In progress · 5,118b
last edited 2026-05-12 21:38:23 by Bri.public
Resources | Checklist
 N Headline- N Subheading
- N Ready for copyedit
- N Copyedit done
- N Final approval by editor-in-chief
Discussion
Census Bureau forum[edit]@Bri and Bri.public: would this event be appropriate to mention in the notes section of N&N? The US Census Bureau is running this. The event is scheduled slightly before the Signpost publication deadline, so we may want to link to post-meeting artifacts instead of the invite. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/events/geoforum.html ↠Pine (✉) 04:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey no problem pinging both, but you can just ping my primary account. Sorry I haven't clicked the link yet but what's the Wikipedia connection? Sorry for being lazy. Bri.public (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pine Will there be any specific panel involving Wikimedia projects or Creative Commons content? Oltrepier (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oltrepier and Bri: the event schedule shows that several sessions will be offered regarding data products that may be of great interest to people who leverage US census data, including for AI. There doesn't appear to be a specific callout for Wikimedia projects or Creative Commons. Example session titles: "Geography Division Partner Portal (GDPP)", "Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) Web", "2030 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Overview", and "Powering Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness Through Strong Metadata Practices". ↠Pine (✉) 06:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pine: I do not think that event is a fit. The census event is a common format for professionals in the field, and I do not see it as particularly special. I expect that 100% of the attendees of those talks are full time paid staff being paid to go there, and paid to manage datasets, so it is a different pace than the community volunteer mood we have in Wikimedia projects.
- If you did want to push Signpost in the direction of data alliances, then we could do more to cover events community tech organizations like OpenStreetMap or the former Code for America groups which still operate (CFA recently disaffiliated all the community chapters), and which almost always include Wikimedia and Creative Commons discussions. Those meetings are only like 60% people paid to engage. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bluerasberry: thanks for the comment. I like the idea of mentioning other technology events such as regarding open data which may interest readership of The Signpost, whether or not the events are targeted at paid staff. There are plenty of paid staff involved in Wikipedia/Wikimedia work, whether paid directly or indirectly by WMF, affiliates, education organizations, or people doing advocacy or promotion work. A substantial fraction of the latter may not be in compliance with Wikipedia requirements for conflict-of-interest activities, but even if they were all 100% compliant with COI, the point would remain that there are lots of paid people around who might be interested in technology events which have some relation to Wikipedia. Perhaps the N&N section could include a recurring subsection regarding technology and open data events that would potentially interest readers. ↠Pine (✉) 00:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-
- But again, surely there is another tech/open data-focused resource, page, or organization who is better placed to list and share those with dedicated audiences. Non-Wikimedia events just aren't that important for an overwhelming majority of SP readers. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @The ed17: is there a quantitative analysis or public data set which supports the conclusion "Non-Wikimedia events just aren't that important for an overwhelming majority of SP readers"? If so, would you please share where to find it? ↠Pine (✉) 03:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- A very strange rhetorical question, that, given that you know the SP doesn't run reader surveys. I was speaking with the experience of a long history with/watching the SP and writing Wikimedia-focused content for various audiences, but perhaps the limited readership on events that might actually relate to editors (and the even fewer readers on the associated calendar!) is instructive. Regardless, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate why the SP should devote some of its limited space (more length = less reading!) to something that's both outside its scope and unlikely to matter to the majority of readers. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the Teahouse when I saw this question regarding a scam email. Should we include something in the brief notes section on this; even if it is not a widespread scam or anything, I think just taking the opportunity to add a note to remind Wikipedians what to look out for is a good idea. Mitchsavl-on-public-wifi (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mitchsavl: These things go out perhaps 1000s a day. At WP:VRT many people write in by email either to report them or to complain to Wikipedia, imagining that by writing to info@wikimedia.org they can get customer service on paid editing agreements they made. There is Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. I do not see any news here but I certainly support including regular public service announcements warning about this problem. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need to have a lead story for the Wikinews shutdown on N&N, as well. Although I did write a blurb myself when the news had first broken out back in March, obviously we would need to add a lot more details and make some corrections, as originally suggested by The ed17 and Bawolff (by the way, if you want to write something about Wikinews yourself, go ahead!). Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oltrepier: Even if I set aside my WMF job, I suspect that this comment on Meta disqualifies me from writing a piece. :-) For whoever writes it, it's probably worth mentioning that the mission Wikinews set for itself (collaboratively gathering and reporting news) was absolutely inspiring and radical for its time. It's just that that idea was rapidly eclipsed by Wikipedia's high-quality coverage of recent events. AFAIK, most measurements put Wikinews as the least active Wikimedia project by the time of its closure, and it had been there for quite some time.
- This 2024 summary of the problems Wikinews faced is very compelling, and that's despite it not diving into the fundamental disconnect between doing real news coverage and working on a wiki. (Wikis are great for many uses, and no disrespect to the SP, but being a newsroom is not one of them.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- We will be running the Wikinews article covering its closure, which provides some information, as the special report. I am also writing a serendipity article into the ideas users had for the project as it was being developed, but that only really focuses on the 2004 discussions. I do think an deep dive into the issues faced by the project could be warranted, if anyone is willing to write it. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mitchsavl: That would be a choice. Wikinews writing about itself has an inherent COI, and although their article acknowledges some shortcomings, the COI shows in the article's omissions/lack of comprehensiveness. For examples:
- The article effectively ignores non-English languages other than to name them. Surely there were non-English languages with differing policies or historical leading editors.
- It ignores most of the conclusions in that 2024 report I linked to -- the report that the WMF board relied on when starting the public consultation.
- The sources at the bottom contradict the article's assertion on having more human than spider/automated readers. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mitchsavl Yeah, I can write it myself, but this time I'll make sure I'll follow the advice before pushing the article to press... : D Oltrepier (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
|
|---|
