be misunderstood. Bluerasberry (talk)18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: An essay which reflects on my past and present tryst with thank-button clicks, and briefly outlines part of my purpose on the English Wikipedia. MSincccc (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: Would you like to submit this as an article for publication in The Signpost, or would you like for Signpost to report and link to this piece as a Wikipedia user essay? This piece works as either format, but not both at once. If you want this to be for Signpost, then either grab a template from one of the article formats at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom and put your submission into that standard. Please add illustration from Commons; all Signpost pieces need images. I can help with the formatting, just ask if it takes you longer than 5 minutes because it should not take longer than that to figure out. Thanks for submitting. Bluerasberry (talk)18:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry I would like the essay to be featured in the Signpost.
@MSincccc: I have you queued for publication in second week of March. Please continue to develop your submission at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. When you are done, mark "yes" on "ready to copyedit" in the template at the top of your submission. Ping me if you need anything. Before publication, other reviewers will check it also, and they may make a suggestion to you. Thanks for submitting. Also, good button image. Bluerasberry (talk)15:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: I wanted to have something about the annual plan. I think the community would prefer an independent reporting to a straight up republication of what the WMF wants to say. This is my take on something like a News from the WMF but independently made. It is a start as I expect the conversation to evolve more before publication.Czarking0 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a couple things with the template. I am not sure how to format the piccy thing but I have the image I want there. My interviews are still awaiting some responses. Czarking0 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am more or less happy with the article. If I get additional interview responses, I may need to update that section. What should I take as a next step. Do you think it is ready for copy-edit? Czarking0 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you've asked to answer a couple of questions about the annual plan. You wrote about some meta-commentary and I wondered whether you could also cover the thread I started there called "The problem that underlies most issues and challenges noted here and elsewhere" which includes ideas how to get more community wishes implemented and some analysis of WMF work on the Community Wishlists (I intend to work on the statistics / chart further later). On the other hand, I suggested the subject of concerns about too little technical development or potential ways to increase software development / wish implementations to be covered separately. Nevertheless, at least if you do mention meta things, I think it may be good to at least mention this or this aspect of technical development being required for tackling most community concerns and goals, there being too little of it, and this analysis+set of ideas regarding this underlying problem there. Thanks for your consideration, Prototyperspective (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Czarking0: I apologize for picking this up but not carrying it through. I staged it for publication in the next issue. I know this is a time sensitive issue, but the call for comments is open till May and there are specialized options for giving comment till June.
This is not an excuse, but this submission page is backlogged and I am trying to clear it out. I missed your comments. You are doing everyone a favor by making a submission, and I know it is not ideal to ask favors of people who are already giving favors, but if you choose to submit again, then please do the favor of pinging Signpost editors if we are not responsive. Yes we want your submissions.
Also, I apologize for my own error in not staging your submission immediately to be visible and reviewed by others. The fields in the template, "ready for copyedit" and such, are not actually seen by other editors until you or I or anyone else moves the draft into any of the categories in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. I just moved your submission to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view.
May I still publish your submission? Can you work a bit more with me on it, before the next issue comes out in March? Now that it is staged, other editors will review it too. If you can edit a bit more, can you consider clarifying the following:
You mention some WMF people. Can you put their WMF titles in the article, to help contexualize what these people have to do with the matter
Can you clarify when and where people can comment
The Signpost emphasizes community views and opinions, in contrast to WMF views. Are you able to highlight your own or anyone else's community perspectives, especially to show any differences between WMF views and strong community views?
In the interview section you said, "Three discussion participants interviewed by the Signpost..." can you link to that? I am not aware of these 3 people. Can you summarize what they discussed?
Finally, the lead image is a blue rectangle from the art of the annual plan. Can you somehow find a more relevant image that fits the space?
Thanks, I also am willing to edit more, and you can kick any of this back to me also. Again, I am sorry, I both missed your updates and failed to process your submission properly. I appreciate that you submit and want this to be a positive experience for you. Bluerasberry (talk)14:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to work this more and appreciate all the feedback I receive. I plan to take care of #1 and #2.
I hear you on #3 but I struggle with how to accomplish this a little bit. I did not want to make this about my personal views. I am happy to share those in my own capacity with the WMF staff but I do not believe in them so strongly as to write what I would see as my own opinion piece. That being said I know that the editor that anonymously responded to me had some strong critic of the WMF and that Prototyperspective has more to say. I also had another person reach out that I would probably have to interview anonymously but I think their perspective could be valuable here. I am not sure what The Signpost's standards are around anonymous sources but I believe my sources would be ok with other Signpost authors verifying their identity as long as they are not published.
I also do not want to focus solely on the differences between WMF and community views as I think there is value in celebrating alignment as well as acknowledging differences.
With a little more guidance on these thoughts I think I can beef up the article and satisfy #3.
@Czarking0: Thanks for the changes with my requests 1 + 2.
For community opinion, what I mean by that is that this piece is not framed as fact-checked objective reporting from a team of journalists. It is community journalism. Today at WP:NEWSROOM you have a request from senior people at the Wikimedia Foundation - Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Thanks/clarifications_for_WMF_annual_planning_draft. I encourage and invite you to proceed - this is why The Signpost is here. You are posting solid community journalism that is fine as it is, and you make the editorial decision of how to react to that. My request to you is just make your piece clear that it is a community view, and as long as that is clear, the article is ready when you decide that it is.
For #4, the interviews, I do not see your ping to me. Can you point to those Signpost interviews, or link them in your article? I do not know what these are.
For the image, #5, you are quite welcome to choose any arbitrary picture from Wikimedia Commons, and related it to this article however you choose. The annual plan has programs in nearly every country and every topic. It is an editorial quirk of The Signpost that we require pictures for all articles, and also that we are intimately connected to Wikimedia Commons. Have fun, no pressure, if you are really stumped pick an animal because everyone likes those.
Is there something in the piece currently that you think cannot meet "fact-checked objective reporting?" I would certainly prefer to publish that. Does it somewhat come down to no one is willing to fact check me? I am not totally clear on what this term "community view" means as I don't feel like I can speak for the community and do not want to publish my own opinion. Therefore, I have tried to present what I see as neutral, based on data and interviews.
@Czarking0: In my opinion, objectivity in journalism includes both the process and the result. Talking things through here increases the objectivity. I can fact-check your submission. I think it exceeds the usual quality standard for Signpost submissions. When you are ready to finalize the piece, change the "no" to "yes" for the "ready to copyedit?" question, and we will stage if for publication.
Just for conversation, and you need not change anything because of this, is that aoe aspect of your piece that could seem like an opinion is your focus. The WMF in the newsroom asked for Signpost coverage to include certain points. For example, it is not surprising that you lead by mentioning debates about AI because it is a popular topic, but that is still a choice and a view, and overall the WMF asks for talk on many topics with that just being one of them. Someone else writing a similar piece to yours may have chosen to highlight a different debate. That's fine. Something that I cannot fact-check here is your choice of where to direct attention, because we cannot comprehensively cover everything and still have the right length of story for readers. It takes a journalist's opinion to choose where to focus.
I do not normally scrutinize submissions so much as I am checking out yours. The reason I am talking this through with you is that this is a weighty topic. This reporting covers how we spend our next US$200,000,000, and who gets some of that, and also possibly how external media beyond The Signpost get insights into what the WMF is doing.
Ok I appreciate the feedback. Only I did not understand what "aoe" meant? I think I am happy with the piece now and will further the staging. Czarking0 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: I don't have a page to show for this yet, since it's mostly an idea that I'd like feedback on before starting to write (apologies if this is in the wrong place): I had an idea of writing a short report on how NYT Games (like the crosswords, Wordle, and Connections) drive Wikipedia article views. For example, when myrrh was the Wordle answer on 19 December 2025, the pageviews report shows a massive spike due to a decent amount of people being unfamiliar with the word. I like looking at statistics and I play NYT Games a lot, so I'd enjoy writing it, but I don't know if people would enjoy reading it, so I'd like feedback before committing to writing. (It's possible it could focus on other platforms as well as NYT Games, to avoid seeming promotional, but I'm not familiar with others and NYT Games is the most popular by far afaik.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 20:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Suntooooth: Sure, we can find a way to publish that. This is a secret so do not tell anyone, but Signpost editor Bri has a new Signpost crossword game in development at User:Bri/Signpost. If you can get a draft of something going, then your story and the presentation of this new Signpost crossword could coincide. Also, if you have any interest in being a contributing editor for Signpost crossword Wikipedia clues, then I think there is an opening for a crossword fan.
@Suntooooth: You are still welcome to make a submission on this topic. There is no rush, and this is a standing offer. We accept modest submissions of a few paragraphs and 1-2 pics from Commons. Your topic is interesting and fits, so please draft if you like. Bluerasberry (talk)15:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder - I'd love to be working on it, but IRL factors mean it might take a while. I'm most likely to get it done for the issue after next, but we'll see - could be sooner, could be later. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 17:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: This piece examines the recent problems in the community and makes a modest proposal: Spend 25% on the community. We show how currently WMF is spending about 15% of its budget on the community in terms of grants and awards. We outline what essentially doubling the funds for community could do in terms of solving the problems outlined recently, and look at where the funds could come from.
check in March 2026
I think it is a relevant and much needed piece to start a discussion about equality and investing in the community to the same extent that WMF invests in its staff.
@NabuKudurru: I helped with formatting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Concept. Can you give a go at cleaning up the design and selecting appropriate images from Wikimedia Commons? Also I need you to respond to agree that you wanted me to copy/paste your text from the Google Doc into the Wikimedia platform, in the context of you being a Wikimedia user who understands this copyright issue. Bluerasberry (talk)18:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 thank you for that. I will try to go through the submission portal, but it is not clear for me how to add the pictures, should i add them to commons first? they are both from wikimedia, so i guess ccby. Best, Brett NabuKudurru (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Yes, please start drafting. The next issue is in about two weeks. You can choose one of the article formats at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. Perhaps "Special report", "Opinion", or "Concept" would work. If you want to try Signpost formatting, then submit at the newsroom, otherwise write it anywhere then ping me and I will help with formatting and move it to the newsroom. Thanks, what an exciting topic. Bluerasberry (talk)14:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: This piece is about the deprecation of archive.today following the attempted DDoSing of a small blog, and its tampering of content. It summarises key elements of the RFC, the actions of the webmaster which led to it, the primary objection to deprecation on the grounds of verifiability, and the ultimate discovery of tampering, which led to the closure of the RFC and consensus to deprecate. It also mentions the guidance created by the community, and that discussions are ongoing at other Wikimedia projects.
The article will need to undergo copyediting, review, and have a column chosen, potentially at discussion review or possibly as a standalone column.
If major developments occur across other Wikimedia projects before the deadline, I may add coverage on that, otherwise another Signpost editor could do so if I don't manage to.
I staged this for development and publication in the next issue. It is a major story. Can you help with the following:
You name dropped some editors. You do not necessarily need their consent, but just think about the appropriateness of naming them. The editors you named are experienced and know that they are making public statements. I think it is okay, but please consider that this is a big story. You naming them could put then in attention with other media outlets. I think that is fine - I just want your confirmation that this seems right.
Can you put an illustration here
I profiled Archive Today in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/Technology_report. Link to that or not as you like. I feel like Archive Today guided Wikipedia community discussions on Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation but I may be too close to this topic and cannot think clearly here. If you invite me to mention that in your piece, then I would include a sentence, but I am unsure and do not want to overcomplicate Wikipedia article archiving discussion with Wikipedia administrative editorial discussion.
Are you able to explain the difference between Archive Today and the more familiar Internet Archive, when you discuss "Alternative archiving websites, such as Megalodon and Ghost Archive"?
You lead with explaining the problem as "injection of a script into". The Signpost may not be the place to discuss this, but also your linked hackernews may not be concise explanation either. Can you either explain more about the problem at the beginning, or wave away the explanation by linking to any other on-wiki or journalistic source which attempts to explain it?
With the names of the editors, I wasn’t sure if I should add them or not, so I will omit them when I have time to edit.
I have limited skills when it comes to illustrations, and the existing ones have reference to the blog owner or their blog, and I don’t know if it is appropriate in this context.
I haven’t linked to other signpost articles with coverage as the draft template says not to do so, and I figured it would be best to do so after the pages have been moved. Feel free to mention the influence of the archive.today discussion as you see fit (perhaps including a disclosure that you are close to that topic, I should probably mention my involvement in the archive.today discussion as well)
For the difference between archive.org and archive.today, I will briefly go into that.
I think I should be able to expand the lead a bit, and better explain it.
Hi, I have gone through and removed most of the names of editors. When I added them, I wasn’t sure if I would keep them or not, at the time I didn’t think of other news outlets referencing this story. I left in @Voorts where I was directly quoting his closing statement, though I may still decide to remove it as well. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further tweaks and clarifications. I will still need to link to previous coverage, and check for updates on the consensus on other wikis.
This flow chart shows how a user may come across the CAPTCHA page when attempting to archive a website.
I've been trying to find what images I can include (without showing the targets web domain), and ended up creating a flowchart to show how a user may encounter the website. I don't know if it is particularly great, but it is something, and provides a visual representation. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to include a quote from the French Wikipedia, translated to English. Is this acceptable, or should I remove it?
As far as the quote is concern, the translation for this comment is decent. As for relevance, well, it's a small discussion. You could pick other comments, you could pick this one. I feel the opening comment is more interesting (... Il me semble qu'on aurait tout intérêt à suivre l'exemple de Wikipédia en anglais, même si l'éradication des liens vers archive.today et autres sites associés (archive.is, etc.) demandera pas mal de boulot.) but what's interesting to me may not be what's interesting to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}10:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. Google translate: It seems to me that we would be well advised to follow the example of English Wikipedia, even if removing links to archive.today and other associated sites (archive.is, etc.) will require quite a bit of work.Mitchsavl (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are there any further tweaks I need to do to the article? I have acted of the feedback, and have done my best to improve its quality, including adding quotes and a diagram (which I will be fine if the editor(s) decide to move or remove). The article will still need to be copyedited, and links from other archive.today coverage this issue will need to be added from news and notes and in the media. Other than that, I think the only other thing which needs to be done is being approved for publication. I won't have much time to work on it before the deadline, at most about an hour or two. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: This piece has some historical statistics about unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, and encourages readers to sign up for the WP:MAR26 unreferenced articles backlog drive. I'm hoping that it can be included in the next edition of the Signpost. I'm at your disposal to make any edits that are necessary - the only edit that I would want to make just ahead of publication would be to the list of oldest unreferenced articles at the bottom, to make sure that they are still unreferenced. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to full-width because of the nice large graph. Confirm that you like the look. If instead you want more narrow, then you need to add ~2 more sidebar images of any kind. They need not be directly on topic, for example, you could take an image from an article improved in the drive as an example of the effort.
We also need an image for The Signpost front page put into the template at the top. Can you choose one?
When you are done developing this then please mark it "ready to copyedit".
I think the table should be sortable. It is an interesting article, could do with a bit more explanation on what a PubMed identifier is, and could use some images. The day before the publishing doesn't provide a whole lot of time for copyediting and proofreading, and ideally it would have been submitted earlier. Thankyou for the effort you have put into it to get it in a relatively good shape! I'll try to find an image for the thumbnail and add that if I can. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchsavl Thanks for your kind words and help! This is my first time submitting anything (and I happened to make this discovery after the deadline). Images are always welcome of course. Polygnotus (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image for the thumbnail, I can't find any to use for the body. Unfortunately most images which show up for ChatGPT are AI generated (which doesn't go down well with Wikipedians when such content is included) or of prompts, which is just that bit visually disinteresting. I don't think the body need images in this case. Mitchsavl (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
