Shortly after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on 13 July 2024, a photograph captured by Evan Vucci rapidly spread across media platforms worldwide. It was uploaded to Wikipedia and a discussion subsequently was opened about whether the image aligns with its image use policy. This discussion was shared across multiple online platforms, encouraging broad participation; including, but not limited to, those unfamiliar with the policy.
Wikipedia stores its database in servers located in the United States and is maintained in accordance with US law. US copyright law grants photographers exclusive rights to their original works upon creation. However, photographs taken by an employee within the scope of their employment are classified as 'work for hire'. In these cases, the employer, rather than the photographer, typically holds the copyright and all associated exclusive rights. Evan Vucci, employed by the Associated Press (AP) when he captured the photograph, is consistently credited alongside the AP, indicating a joint agreement. At the time, his camera was connected to a hotspot, enabling the photograph to be immediately sent to his editors. Fair use exceptions permit limited use of copyrighted photographs without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, and research.
The image was uploaded to Wikipedia by Bremps two hours after it was taken. Twenty-three minutes later, a discussion was opened by Di (they-them) regarding whether its inclusion on Wikipedia complied with the site's image use policy. At the time the discussion began, there was no dedicated article for the photograph. Due to the copyright restrictions on this photo, it fell under non-free content, meaning it may only be used if the article specifically discusses the photo or the latter significantly assists in depicting the event. The debate arose from the argument that the image could not be justified under fair use, as it was not essential for understanding the article on the assassination attempt and it was not discussed in it. It was also noted that fair use might be applicable if an article about the photograph itself existed.
Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy permits its use only when no free alternative is available,[NFCC1] and ensures it does not supplant the original market role of the material.[NFCC2] Usage should be minimal,[NFCC3a] involving the fewest items and only essential portions, ideally in low resolution to prevent copyright issues.[NFCC3b] Non-free content must have been previously published with permission,[NFCC4] be encyclopedic,[NFCC5] significantly enhance the article,[NFCC8] and comply with Wikipedia's media policy.[NFCC6] Non-free content must be used in at least one article,[NFCC7] and is not permitted on disambiguation pages.[NFCC9] Each use requires a detailed description page that includes the source, copyright information, an appropriate tag, and a clear rationale specific to each article.[NFCC10]
The discussion focused exclusively on whether the image met the NFCC requirements, not on its cultural or historical significance. Comments not supported by policy were to be given less weight by the closer of the discussion.
Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site known for discussing and criticizing Wikipedia. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion, which is usually used to deter canvassing. On Wikipedia, decisions are made through consensus and the quality of arguments, not by vote count. Attempting to influence the outcome by notifying individuals, especially those with established opinions, is considered inappropriate and undermines the consensus process. Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred.
Recent Trump-related debates on Wikipedia have seen significant participation from new accounts, with some politically-influenced votes lacking detailed policy reasoning. It has also been noted that some of these new accounts appear to be highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. Whilst it is important to treat newcomers with respect and assume good faith, this can also suggest the possibility of sockpuppet accounts. Sockpuppetry on Wikipedia involves misusing multiple accounts to deceive or manipulate, such as by disrupting discussions or vote-stacking. Editors are generally expected to use only one account to maintain accountability and trust, though there are legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. A Google search for site:[website name] "trump" "wikipedia" after:2024/07/12 before:2024/07/16 reveals that discussions on the assassination attempt attracted attention on various websites, including 4chan,[1] Reddit, and X, further stimulating discussion.
.jpg)
Supporters of the photograph's inclusion on Wikipedia cited its significant historical and educational value. It was generally agreed upon that a low resolution and cropped format mitigated potential commercial impact; Coulomb1 argued that it provided essential context for the event and the article. Supporters emphasized that the photograph's extensive media coverage and its role in enhancing understanding justify its inclusion under fair use provisions. Mhatopzz suggested that the image should remain on the site until a free alternative is available, with many proposing that a dedicated article on the photograph could support its continued use. Additionally, the photograph was later compared by an anonymous IP user to images captured at the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Some editors argued that including the image infringed copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on non-free content. They contended that the photograph served primarily as a visual aid rather than a crucial element of the article, thereby failing to meet fair use criteria. Concerns were raised about respecting the photographer's rights and the potential commercial impact. Others recommended removing the image in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and fair use standards, citing its previous removal from Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues as supporting this stance. However, it is important to note that Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use.
Editors such as Lewis Hulbert and Vivaporius advocated for retaining the photograph, emphasizing its potentially-iconic status and historical significance. Alalch E. later argued that the widespread availability of the original image and low resolution of this file support its fair use under Wikipedia's guidelines. Jason211pacem further contended that the photograph's inclusion would not adversely affect the photographer's commercial interests, given that the photographer himself posted the photograph on his own social media accounts. Lordseriouspig questioned the possibility of reaching out to the AP or Vucci to seek permission for a free licence. It was proposed that the image could warrant its own article if it achieved independent notability, which would align better with NFCC criteria.
The prevailing sentiment of comments based on image policy favoured deletion, reflecting a rigorous adherence to NFCC and fair use guidelines. Despite acknowledging the photograph's historical value, many editors emphasized compliance with copyright policies. The debate significantly shifted when an article specifically about the photograph was created by Hallucegenia, later nominated to be deleted by LilianaUwU, and the discussion being procedurally closed on the grounds that it was unlikely to be successful. The main discussion about the image was eventually closed by Soni with consensus to keep the image, stating in part:
Multiple editors preferred keeping the image but only for its own article, per NFCC#8. Since the discussion started, Trump raised fist photographs was made (and kept in AFD), for which NFCC#1 would also be true. Multiple !votes were later changed to that effect.
With the discussion comprising approximately 200,000 bytes and the image approximately 18,000 bytes, the discussion is around eleven times the size of the image. Among roughly two hundred comments, many supported retaining the content — but many lacked detailed reasoning, or based their rationales on political views rather than Wikipedia policies, resulting in their dismissal.
References
Disclosure: One of the contributing authors of this article is a candidate in the WMF Trustee election. Remaining contributors ensured neutral tone and wording.
As The Signpost has recently reported, the Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document which negotiates power sharing between the Wikimedia Foundation as a corporation and the Wikimedia community of volunteer content contributors. One way to describe the situation is that the Wikimedia Foundation does fundraising and holds the money which sponsors the Wikimedia Movement, but the Wikimedia community of users actually produce the content and define the ethics and values which motivate donors to give money.
With increasing regularity, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia user community have differing opinions of right versus wrong, which strategic direction is preferable, and what projects get funding when resources are scarce. The hope is that a Movement Charter would clarify which powers and responsibilities are in the control of paid staff versus the volunteer user community. The stakes of this discussion include determining who decides how to spend Wikimedia Movement money, which include the US$250 million in assets and $180 million in revenue for the last reported year. The Wikimedia Foundation is keen on using the money to support programs of interest to Wikimedia Foundation staff, and the user community of content creators wishes to use the money for different programs of interest to content creators.
The present news is that the Movement Charter ratification vote was held between 25 June and 9 July 2024. The results were as follows:
On 8 July the Wikimedia Foundation board held their own vote for ratification and on 11 July, before the community's election committee announced the results of the community vote, the WMF gave their position:
WMF Trustee Victoria Doronina criticized the Movement Charter, saying it "clearly presents an attempt at a power grab by the affiliates." She also noted that "in the proposed form, GC would not work effectively and would be only a waste of resources". Regarding the Wikimedia community election on ratification, she said "'The quorum' is only 2% (!) of the eligible voters, and who know how many of them are the affiliates members". The Wikimedia Foundation board has proposed its own alternative plan, the Appendix to the Vote on the proposed Movement Charter.
Wikimedia community members are discussing the results on Meta-Wiki talk pages and in the Wikimedia-l email mailing list. –B, BR, AK
The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Election, arguably the world's most important Internet election, will run from 3–17 September 2024. Wikimedia editors will choose 4 of the 12 trustees to serve on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Duties of trustees include reviewing the progress of the Wikimedia Foundation CEO, and deciding to approve or reject the plan and budget which the CEO presents to the board every year. Mark your calendar, and prepare yourself and your colleagues to vote.
On 1 July, candidates finalized their answers to questions which the election committee presented to them. Read the questions and answers and consider discussing at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024 or wherever concerned Wikimedia voters convene. –BR
The Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin is "an experiment on establishing a regular communication on highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's technical work, work with communities and affiliates, as well as other stakeholders like readers, donors, regulators, the media and the public."
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election is accepting candidates through 19 July, with voting from 27 July – 10 August. The first U4C election which concluded in June only filled 7 of the 16 seats, one short of a quorum. There are four community-at-large seats, plus five regional seats open.
The regional seats are for:
A rule to ensure diversity across home projects, means that candidates from the English, German, and Italian Wikipedias – which each had two members elected in the first election – cannot run in this election. This rule has resulted in the odd case that the North America (United States and Canada) regional seat cannot be filled by somebody who claims the English Wikipedia as their home project.
.jpg)
Dear all,
As we await the outcome from all stakeholders who voted on the draft Movement Charter ratification, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees met on Monday, July 8, to discuss and cast the Foundation’s vote.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees I am sharing the results of that vote, the resolution, meeting minutes, and proposed next steps.
The proposed charter represents a tremendous amount of work done by the Drafting Committee, alongside several others. The creation of a charter was one of several recommendations to come from the Movement Strategy process alongside the Strategic Direction that continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation.
At the same time, the vote on the proposed charter has provided an opportunity for all of us to reflect on what has changed – and continues to change – since the original Movement Strategy process started in 2018. The Foundation has tried to consistently identify these issues in its annual plan, strategic planning priorities, and elsewhere. They include numerous and growing external threats (and some opportunities) of a rapidly changing and fragmenting internet – from the nature of search to the rise of generative AI. We have also seen an increase in global regulations of content and platforms that have an impact on our people and our projects. Furthermore, our collective resources have not been growing as quickly as we had seen in prior periods. This has required more clarity on priorities, trade-offs, and pragmatism.
It is because of these myriad challenges and complex realities that clarifying roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia movement is more, not less, important. That is why the Board and the Foundation have been cautiously assessing how best to move forward at this point, after providing significant support to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in undertaking this task.
Our hope is to take solutions from the intent of the draft charter and consider where a future Global Council may be able to provide benefits to us all. We believe that this can only be done through concrete, practical, and time-bound next steps, based on the areas identified in the final draft charter text, rather than a wholesale adoption of the proposed charter in its final form.
Therefore, in the Special Board meeting this week, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter. You can read the full Board resolution and minutes of the meeting.
The Board also approved a way forward, including three experiments that the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates, and community members can jointly conduct in the three areas identified in the proposed Movement Charter to be taken on by a future Global Council. The outlines of the proposals are included in the resolution in the Appendix with concrete proposals for these key areas. These include experiments designed to test the feasibility of proposals related to resource distribution, technology advancement, and support of Wikimedia movement organizations. Solutions for these collaborative experiments should be designed for co-ownership and build on the capabilities of the entire Wikimedia movement. And the comments received with the votes during the ratification would help shape these proposals more.
As of this writing, 2,451 individual voters participated and 129 affiliate votes were cast, meeting the quorum for both groups. By July 24, the outcome of these votes along with comments will be published so that any proposed next steps can benefit from the input, reflections, and recommendations of all voters. It is important to listen to the feedback that has been provided through this process before taking further steps.
Following that, we shall ask for help in the coming months designing spaces on- and off-wiki to request more feedback and improvements to the specific proposals being offered to help us now move forward together. Some of this can happen at Wikimania for those planning to attend, as we shall also be offering our formal thanks at Wikimania to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee members for their work.
To provide any comments in the meantime, please leave a comment on the main talk page of the appendix on Meta. Alternatively, you can request a conversation as a part of Talking:2024. You can use the Let's Talk to sign up for a time to speak with me and/or other trustees.
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
This draft, including the opening note about it sitting around unpublished for two years, was from 2011, meaning that as of now it's a whopping fifteen years old. Nonetheless, it sat around for quite some time, and was only found during recent attempts to reorganize the plethora of strange abandoned pages in the annals of the Signpost. But cobwebs aside: it is true now, as it was true then, and we hope that you may find it enlightening.
When you have a change of pace and stop to contemplate what Wikipedia really is, you realize something. It is not just a collection of articles—it is a living, breathing behemoth, with a sampling of all the people of the real world. In a way Wikipedia can be seen as a pseudonym for reality, a golem of much thought and yet of much drama, and of just as much bureaucratics as love for the text. When I first joined Wikipedia, I thought, well, it's simply a collection of bored writers and semi-interested experts biding away their free time. Truly, I could not have been wronger. I was baffled by the immediate extensiveness of the project, the extensive guidelines and categorization, the organization and categorization, the multitude of pages and their subpages. You can't get a true appreciation for what Wikipedia is simply by browsing; whiling away your time reading articles of interest, or searching for a nitpick of information, you never stay far behind the main namespace. You may stray over to the talk page occasionally, click on that little green + mark or bronze star, or even follow the little box down in the references section to a Portal page. But these incidents are rare. For the most part you browse, following links that strike your interest, reading the leads and interesting bits and looking at the pretty pictures. If the article seems interesting, you may even read the whole thing, god forbid.
All this time, the "Log into/create account" button looms small yet proud in the corner of your screen. It is the gateway to a community; after all, what is our motto? Try typing "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" into the search bar. Where does it take you? At Wikipedia we let anyone edit. We truly are a slice of life. Our reasons for trying it are as varied as we are. Some have too much spare time. Some want to improve something, and settle on Wikipedia. Some want to apply their knowledge somewhere useful, or learn how to do something through Wikipedia. Regardless that first step, clicking the button, leads to a whirlwind of new things.
You choose your username, make a password, and log in for the first time. At first, nothing much changes. You still browse your interests; occasionally, you make a small edit or two. Your edits often get reverted quickly; you still don't know how it all works. As you linger around, you start to get drawn into the site, coming across the userpages of the people involved. Very quickly your universe expands once again, with the discovery of the "WikiProject"; and from there you find yourself staring at the seemingly endless pile of processes, standards, ideas, organizations, and guidelines that Wikipedia harbors.
I remember my first week of Wikipedia. I lingered here and there, staring endlessly, vastly bewildered by Wikipedia's new-found depth. Those who press the button wind their way to the center of Wikipedia, and realize that its radius is much larger than they had previously perceived. Our critics consider Wikipedia inaccurate rubbish, but they know not of how meticulously oiled the project is, and how much work goes into constantly expanding it. The vandal-hunters, stub-writers, dyk'ers, article-writers, copyeditors, image buffs, experts, administrators, bureaucrats, and legal buffs all have a place here, and when they work together the machinery powering this massive projects runs uninterrupted. When this spectrum comes together, the fabric works in harmony and Wikipedians churns out information at a rate faster then anything else in the world.
Many people complain, indeed, leave, over the various increasing pressures here; the standards are getting tighter, the work more frustrating, the bureaucracy piled higher and deeper, the wikidrama picking up pace. As the projects expands to beyond the 3-million-article horizon, one cannot help be lost in the sea of contributors. Individual contributions become less and less prominent, and the community starts to follow a herd mentality. Most especially, quality gradients have increased fivefold since Wikipedia's inception; what would have been considered FA in 2004, became GA in 2006, and today would only be considered C class or thereabouts. As if to illustrate the shift in quality, WP:FT used to outline a 30% Featured article gradient; it became 50%, then indeed 75%; and some users are pushing to have the standard raised to a full 100%.
All this does is place more stress on the importance of the community. While individual accomplishments have, and should, be heralded, it is the community that makes and breaks all of the decisions. Wikipedia is built not on one man's ambition but, from the very start, on the collective thinking process of millions of organic organisms, also known as humans. What I am not saying is that the community is perfect. Far from it. It included a swarm of vandals, trolls, and people who come to Wikipedia for, among other things, a free chat service (Wikipedia passes through school webpage filters; chat sites do not).
One thing I dislike is when new members of the community speak out, but are silenced on the basis of their experience. All that does is push them farther to the rim. New editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. The lifetime of an average Wikipedia editor is very short, so why uproot them at the very beginning? Although I am not the first person to stress the importance of new editors, Wikideath is still too common among green editors. Wikipedia's recent history has been a competition between openness and quality, and judging by the recent stagnation we should be leaning more to the left on this issue. In the end, we are a community; so don't be a dick, get along, and start writing. You'll be happy you did.
Here at Wikipedia, we're obsessed with certain things. A passing reader would be puzzled at how some editors put big shiny bronze stars at the top of their page saying, "I did this!" We want some of these, some of those, lots of these, maybe one of those, lots of those, but never one of these. Greedy greedy. But that's how content writers work. They want to be recognized for doing this and that and for being generally all-around awesome. Obsession drives the majority of the editing community. Wikipedia was designed well in that it has low-hanging fruit (WP:DYK, WP:ITN), fruit that requires some jumping to get (WP:GA, WP:BARNSTAR), and high-hanging fruits requires building long editing ladders to finish (WP:FA, WP:FL, WP:GT, WP:FP, WP:FS), and the really commemorable stuff that requires quite a few ladders and chutes fruits, to use my allegory, to complete (WP:CROWN, WP:FT).
But the system does have its limitations. If you're writing a DYK, you are tempted to write it only up to the point that it would pass the standards for the process, no further. Nitpicking articles for FL, instead of choosing ones that might be difficult, is a constant there, and the FL director has expressed unhappiness about this fact. But for the most part, we want shiny things, and if you're here to get said shiny objects, you're writing for the right reasons.
.jpg)
The Economist [1] (paywalled, syndicated here) notes that Ruwiki.ru, Putin's fork of the real Russian Wikipedia, censors "the sensitive zones of Putinist ideology: LGBT rights, oral sex, Soviet history, and the war in Ukraine." (See also The Signpost's June 2023 coverage about the project's genesis: "Wikimedia Russia director starts Russian fork and is replaced").
The Week expands upon the Economist article (also on Yahoo News). It states that the majority of the articles on Putin's fork are just copies from the real Russian Wikipedia, but gives five articles from the real Russian Wikipedia as examples of heavy censorship: Yevgeny Prigozhin, Battle of Bucha, Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Oral sex and Russian-Ukrainian war (starting in 2014).
This reporter has examined how Putin's fork covered those subjects.
Meduza [2] and Invariant-T [3], two Russian news websites which are considered "foreign agents" in Russia, report that the Great Russian Encyclopedia (BRE) has lost its state funding, maybe in favor of Ruviki and Znanie (Knowledge), another state-funded educational site.
BRE announced its closure last month, saying that it had received no funds in the previous five months. Though wages and author royalties have not been paid during that time about 6,000 new articles have been posted. According to the announcement,
both resources of the Great Russian Encyclopedia - the portal and the electronic version of the printed edition - have published more than 100 thousand articles, and the number of reader requests to our encyclopedia reaches 1 million per week. We - more than 300 editorial staff and a team of 7,000 authors - are now able to prepare and publish up to 30 thousand scientifically verified articles per year.
Mass media in India continues to take an interest in how the government of India reacts to Wikipedia in India. The Hindu [4] and Outlook [5] report that media house Asian News International (ANI) objects to the Wikipedia's article about ANI.
According to The Hindu;
The case pits, potentially for the first time in such a significant way, Wikipedia’s volunteer-centric editorial norms against Indian regulations like the IT Rules, 2021, which require all loosely defined internet "intermediaries" to take action against content online if it is, among other things, defamatory, and a court or government order is issued against them.
The court case is scheduled for August 20 with ANI claiming damages of 2 crore rupees – about US$240,000.
Live Law, a legal reporting service, states (archive) that ANI's plea (or complaint) claims that "Wikipedia had closed the ANI page for editing by the news agency except for its own (Wikipedia) editors". This suggests that ANI is claiming a right to have its own employees edit the article despite Wikipedia's policy prohibiting undeclared paid editors.
Live Law also says that "ANI has alleged that Wikimedia, through its officials, has actively participated in removing the edits to reverse the content." This claim appears to confuse actions by unpaid volunteers with actions by Wikimedia Foundation employees.
The Wikipedia article appears to summarize and cite reliable journalism covering ANI, and the complaint seems not to be about the journalism, but rather that Wikipedia presents what journalists wrote elsewhere then links to those articles.
One possible complication is that the Wikipedia community does not consider ANI to be a generally reliable source. The report at The Wikipedia project Reliable sources/Perennial sources says
For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.
This view is based on a 2021 request for comment where a BBC news report on disinformation in India was prominently mentioned.
Wikipedia beat reporter Stephen Harrison, whose novel The Editors will be published August 13, was interviewed at least three times this month. The editor of Student Life, the student newspaper at Washington University in St. Louis where Harrison attended, published a long, detailed interview which gives the best overview of Harrison's career, but is mostly about the new novel, and about Wikipedia and its fictionalized version, Infopendium, which is the focus of the story.
Harrison has started another book, a murder mystery set at the Federal Reserve, where he used to work.
it gets into what I am really interested in, which are institutions that are experiencing a crisis. The Fed currently fits that description — people are not happy about inflation, and there’s even questions about: what is money, and what is currency?
Another interview, posted at Medium by Taylor Dibbert, focuses on Harrison's writing routine. He tries to write 1–2 hours a day before going to his day job as a lawyer, but first he starts with a cup of coffee and reading 15 minutes worth of fiction. He starts writing with his favorite pen and paper, but often switches to computer.
Citing the epigraph of the forthcoming book "this is a reported work of fiction", Harrrison continues "ultimately, I hope to be known for producing smart and well-researched stories throughout my career."
A third interview, this one by Caitlin Dewey on her "Links" blog, is more quirky. She starts with a question about "the four 'periods' of Wikipedia journalism", citing an essay Harrison co-authored with Omer Benjakob for the book Wikipedia @ 20 which was reprinted in The Signpost. Which period does the novel take place in? Harrison invents a new period and answers it "falls in the pre-AI, post-glory-days period of Wikipedia."
Dewey also asks about whether Wikipedia is past its glory days, and about Harrison's day-to-day interaction with Wikipedians, as well as about celebrity Wikipedians.
JamesR, from Brisbane, joined Wikipedia in October 2006 as Extranet. Under that name he wrote six articles for the Signpost, covering features and admins for a little over a month in 2007 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). In mid-2007, he changed his username to E, and was known as a "nice, friendly IRC guy"; he passed a request for adminship in December 2007. He also created a few articles, like 1998 Women's Hockey World Cup and Greenslopes Private Hospital. In 2008 he became JamesR. His most active years were from 2007 to 2010, but for a long time afterward, he remained an administrator and member of the bot approvals group, and operated two bots — AdminStatsBot (for generating admin stats) and HBC AIV helperbot5 (for clerking on the administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) page) — which ran from 2008 until his passing in July 2024.
Click and type in the boxes to enter letters. As always, don't click enter! Answers will be out once the next issue is published.
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||||||||||
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
||||||||||
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
||||||||||
13
|
14
|
15
|
|||||||||||
16
|
17
|
||||||||||||
18
| |||||||||||||
19
|
20
|
Across | ||
| 1 | The Signpost, in the same style as 9 across | SIPO |
| 2 | “the ____ encyclopedia that anyone can edit” | FREE |
| 5 | The programming language that Mediawiki is mostly written in | PHP |
| 6 | "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paint Drying article. This is not a _____ for general discussion of the article's subject" | FORUM |
| 9 | (abbr.) Publication for which Across 20 is their slogan | WAPO |
| 11 | "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, _______ it." | IGNORE |
| 13 | (initialism) Main page section that's consistently written in present tense | ITN |
| 14 | A vandal's vulgar go-to word | PP |
| 15 | (initialism) Userright that makes the robin fly | PM |
| 16 | (abbr.) Our sister project where I found the 11 down | WIKT |
| 17 | (abbr.) Where you can find every 1900 establishments in the United Kingdom; or: a cute creature | CAT |
| 19 | First name of the supposed inventor of the electric toaster | ALAN |
| 20 | The infamous “Democracy ____ in darkness” | DIES |
Down | ||
| 2 | Continuing from the last crossword, under the featured list in the main page | FP |
| 3 | (initialism) A note-making template | EFN |
| 4 | (abbr.) A weekday, two days before fancy updates and userscript breakdowns, or: a shortcut to an wikiessay about Napoleon | TUES |
| 5 | (singular) The Wikipedia page that sex work, piracy, underwater diving, and the American Civil War have, but deforestation, World War I/II, and Buddhism lack. | PORTAL |
| 7 | The sound you make after deleting the main page | OOPS |
| 8 | (initialism) What the robin is a reference to in Across 15 | RRM |
| 9 | (initialism) "The visionary and legendary entrepreneur, John Doe, made an astonishing breakthrough recently, which some people say will revolutionize the industry. Despite this, some claim he has links to a terrorist organization, raising eyebrows." | WTW |
| 10 | (initialism) Overused The Signpost crossword™ clue; everyone's favorite dramaboard | ANI |
| 11 | (acronym) /haʊ du ju pɹəˈnaʊns ðɪs/ | IPA |
| 12 | (initialism) “I'm sorry, as of my last knowledge update …” or: a type of LLMs | GPT |
| 17 | (acronym) News giant with a red logo, host of the recent US presidential debate | CNN |
| 18 | (initialism) Userright that has its logo as the Wikipedia globe with missing pieces. | OS |
█████ ███ █████ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███ ███, Joe Biden ██████████ █████ ███ █████████████ ███████████ ██ █ ██████ ██/█ ██████. ████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████, ███ ███-██████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ███ Donald Trump ████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███. ███ ███ ███████ ██? ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████. █████'█ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███.
██'██ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████████, ███ ███ ████? ███ ███ █████'█ ████ ████ ████████. ███ ██ ██ ████, █████'█ ████ ██ ██ ███ "waffle-cone-eating" ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ██, ████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████, ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██ ██ █ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████, █████ ██ █████████ █████████ █████'█ ████. ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████, ████ ███'█ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ a "freaking cheeto" █████ ████, ██ █████'█ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████ █████. ███ ███ ███ ██'█ ████ ████████ ███████ ████████? ██ ███ ███ ████ █'█ ██████ ████?
███ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████... ███ ███ ███'█. ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████. ███ █████'█ █████ █ █████ ███ ██. ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ████! ███ ███ ██ ██████. ████'█ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██████? ███████, ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███ ████████, ███ ████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██ █████? ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████████████ ██ ████? ████ ████'█ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████, ████'██ ████ ███ Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. ████ ███ ██████? ███? █ ███ ████ ██'█ ████ █ ███ ███ ███ █████ ███████, ███ ██ █████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████████ █████, ██ ██'█ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████. ███'██ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███, ███ ██ ███'█ ████ ███ █████. ██, ██'██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████, ██'█ █████.
