This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

In wholesome news, User:Junnn11, a prolific contributor of illustrations of anthropods, made the main page of Hacker News [1] and a Japanese blog [2]. Nardog (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...for "In the media" (or something more): Authority of knowledge: historians on Wikipedia in higher education #LILAC23 blogpost by Sheila Webber about a talk by Delphine Doucet given at the #LILAC23 Conference (information literacy). Maybe Doucet is an editor? - kosboot (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write an article comparing the several user scripts that show the reliability of sources:

User:Headbomb/unreliable, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter, and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen

137a (talk • edits) 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I plan on writing something about those in a follow up Tips and Tricks columns. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

{{done}}

The Signpost should write about editing with a WP:COI taking place in Durham County, North Carolina if it hasn't already.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of coverage about this story in this issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

{{done}}

Would The Signpost welcome a piece by me, combining and updating User:Hansmuller/The_sum_of_all_knowledge (including international interpretations) and User:Hansmuller/Five_Pillars_plus_one (also Wikology/Wikisophy :-) in a more appropriate style? The sum of all knowledge might also be viewed as an extra Pillar, so then we would end up with a total of Seven Pillars of Wikipedia? Thank for considering this proposal, Hansmuller (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC), Wikipedian in Residence African Studies Centre Leiden

@Hansmuller: This looks a bit out of place here, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions for proposing contributions written by oneself.

Without preempting a full discussion there, my first impression is that the "sum of all knowledge" piece looks like an interesting and valuable overview of various interpretations of this term. The "pillars" piece I didn't find as convincing or interesting on first glance, but that too could be further discussed on the submissions page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

A really interesting research article about how Wikipedia's institutions have changed over time that essentially claims that Wikipedia's processes have become less friendly to fringe views over time was just published open access in APSR, an elite political science journal.

The title is "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet"

I suggest that someone (perhaps myself) review it for the next recent research section.

Groceryheist (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is being mentioned in-depth in the upcomng edition of In the media (due to being mentioned in Political Science Now). But could perhaps be moved to another section of the paper. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Cool! Nice writeup. I think some additional coverage in a future recent research column could still be helpful (and can link to your In the media column). This is among the first (maybe the first) articles about Wikipedia in prestigious political science journals and so may not be on the radar of the broader audience of Wikipedia researchers that read the recent research newsletter. Groceryheist (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about paltry funding for Wikimania scholarships.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb I agree it's worth covering ... I'd earmarked a section in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next issue/News and notes even before seeing your note here. Do you feel like collaborating?

I guess the total amount the WMF spent on the roughly 200 scholarships it approved is significantly smaller than the $0.95 million it recently spent on the severance packages for just two (2) top executives. Andreas JN466 18:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up, @Jayen466! Given that I've expressed a clear view on the topic, I think I should recuse myself from covering it in the Signpost to avoid any appearance of bias. You're certainly welcome to quote from my post and the response to it, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. Andreas JN466 19:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

Hi--I'm the executive editor over at the Forward and we just published this piece that I thought you all might be interested in. It's about a Wikimedia-funded project to save a half-dozen lost Jewish languages and there's been a major Wikipedia edit-a-thon associated with the project as well. Anyway, here's the link to the story: https://forward.com/culture/554932/jewish-languages-iran-neo-aramaic-endangered-preservation-wikimedia/

All Best,

Adam Langer 2603:7000:9600:172:869:57E:CCBC:7BD3 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Done}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

Slightly amusing tail wags dog story. There is a new RM (7th, but who's counting (we are)) going on at Talk:Czech Republic. The arguments for moving include more weighty orgs like IOC now use Czechia. In the Talk:Czech_Republic#Moratorium sub-thread I pointed out that the Czech OC still used "the Czech Republic" on their about-page[3], and that someone should perhaps talk to them about that. Apparently someone did, the page was updated[4] and currently reads the Czechia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the oldest hoax/false statement found thus far. As part of a peer review/expansion of Clipperton Island attempts to source the claim of a 1725 French expedition to the island found nothing predating 2003, which is when the claim was first added to Wikipedia. It seems the claim lasted on the page for 19 years, 3 months, and 15 days, propagating to a number of other sites, including print sources.

• Talk:Clipperton Island § 1725 Expedition
• Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia § False statements in articles
• Example of WP:RS citing the incorrect statement to Wikipedia:

McGann, Mary; Schmieder, Robert W.; Loncke, Louis-Philippe (2019). "Shallow-water Foraminifera and Other Microscopic Biota of Clippertion Island, Tropical East Pacific" (PDF). Atoll Research Bulletin (626): 5. ISSN 0077-5630.

The previous longest-lasting known false statement was 15 years, 5 months; the longest-lasting known hoax article was 17 years, 5 months. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel vaguely sad that the item I found is no longer the record-holder. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This feels like a good place to share an example I found. The earliest iteration (16 April 2002) of the article Dili includes the line "Dili was settled about 1520 by the Portuguese, who made it the capital of Portuguese Timor". I am open to being embarassingly corrected on this entire matter, but from what I can tell this is not true. I don't know if it was a hoax, I more suspect it was a good faith mistake on a historical topic which remains somewhat unclear even today. The 1520s were when Portugal started operating in and around Timor, but this was trade rather than settlement, and it was a long time before the center of Portuguese control was even on that island. At some point the first settlement occurred at Lifau, which later again became the administrative centre. It was only in 1769 that Dili became the center, as a result of the Governor literally moving there with a thousand other people. So far as I can tell Dili was effectively founded at that point, although there might have been a small settlement earlier? At any rate, this claim remained in the article until I removed it on 21 July 2021 (separately removed from the infobox). To this day Britannica still says "Dili was settled about 1520 by the Portuguese, who made it an administrative centre". CMD (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Good catch after 19 years, 3 months, 6 days. Looking at the Portuguese version of the article (pt:Díli), it was created in September 2004 with the same 1520 claims, but much of the history section was rewritten at the end of November 2005 to line up with what you've noted although the sourcing there could be more in-depth. That edit (and a lot of further expansion of the article) was done by Manuel de Sousa who helped found Tetum-language Wikipedia. Looking at some histories of the region, it's possible a trading post was set up in the vicinity of Dili around 1520 (though I haven't found anything that confirms that), but it certainly wasn't a seat of colonial government until much, much later. (Looking at more of the Dili article history, it seems the claim was edited over time to make clear that Dili wasn't founded as the capital in 1520. In this May 2002 edit the capital claim was dated to 1596; an IP editor in April 2007 changed the date to 1796 with the edit summary "→‎History: date wrong, check founding date, I don't believe it too!" It remained that way until CMD started in on the article in June and July 2021.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I there! I’m not an active contributor nowadays, but please let me know if I can be useful in anyway. Regards, Manuel de Sousa (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

One dark secret about Britannica is that many of its articles were written by freelancers who sometimes, er, improvised facts, & their contributions were never carefully double-checked for accuracy. (One of many reasons not to cite EB as a reliable source.) I wouldn't be surprised if this claim about Dili was "improvised." -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This coming October will mark 21 years I've been a contributor here at Wikipedia. I've been musing writing a memoir about how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Some good changes (e.g., as a reference it is definitely far more useful today than it was in 2002), some not good (e.g., as a result it is definitely harder to contribute to Wikipedia than 20-odd years ago, let alone start a new article -- although much remains to be covered). -- llywrch (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Would love to read that! Andreas JN466 23:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s a great idea and I would suggest doing it as an interview. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

An interview would lend itself to a better structure, & is more likely to cover topics of general interest, as opposed to a recounting of my own personal biases ... -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Llywrch: whether a memoir or interview, let me know when it happens. Would love to read it. Volunteer Marek 20:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Smallbones is already on this, but just in case:

The New Yorker has a lengthy investigative article titled "The Dirty Secrets of a Smear Campaign", describing how "Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, paid a Swiss private intelligence firm millions of dollars to taint perceived enemies". Most of the article isn't about Wikipedia, but there are several paragraphs about how the firm ("Alp Services", founded by an investigator named Mario Brero) used it for their purposes alongside many other interesting tools (such illegitimately obtaining phone call records or tax records of their targets, and planting stories in various news outlets). I'm excerpting them below for convenience.

The first part is about an American oil trader named Hazim Nada, founder of a company called Lord Energy:

On January 5, 2018, Sylvain Besson, a journalist who had written a book purporting to tie [Hazim Nada's father] Youssef Nada to a supposed Islamist conspiracy, published an article, in the Geneva newspaper Le Temps, claiming that Lord Energy was a cover for a Muslim Brotherhood cell. “The children of the historical leaders of the organization have recycled themselves in oil and gas,” Besson wrote. A new item in Africa Intelligence hinted darkly that Lord Energy employees had “been active in the political-religious sphere.” Headlines sprang up on Web sites, such as Medium, that had little editorial oversight: “Lord Energy: The Mysterious Company Linking Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood”; “Compliance: Muslim Brotherhood Trading Company Lord Energy Linked to Crédit Suisse.” A Wikipedia entry for Lord Energy [probably fr:Lord Energy] suddenly included descriptions of alleged ties to terrorism.

This outside view from the victim's perspective is later matched to what the reporter learned from leaked/hacked internal emails of "Alp Services":

In February, 2018, [Brero] asked for more money to expand his operation against Nada, and proposed “to alert compliance databases and watchdogs, which are used by banks and multinationals, for example about Lord Energy’s real activities and links to terrorism.” His “objective,” he explained, was to block the company’s “bank accounts and business.” [...]
Alp quickly put the Emiratis’ money to work. An Alp employee named Raihane Hassaine e-mailed drafts of damning Wikipedia entries. On an invoice dated May 31, 2018, the company paid Nina May, a freelance writer in London, six hundred and twenty-five pounds for five online articles, published under pseudonyms and based on notes supplied by Alp, that attacked Lord Energy for links to terrorism and extremism. (Hassaine did not respond to requests for comment. May told me that she had worked for Alp in the past but had signed a nondisclosure agreement.)

And:

Alp operatives bragged to the Emiratis that they had successfully thwarted Nada’s efforts to correct the disparaging Lord Energy entry on Wikipedia. “We requested the assistance of friendly moderators who countered the repeated attacks,” Brero wrote in an “urgent update” to the Emiratis in June, 2018. “The objective remains to paralyze the company.” To pressure others to shun Lord Energy, Alp added dubious allegations about the company to the Wikipedia entries for Credit Suisse and for an Algerian oil monopoly [possibly Sonatrach, referring to these edits].

And regarding another target:

Brero’s campaign sometimes involved secret retaliation. In a 2018 report, a U.N. panel of human-rights experts concluded that the U.A.E. may have committed war crimes in its military intervention in Yemen. The Emiratis commissioned Brero to investigate the panel’s members, especially its chairman, Kamel Jendoubi, a widely admired French Tunisian human-rights advocate. [...] “Today, in both Google French and Google English, the reputation of Kamel Jendoubi is excellent,” Brero noted in a November, 2018, pitch to the Emiratis. “On both first pages, there is not a single critical article.” Within six months, Brero promised, Jendoubi’s image could be “reshaped” with “negative elements.” The cost: a hundred and fifty thousand euros.

Rumors spread through Arab news outlets and European Web publications that Jendoubi was a tool of Qatar, a failed businessman, and tied to extremists. A French-language article posted on Medium suggested that he might be “an opportunist disguised as a human-rights hero.” An article in English asked, “Is UN-expert Kamel Jendoubi too close to Qatar?” Alp created or altered Wikipedia entries about Jendoubi, in various languages, by citing claims from unreliable, reactionary, or pro-government news outlets in Egypt and Tunisia.

Jendoubi told me that he’d been perplexed by the flurry of slander that followed the war-crimes report. “Wikipedia is a monster!” he told me. He had managed to clean up the French entry, but the English-language page still stymied him. He said, “You speak English—can you help?”

I likely won't have time to look more into this, but it surely seems worthwhile to examine edit histories, look at whether frwiki has been discussing these issues, etc.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a long form article - this one takes 1 hour 13 minutes to read. @HaeB:. It should make a very good Signpost article. For one thing, we can just quote the New Yorker as a form of "ground truth". Sure they can make mistakes, but their reputation for fact checking is probably the best in the business. And we can just quote them. Searching the WP record of edits may be fairly easy as well since they seem to give the article and the date. I'll ask @*Jules*: right here and now if he can dig up anything in FRwiki. But I certainly can't do it for this issue, and doubt that anybody could do this properly in 3 days. I'm working on a boring article on systemically important banks and it's taking more time than I'd though. If I find more time, maybe I'll find some sexy banking stuff to add to it. I'll encourage anybody who wants a shot at this to start it, and I can certainly give some advice after this issue's deadline, April 2. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Try again @Jules*: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I will take a look tomorrow. — Jules* ^talk 18:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Just finished reading that article; found this added by single-purpose account User:Ramzan.khutaissi in July 2019 in the Credit Suisse history. It was subsequently removed in January 2021. I wasn't able to find an article (existing or deleted) on Lord Energy. I removed this from Sonatrach, also originally added by a a differnt SPA (User:Bounableilalaw) back around the same time in 2019: [5]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much time, but fr:Lord Energy has been created (with negative elements) by SPI Davidefergan (talk · contribs) in June 2018. Reverts to keep the contents seem to all have been made by legit editors. I forwarded this discussion on fr-wp antispam project.

On fr:Kamel Jendoubi, negative elements have been added by SPI Rachidayedtunis (talk · contribs) in January 2019, and by SPI Mouhatou93 (talk · contribs) in August 2019. Those negative elements have been deleted in 2021 by an SPI and then by Josce (talk · contribs).

Best, — Jules* ^talk 11:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me it should be mentioned that Kamel Jendoubi is a BLP article, and the content added to it was clearly slanderous, poorly cited, and in ungrammatical English, but when an IP tried to remove it, one of our WP:RCP users reverted the IP, claiming "censorship". This speaks to me of the difficulties of checking thousands of edits every day NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - based on the above I may actually aim to put together an ITM piece myself, probably for the next (i.e. not today's) issue. I still haven't read the entire article and feel it should better be covered by someone who has. But better to have something that relies on excerpts than dropping this entirely. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about Update Wikipedia, from something called enhanced.org. Their table of Example of Harmful Language -> A Better Alternative is something of an Orwellian masterpiece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: Enhanced Games. We'll see if it sticks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Wikicommunes (https://mtmx.github.io/wikicommunes/index_int.html).

French data scientist Mathieu Garnier has combined data from the Code officiel géographique, Wikidata and Wikipediatrend (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/wikipediatrend/index.html) to measure popularity of articles related to French communes. He has created a map of communes colored by popularity. More recently, he has added comparisons between the popularity of articles in different languages.

See the thread https://mapstodon.space/@mat/109551154676286788 (in French but automatic translators should help).

PAC2 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... the latest developments of the Ruviki situation you wrote about last month.

As reported in an article by Il Post, Ruviki's beta version went live at the end of June: volunteers currently are not allowed to create or even edit content, and founder Vladimir V. Medeyko is seemingly going to restrict their functions in favor of paid editors, anyway. For now, the platform mostly hosts forked and re-edited copies of many ru.wiki articles.

Although Medeyko denied that Ruviki has any ties with the Russian regime, claiming the site is supported by undisclosed investors who "believe in the project", Il Post noted that several articles on... "sensible" topics have likely been subject to censorship and manipulation: for example, the Wagner Group's page does not include any details about their recent (and very notable) rebellion, at least for now.

I think most of us were already expecting this, but it's still scary news...

Oltrepier (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Yestersday de:Marvin Oppong published the article „Greenwashing“ in Wikipedia? in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Goptyyyy (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the full citation. Perhaps there is a German reader who has a subscription to the faz.net site who can help out, since this article is behind a paywall. The first paragraph of the article refers to German Wikipedia. I wonder if other language Wikipedias are mentioned in the parts of the article that I cannot access & put through a translator.

• Oppong, Marvin (2023-07-15). "Verdacht auf Greenwashing bei Wikipedia" [Suspicion of Greenwashing at Wikipedia]. FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-07-16.

Peaceray (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Legatorix added the article to the DE version of Signpost's press page. Perhaps they could weigh in on this. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

A story about the battle between the good witches of the 21st century and the imaginary but evil witches of earlier centuries at Talk:Witchcraft? Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll second that. It's a hot topic. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikifunctions, Wikipedia's newest sibling project, had a soft launch this week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Published, in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/News_and_notes#Wikifunctions_goes_live, thanks. jp×g 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

The Daily Telegraph opines today that Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns and digs up a few financial details. (Thanks to Andreas for the tip.) Certes (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-31/In the media. Thanks! jp×g 06:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In case it has missed anyone's radar, Diff has an article about Johnny Au for setting the longest consecutive days of editing. Article Also check out this tool for measuring strings of consecutive days of editing. (It'd be nice if Diff recognized quality of edits, rather than quantity.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for recognizing my longtime contributions to the English Wikipedia! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't covered at the time, is now in the draft for this issue's N&N. jp×g 06:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about m:Requests for comment/Hiding the number of Russian/Belorussian/Kazakh contributors on the statistics map − Russian users protest against WMF's "censorship" ssr (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

In briefs for N&N for this issue -- we will see how it develops. jp×g 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... n:ru:European Wikimedians gathered in Tbilisi ssr (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In N&N for this issue, will be in briefs, maybe more. Thanks! jp×g 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... I was watching "How Counterfeit Money Actually Works | How Crime Works | Insider" on YouTube, and the counterfeiter gave credit to Wikipedia for having "pretty high resolution photos in their stock" for him to work with. Are there any anti-counterfeiting measures being taken (or should be taken) regarding the images? I posted this question at commons:File talk:Obverse of the series 2009 $100 Federal Reserve Note.jpg since that's the file shown in the video. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Much to think about! Have put it in ITM. jp×g 06:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this mention of Wikipedia in our old friend Nature: "AI tidies up Wikipedia's references -- and boosts reliability" (published 19 October 2023) -- llywrch (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In ITM -- may also work for recent research as well. Thanks! jp×g 06:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... the discussion currently taking place at VPP regarding secret clients who have paid an admin, (Cullen328) for advice and the associated RFC. The whole thing stinks as there is a potential for corruption and subversion.

scope_creepTalk 11:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this will make it somewhere in this issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... this piece in the Financial Times: New book from shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves lifts from Wikipedia. Ham II (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, will be in In the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Williams, Zoe (23 October 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

Cabayi (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Lots of Elon in this issue. Thanks! 21:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic of Elon Musk wanting to change Wikipedia’s name. For example:

”Elon Musk has offered to donate 1 billion dollars to the Wikipedia Foundation if we change Wikipedia’s name to Dickipedia. Jimmy Wales thinks ‘insert quote from Jimbo about how we are not going to do that here.’” Shadestar474 ^(talk) 22:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• got it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes. Lourdes admitted that they are Wifione and has been indefinitely blocked.

QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks (twice). @Bri: is on it and thinks it is super important. I agree. 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{Done}} jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Il Post's apparent "love" for Wikipedia!

At this point, it's likely no surprise I rate this Italian newspaper very highly, as I think it has established itself as one of the most respected and reliable news sources in my country. Still, I didn't notice how much care they've put into the coverage of Wikipedia-related news until now: they published many articles involving both en.wiki and it.wiki, reported from the 2016 edition of Wikimania in Esino Lario, and even cited Wiki pages as sources in some instances, including here and here.

What if you tried to reach out to someone from their editorial staff for a mini-interview about what they think about the platform and when, why and how they write about it? Obviously, I know it's incredibly difficult to even arrange something like this, but boy, would it be interesting to read what they have to say!

Oltrepier (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} already under #Suggestion by Oltrepier (2023-11-07). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... a recent article by Il Post which highlighted the works of Gage Skidmore, a photographer and Creative Commons contributor who has become famous for his contributions at the San Diego Comic Con, among other achievements. Admittedly, this bit of news is almost a month old now, but still, I hope it's useful for the "In the media" section! [@Bri, HaeB, Smallbones, and JPxG: I'm tagging you since you've all contributed to the latest edition.]

I also want to take advantage of this opportunity to re-launch my original proposal to (maybe) get in touch with Il Post, since they seem to care a lot about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, even using them as sources in many instances.

Oltrepier (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: Why don't you start writing up some lines yourself in the draft for the upcoming issue (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media)? I'll be happy to help bringing it into shape later on before the publication deadline, if necessary (as I'm sure others will be too). Especially since none of people you tagged are (to my knowledge) native Italian speakers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@HaeB Oh, I actually didn't know I was free to do it: thank you! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-20/In the media#Comic-Contextualization. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

A bomb threat was called to Toronto Reference Library today (Nov 11) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bomb-threat-toronto-reference-library-1.7026287

According to this Reddit discussion, the threat is directly targeting WikiConference North America being held there today: https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/17svtjo/bomb_threat_at_toronto_ref_library_this_morning/

SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-20/News and notes#WikiConference North America receives bomb threat Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... The Requested Articles process and the Attempted Revival of WikiProject Requested Articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Requested articles#Revival Basically my idea is to cover the state of the requested articles process, and how some requests are decades old, and how there are attempts to revive WikiProject Requested articles to help with maintaining the request pages and encouraging people to create some of the oldest requests.

Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

this article for the in the media in brief section.

In a Harper's Magazine article entitled "The Hofmann Wobble", Ben Lerner tells the fictional memoirs of a sockpuppeteer trying to use Wikipedia to disseminate their viewpoints while also sharing false facts to discredit Wikipedia and gain academic prestige. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Of note are Gwern's comments regarding the reality of the "fictional" edits. Ckoerner (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-04/Disinformation report. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... https://observablehq.com/@pac02/actress-singers-and-actor-singers-do-actresses-become-sing?collection=@pac02/wikidata

In this notebook I posit an intuition and use Wikidata to test if my assumption is wrong or false. It's not directly using Wikipedia as such but it show how data from the sister project Wikidata can be used to test various assumptions. PAC2 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PAC2! Would you be comfortable with writing something up for this, for the September issue? Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course. PAC2 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry but I won't be able to finish my piece for tomorrow. PAC2 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@PAC2, that's totally fine! Our publication deadline is actually on the 31st, but we'd also be happy to accept something later than that. Cheers, 🥒 EpicPickle ^{(they/them | talk)} 21:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@PAC2: If you are still interested, so are we -- let us know if you want to circle back on this. jp×g 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your ping. Here is my draft User:PAC2/How to use Wikidata to test your intuitions. PAC2 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

After some moves and redirect deletions, it looks like this is now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Wikidata. @JPxG: Still planning to publish it? Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you still planning to publish this article? PAC2 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit on the short side for an article, especially compared to your treatment of actors on the French Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about this -- many moves indeed (there was another in the meantime). It is quite short now but if you expand this out I will publish it; ping me when it is done. jp×g 06:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about

Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)

I came across this user today during my regular RTRC patrolling who did blanking and unexplained content removals. After 4im warnings, I reported them and they got blocked indefinitely. After that, I did some digging and they've been active for 14 years in Wikipedia with over 52,000 edits. Impressive track record, all down the drain in a day. I'm not sure what went wrong or why, but this is Signpost worthy, right?

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the reason I suppose. Some accounts get hacked. Others go through a rough patch for whatever reasons. For the first, it sucks but there's not much to say. For the second... giving them space seems a better solution than placing them in the spotlight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is strange and rather unfortunate. It happens every once in a while. Others I can remember are Special:Contributions/54nd60x and Special:Contributions/FacetsOfNonStickPans -- people who were very productive editors and either got compromised or went berserk one day seemingly out of nowhere and getting themselves indeffed, and then never heard from again. It's hard to say what the deal is on this. If anyone finds out, it'd definitely be newsworthy. jp×g 06:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw a report in the Wikimedia General Chat channel on Telegram that Hiba Abu Nada, a Palestinian writer & Wikipedian, was killed during the bombing in Gaza. According to the Spanish Wikipedia she participated in the WikiWrites campaign. NOTE: Before this report I had never heard of her, nor of "WikiWrites", so I don't know just how prominent of a Wikipedian she was. But it cannot be denied that civilians on both sides are dying in this latest conflict. -- llywrch (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• This would need to be very carefully done and may be difficult. Is there a user name? Otherwise it'll be even more difficult. But, at least we know something about where to get started. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia actually has an article about her too (as do many other languages), citing the same Spanish-language source for her having been a Wikimedian, and in the Wikipedia Weekly FB group, someone confirmed this ("Heba was proofreading articles translated from English to Arabic. This journey began in 2021"). That should already suffice for a brief item in N&N. Of course, as other news media have found out, one needs to be careful in reporting death causes in this context, but in this case it should be fine as long as we attribute such information to the sources cited in the mainspace article.

That said, yes, some more details would be nice including her user name if she had one. I asked about this last week in the linked discussion, but nobody there seemed to know.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman

Two well-attended afd:s with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE aspects. Perhaps something could be written on how the community deals with cases like these when there is disagreement on where to draw the line. More discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_Wikipedia_offer_article_protection_as_a_compromise_between_deletion_on_request_and_causing_needless_distress?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deen K. Chatterjee

Another AfD that falls into this area by a different path. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 15#Chris Bell (British Army officer) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheed Al-Hardan. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it's appropriate: the Chinese Wikipedia recently had a large election under securepoll, the first in almost a year (the last one was October 2022), in which seven people ran for sysop and two for oversight, but all of them lost. The Chinese Wikipedia has made a RFC on this matter to consider lowering the standard. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Davies, Pascale (26 November 2023), Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says AI is a 'mess' now but can become superhuman in 50 years, Euronews.

(As an aside, the only articles I'm aware of which are partly written with AI, based on transclusions of {{OpenAI}}, are Artwork title which was done with ChatGPT, and Leniolisib, which was done with Bing. Are there more?) Ham II (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the fact that the number of active CheckUsers is having a net decrease.

Equalwidth (C) 05:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...the edit request wizard (ERW). Not enough people know about it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's prominence in Google search results, we attract a lot of COI editors, paid and unpaid alike. One of the strategies of managing them is to reduce the friction of doing the right thing: avoid direct edits to the article and suggesting edits through the talk page.

Doing so requires a nontrivial amount of technical skill and knowledge. Wikipedia editing has a bit of a learning curve that can be unforgiving. Suggestions on talk pages sometimes don't get tagged and thus never see the light of day. This nonresponse can frustrate COI editors, leading to undesired behaviors, like direct edits to the article.

This is completely avoidable because the ERW does the tagging! I think it is worth having more people, especially Teahouse hosts and Help Desk regulars, tell COI editors about them. So, I think if we have even a small blurb, it might help. With the level of awareness now, I see a lot of experienced editors directing newbies to the talk page itself and telling them to add the templates. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Similar logic applies to the AfC submission wizard, which reduces the number of improperly submitted drafts. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. — Frostly (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/12/pgad385/7457939. Seems like interesting research about Wikipedia and its environment.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 22:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I found the meta:Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/2023-12-07 Conversation with Trustees (video) particularly interesting this quarter. The agenda:

• Board updates: Sister Projects Task Force, AffCom Strategy....
• Product and Technology updates
• Developments in AI: the affiliate approach and the Foundation's current work
• Talking:2024 - an invite to talk about the future of Wikimedia with Foundation senior leadership and trustees
• General questions

Not agendized were a detailed discussion of how Affiliate spending and conflicts of interest will be monitored and controlled going forward, and an explanation from the Foundation General Counsel implying that community safety issues prevent public advocacy on the jailed Arabic Wikipedia administrators. Jimbo and everyone else who talked at length on AI were particularly intriguing.

The meta:Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Talking: 2024 initiative could likely be a separate news note on its own, as they don't have too many sign-ups yet relative to their stated ambitions. Sandizer (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Atsme's Justapedia fork is introduced in Quillette. This is a long read and almost certainly written by someone who edits here. There are mentions of what Signpost covers and our cancer diagnosis. The real thrust is the well-documented lefty bias here (and the sources we cite) which brings about the other coverage.

Chris Troutman (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, Quillette has a WP-article and a WP:RSP entry. Another fork on Slate: Why Wikipedia’s Highway Editors Took the Exit Ramp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting also that while the article has Atsme's name, linking it seems ok per stuff like Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Flatworm.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Some connected discussion at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Removal_of_Quillette_quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• https://deadline.com/2023/12/snl-monologue-kate-mckinnon-maya-rudolph-kristen-wiig-1235670612/
• https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/snl-recap-kate-mckinnon-reunites-with-kristen-wiig-and-maya-rudolph/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/arts/television/snl-kate-mckinnon-returns.html
• https://ew.com/snl-recap-season-49-episode-8-8416509

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

Today, the executive director of Wikimedia.Ru, Stanislav Kozlovsky (Ctac) was fired from his job at Moscow State University for his position as an executive director. Wikimedia.ru in response decided to disband itself. Probably someone wants to go into details.Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, I'll check if anybody is on it. I don't know who can handle this right now. There's a Russian Wikinews article we might use, just have it seperate maybe in Forum?. Could you check the machine translation? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can check the translation, no problem. The scale would be a couple of days though, I do not know when you want to publish the next edition. Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I just copied the basics to In Focus Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Arabic Wikipedia is on protest with blackout. The screenshot. I see some statements here. --ssr (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Some 2024 media on ar-WP:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

{{done}}? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-24/Discussion report#Arabic Wikipedia blacks out main page, logs out all users, publishes statement, and adopts new logo in response to war in Gaza Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me an article about plagiarism and Wikipedia would be timely after the ouster of Harvard president Claudine Gay for plagiarism. Now, I see that Neri Oxman, whose husband advocated Gay's ouster for plagiarism, has been accused of plagiarism of Wikipedia and other sources. The article in Business Insider with examples is persuasive. Perhaps a Signpost article about plagiarism and Wikipedia by one of our copyright experts would be useful. Smallchief (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the Oxman media-coverage, there is also some debate going on at Talk:Neri Oxman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The signpost should write about young creative African,in the vibrant streets of south Africa building their own genre from nothing to something,to the world"Amapiano" 41.113.212.174 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

I came across UFO Coverup: The Wikipedia Secret Cabal in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#UFOlogy_promoter_BLPs. I haven't seen it (3h long) and I certainly will respect anybody else who don't want to either. But it may be fun to mention somewhere. Some effort appears to have gone into it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the WikiProject Unreferenced Article's February backlog drive to work through the 113,000+ backlog of articles without citations which begins February 1st.

Kazamzam (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Biased) endorse from me as well. A simple mention at one of Signpost's new issue is enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Added a mention to the upcoming issue's "News and notes" section. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... m:NWR-Hist Wikimedia User Group (North-West Russia Wiki-Historians) has published their vast and illustrated annual 2023 report in English: m:North-West Russia Wiki-Historians User Group/Annual reports/2023/en // ping @Красный: --ssr (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While report itself is ready, its English translation haven't been reviewed yet and will be ready approximately around tommorow (UTC). Red ^{wanna talk?} 17:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Красный:, ICYDK the link is included in the fresh issue, so mention it in the next report =))) --ssr (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"News and notes" draft contains section about "Nationalist governance capture in self-governed Wikipedia projects" — a research by University of Washington. The research focuses on Croatian Wikipedia and probably doesn't mention Chechen Wikipedia which suffered from this problem many years before in lesser scale. The problem was resolved by interference of Wikimedia Foundation who had to totally replace all admins. Some basic information on this is here: meta:Requests for comment/Massive sysop abuse in Chechen Wikipedia. Probably it would be wise for Signpost to mention this case as similar in the past. --ssr (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe I should better had posted it at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom? This is not very much a suggestion, but correction. -- ssr (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked into this, but the paper does actually mention the Chechen case (alongside similar RfCs about Azerbaijani and Japanese Wikipedia). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for assistance, I am glad to hear this! --ssr (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about palworlds 1 million views in a week

•Cyberwolf•talk? 15:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyberwolf Isn't that normally covered in the traffic statistics at the end of the issue? It's in the top 25 for two weeks ago (no. 8) so it should show up this issue. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 03:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... User:Donald_Albury/The rescue of a sub-stub biography. Just a little note about article improvement.

Donald Albury 14:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the current state of the graphs extension in April, the anniversary of the disabling, as seen in T334940. We could also talk about the decision announced 6 Feb to not focus on graphs. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

{{done}} Gottem: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29/Technology report and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25/News and notes :^) jp×g🗯️ 03:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about recent discussions in Wikipedia in French about transidentity. A recent poll in Wikipedia in French about the use of the deadname of trans people has had many consequences in the French community. Many articles in French speaking medias have been published in the last weeks.

• https://www.numerama.com/politique/1630558-une-question-sur-le-deadname-des-personnes-trans-divise-wikipedia.html in Numerama
• https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/mentionner-ou-non-l-ancien-nom-de-personnes-trans-le-debat-agite-wikipedia-8562090 Radio France
• https://crowdagger.fr/wikipedia-et-le-necronyme-des-personnes-trans-linsoutenable-neutralite-du-point-de-vue/, blog post
• https://www.liberation.fr/societe/sexualite-et-genres/transidentite-un-sondage-wikipedia-sur-lusage-du-deadname-vivement-critique-20240227_XVXCB7Q5PNCCJHXW6ROE4QZGIA/ in Libération
• https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2024/03/08/sur-wikipedia-la-communaute-francophone-se-dechire-autour-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans_6220937_4408996.html,
• https://next.ink/131199/la-neutralite-sur-wikipedia-la-question-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans-relance-le-debat/ in Next Inpact
• https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2024/03/08/sur-wikipedia-la-communaute-francophone-se-dechire-autour-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans_6220937_4408996.html, Le Monde.

I think it would be nice to have a summary of the controversy.

PAC2 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@PAC2 Would you be willing to share these sources over at Talk:LGBT and Wikipedia, too? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course. PAC2 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

{{done}} Gottem: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/In_the_media :^) jp×g🗯️ 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Great summary of the controversy. PAC2 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about...

You may well be aware of it, but I found the Reddit post in this - since deleted - comment interesting. It may be worth following up and or mentioning in the next issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Not strictly Wikipedia-related, but Nature published a study about toxicity in online discussions, looking at 30 years of data from Usenet & the earliest Listservs to contemporary web fora. In short, software has made no difference in toxicity -- it's all driven by us humans. Article here links to the article on Nature's website. -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The text of WP:URFA/2020's report for 2023 has been posted, and can be found at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the French Witionary posting a banner saying that it is being sued (in France). The names of plaintif(s) and others implicated are obfuscated.

Jerome Potts (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A piece of research, may be worth a mention:Wikipedia and the Outsider Within: Black Feminism and Social Inequality in Knowledge Sharing. Afaict [7] it hasn't been mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't know if it will be included in this issue's RR column, but we'll look into it! Oltrepier (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier Just thought of looking at this page, huh? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the Joint Statement on Palestine:

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Joint_Statement_on_Palestine

--Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Another Believer It likely won't make the cut for the upcoming issue, but we'll look into it! Oltrepier (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Yuri Lushchai, an admin and a member of the Arbitration Committee on ruwiki, who died during Russian shelling of a village near Bakhmut (ruwiki discussion, Kramatorsk Post, Pro100media, Suspilne, Strana, Radio Svoboda). Avessa (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avessa Thank you for flagging it: it likely won't make the cut for the upcoming issue, but we'll look into it! Oltrepier (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hello Oltrepier. You might also want to check how Wikinews article was able to raise awareness to this tragic event. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Wikimedia Foundation Joins as an Associate Member of the Unicode Consortium (2024-03-28). Haven't seen this mentioned yet. Arcorann (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Arcorann It likely won't make the cut for the upcoming issue, but we'll look into it! Oltrepier (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the recently completed Wikimedia Summit 2024. Here is my report back to my affiliate group; I imagine there are other reports like this that can be used as source materials, but weirdly I haven't seen any linked yet. Jmabel | Talk 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel It seems like Bluerasberry is already on it, but thank you for flagging it, nevertheless! I'd suggest you to keep in touch with him (if you haven't already), so you can work together on the draft! Oltrepier (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, feel more than free to incorporate some of my notes, and to get hold of me if I can be useful beyond that. - Jmabel | Talk 14:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Trump’s social media account shares a campaign video with a headline about a ‘unified Reich’ (Associated Press): "A video posted to Donald Trump’s account on his social media network included references to a “unified Reich” among hypothetical news headlines if he wins the election in November." ... "At least one of the headlines flashing in the video appears to be text that is copied verbatim from a Wikipedia entry on World War I [for clarification, it's the article World War I]: 'German industrial strength and production had significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich'." Ham II (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the call for feedback on the procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle.

See Victoria's email to wikimedia-l and diff post for details. This is a call for feedback on a key part of the work of the m:Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Sister Projects Task Force, which aims to revive the discussions and processes for opening new Wikimedia projects, as well as considering the overall lifecycle with our projects, including procedures for closing projects. Feedback is open until June 23rd, and there will be open calls on 23 and 30 May on this topic. The task force is open to answering questions about this work, ideally on the talk page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia. Something for the recent research page. Previously by the same author:[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In a related story, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has been accused of engaging in a campaign to discredit state-recognized tribes, among other things. This could result in legal action against editors by some tribes. See this tumblr post by moniquill. Also, one of the editors mentioned in the paper (Pingnova) has also commented on said tumblr post. There’s definitely something worth investigating here, but that might be outside of the signpost’s scope. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Article-writer Kyle Keeler invokes Klein and Grabowski, maybe Arbcom will feel obliged to initiate another case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Academic_journal_article_of_interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... New Study Confirms Long-Held Conservative Suspicions of Wikipedia Bias. A search I've done for "David Rozado Wikipedia bias" has brought up various right-leaning sites reporting on this in recent days. Ham II (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

{{done}} in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/Recent research. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Someone might be interested in writing about this, Wikipedia just got summoned by Delhi High Court in "ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC AND ORS." defamation suit. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

{{done}} in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-22/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA. TL;DR - WikiProject related to an NGO iniative about paying editors to translate articles between Wikipedias. Already dozens have been done. I think it is a fascinating initative, and some may even find it a bit controversial (interesting COI/PAID angle). I might help with the article but probably not until early July (busy grading students now...).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Title	Last edited	Number of edits	Notes
Günəşli, Davachi	2014-06-04	15	village in Azerbaijan
Abalı, Zaqatala	2014-06-07	19	ditto
Üzümçü	2014-06-09	9	ditto
Sədəfli	2014-06-09	11	guess where?
Gomuşçu, Salyan	2014-06-09	10	ditto
Vətəgə	2014-06-09	10	ditto
Hacımustafalı	2014-06-09	8	ditto
Barne	2014-06-17	8	disambiguation page
Mezhgorye	2014-06-23	13	ditto
Sokolsky District	2014-06-27	10	ditto
Gagarinsky District	2014-06-27	12	ditto

The Signpost should write about these forgotten articles. Several of them on the forgotten articles report (which I recently found hidden in a hard-to-find "special pages" menu for the first time, as a 20+ year WP editor possibly only present in the mobile skin?) just passed the 10 year point without any edits. Might make a fun short piece. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This one would be perfect for me, as I like writing about Wikipedia peculiarities. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia kept track of forgotten articles. I'll see if I can write something interesting, maybe for the next next issue. Thanks for the suggestion. Svampesky (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Abuse of wikipedia because of wikidata. the two projects should not be so closely intertwined and interconnected in the way they currently are , the two projects while they should be linked the current state does not help neither. it is vulnerability being exploited through various ways.

The Signpost should write also about... WP:Trust & Safety not doing anything while https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Fawikt_vandal my request for a obvious vandal being blocked is remained open for 10 days. Baratiiman (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about the recent Reliable sources saga. This will be difficult to cover and navigate because it spans two decades of Wikipedia history, and I suspect it's going to be a very controversial topic (because it touches on so many internal conflicts), but I think the community will need to reflect around what happened, what our response will be, and how we can prevent things like these from happening again. agucova (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that this is getting a lot of attention outside of Wikipedia. See here for the Twitter discussion. The article was released yesterday and the tweet already has 600k views. agucova (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Frankly, this just looks like a hit piece aimed at User:David Gerard and complaining that Wikipedians make use of their common sense in sorting out reliable and unreliable sources. I can't see any reason we would publishing anything based on this suggestion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A recent discussion on Commons suggests strong support there for limiting cross-wiki uploads to Commons to users who are not autoconfirmed, and some support for eliminating these cross-wiki uploads entirely. Several admins weighed in to say that the affected wikis, especially major ones like en-wiki, need to have some voice in the matter. Nothing is likely to move forward at this time, but because there was strong consensus to move in this general direction, it probably deserves some coverage, if only to stimulate further discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm not clear on what they want to prohibit. Are they (commonists) asking to have a monopoly on what photos can be published on enWiki? Are they saying that anybody (who hasn't been banned there) can't upload pix to Commons? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones: No. In fact, this would not affect uploads that place the image directly onto en-wiki, nor about coming overtly to Commons and uploading there (which any en-wiki user can do unless they have been blocked on Commons), nor is it any sort of a policy change about what images Commons will host; this is about uploading to Commons from en-wiki without explicitly logging into Commons or even viewing a Commons page.

The proposal is that not everybody who uses en-wiki (and the other Wikipedias) should be able to use the Special:Upload tool that operates within en-wiki (and its analogues in the other Wikipedias) to place images on Commons, rather than on that particular Wikipedia. In particular, they are saying that if you are not autoconfirmed on en-wiki, you almost certainly should not be allowed to do that; some are saying you shouldn't be allowed to do that at all. Instead, you'd have to use one of the upload tools actively supported by Commons, such as commons:Special:UploadWizard, which has considerably more detailed instructions intended to discourage the uploading of copyvios, or commons:Special:Upload, which is very bare-bones and used mostly be expert users.

For what it's worth: what triggered this was a report from the WMF that leaves little doubt that the majority of such cross-wiki uploads by non-autoconfirmed users turn out to be copyright violations and end up deleted (even with some filters that prevent a lot of copyvios ever being uploaded). Further, there is very strong anecdotal evidence (both from WMF and from within Commons) that a fair number of such users are very disgruntled, and often very confused about where to take up the issue because the actual deletion is on a website they didn't even interact with when they uploaded. There may be some "gentler" possible solutions than this one, but there is definitely a real problem here: lots of relatively new users uploading copyvios, which are then deleted, and they are often unhappy and don't know where to turn to even ask. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Adam Cuerden, and Red-tailed hawk: OK, we're on the same page now, it's A recent discussion on Commons and there's a 72 page WMF report [9] (which I haven't read!). I've pinged AC and R-th, assuming that they may know how to write this up for The Signpost. I personally would be at a loss. As I understand it, the problem is that newbies come to enWiki or arWiki, when they click an "Upload photo" link they are attempting to upload to *Commons* but the uploading software has inadequate instructions on copyrights, etc. adding extra work. So the folks at Commons need to delete more files. Most folks at The Signpost might have trouble writing this up. Any volunteers? It might go u nder "Opinion" or perhaps as a "Technology report". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

When newbies come and attempt to upload using the tool built into the visual editor, it allows them to upload directly to Commons without giving any of the Commons warnings. This will show up in the edit summary as a "cross-wiki upload"; the tool is briefly described on c:Commons:Cross-wiki media upload tool and on [[:c:Commons:Cross-wiki upload].

But, yes, I recall having deleted a bunch of things uploaded cross-wiki, because "own work" is so easy to lazily click if one does not actually care about copyright status. I've supported blocking them until it is improved in that discussion, so I won't be touching this one signpost-wise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)