Checklist

Wikimedia Commons seems to have a shortage of imagery of recent events in the Strait of Hormuz which are from organizations other than the US Navy. Additionally, it would be informative if the gallery could include one or more photos or videos of recent UAV activities in the Strait. Can anyone suggest a source for these photos or videos which would have a Commons-compatible license? ↠Pine (✉) 02:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard flickr has a large library of Creative Commons licenced photos, but I think you may need an account. Other than that, I'd expect images from other sources to potentially be unbalanced, especially considering factors such as press freedom in some countries in the region. Google also allows you to filter images by usage licence, under the "tools" dropdown. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial for more guidance. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Mitchsavl. Unfortunately, Google image search was not helpful when I looked yesterday. I found a few more images on Commons. I may reduce the number of images from US DOW/DOD sources to reduce the proportion of the gallery from a single government's images. ↠Pine (✉) 04:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing to consider is that a gallery can be taken as a representative sample of available media, and reducing the proportion could affect how it is perceived. The media could be accompanied by a brief explanation of the imbalance, and with the readers aware of this, would be able to get an insight into the current balance of information in the region more broadly. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For others' information: if I don't finalize a selection of images on the topic of the Strait of Hormuz crisis which seems adequate to me, I'll change the topic for the gallery, and postpone the Strait of Hormuz topic. ↠Pine (✉) 06:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Mitchsavl: FYI, I swapped subjects. The gallery page for the next issue will be about Earth Day and Mother's Day. Maybe next month there will be more Strait of Hormuz photos that are suitable for a Signpost gallery. ↠Pine (✉) 01:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice selection. When linking to a language, be careful it doesn’t link to a disambiguation page, the title is often in the form of X language. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this thread spurred me to do some file organizing on Commons. Apologies if you've already considered this (I'm more familiar with Commons than Signpost galleries), but: Category:Reactions to the 2026 Iran war may have some images that would fit. For example, most reporting on the c:Category:April 2026 visit of Keir Starmer to the Middle East mentions the Strait of Hormuz crisis. c:Category:2026 Philippine energy crisis also has images related to the effects of the Strait of Hormuz crisis. Wracking ^talk! 06:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wracking: thanks very much. I will save those links. If I create a gallery in a later Signpost issue then I may refer to them. ↠Pine (✉) 03:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Just yesterday user:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist published Wikipedia:Contentious populations and asked at the submissions desk for approval to run it.

I have it staged as an essay, as it is a newly published essay, but this is one that should get review from other Signpost editors. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just read about halfway down and found a couple of dubious things.

1. Persons of color being barred from discussing some topic. Assuming the analysis is correct, how would this ever be enforceable? Also the related table was presented as a dichotomy between "POC" and "White" which I don't think (for reasons) is a true dichotomy, so I edited the headings.
2. "There are no bans on 'Western Europe' or the 'United States'". Uh, unless I'm mis-reading this, don't some of our most contentious contentious-topics cover just this? I.e. WP:Contentious topics/The Troubles, WP:Contentious topics/American politics?
3. "For straight men" vs "straight men". Again, assuming the analysis is correct, isn't the category of banned editors supposed to be more expansive, for example, trans men, or maybe intersex? Not to mention the obvious problem with considering straight/non-straight as a binary, which many informed people see as erroneous.

For discussion? I don't want to limit the essayist's voice, but I think we do owe it to both the author and the readers to point out clear category or logical errors. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Appreciated the fixes and good questions, hopefully these answers suffice:

• 1) The same way any ban is enforceable. It can be enforced for anyone, but hits POC harder than white people. Imagine an editor says "I have experienced racist bias on Wikipedia" or writes an essay about it. That would almost certainly be said by a POC; the White editor would never have structural reason to say that. They would be equally banned from discussing racism they've experienced onwiki, but that's not really as applicable to the white editor.
• 2) I think misreading or imprecise language on my end, as those to me are explicit examples of the double-standard - those are very narrow carveouts that most groups are not generally afforded.
  • "South Asia", "Horn of Africa" - huge geographic regions - all art, culture, history, politics, food, etc is banned
  • "Kurds and Kurdistan" - nationality and country - similarly total all-encompassing ban
  • "Western Europe" or "United States" - no ban on "United states, broadly construed" or "Western Europe broadly, construed" - but carve-outs instead:
    • NOT "United states, broadly construed", but just post 1992 politics / political figures
    • NOT "Western Europe, broadly construed", but "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland"
      • A specific time-period - roughly 1960s to 2000, nationalism in 2 countries (and notably, Irish nationalism is a broader than "British nationalism in relation to Ireland").
• 3) There's an adjective I'd like to toss in to make it "for REDACTED straight men" v "for everyone else", but my hands are tied. The broader point is that GENSEX is interpreted to mean LGBT topics + feminism + onwiki efforts to counter sexism. While all categories are porous, I think the point stands that one can be banned from all content and discussions of LGBT people or gender bias (including bans from their own experiences as editors who are women/LGBT) - but there is not similar ban on "All straight men broadly construed".
  • LGBT editors and straight editors are equally able to be banned from discussing homophobia they've experienced onwiki. That only applies to the former.
  • Women and men are equally able to be banned from discussing sexism they've experienced onwiki. That only really applies to the former.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Have we already reported about this post in a previous issue? It's a nice (and kind of worrying) breakdown of recent drops in page traffic by topic, and I think it would make for a pretty interesting lead story. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from the external links search tool that it has not been covered before. - Bri.public (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Cool! I hope I can help with that myself in the next few days. Oltrepier (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be written as a standalone column, as this is certainly very interesting and detailed, and highly relevant to the project. The author of the article appears to have a Wikipedia presence as User:LuisVilla, who we can talk to for input on this. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to talk about it. The blog and images are CC BY 4.0, so also feel free to just reuse. Happened to be in the process of publishing the source code when I got this ping. —Luis (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

@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]

• Feels like a time where less is more. NAN already has a wide gamut; I'd leave event listings to other, perhaps more focused, places. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi The ed17, it's nice to see you here. For all: where would be the best place for a recurring "Recent and upcoming events" listing in The Signpost? ↠Pine (✉) 01:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pine We haven't one yet, to be fair! I guess Community view could be a good slot, though, if we want to have one more regular column. Oltrepier (talk) 12:29, 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]

• Hi @The ed17: Well, I believe that no one is required to read The Signpost in whole or in part. Granted that "Wikipedia should not be a random collection of facts", and neither should The Signpost, but I see little harm in this proposal, and some potential upside. By the way, we did a long time ago run at least one reader survey, and we might want to do a fresh one. ↠Pine (✉) 04:04, 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]

I know it is already summarised in the news and notes section, but should we run Wikimedia Foundation Secured Government’s Commitment to User Safety, Privacy, and Content Integrity Ahead of Administrative Registration in Indonesia in this section? Mitchsavl (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist

@HaeB Have you already reported about the LLMpedia project in previous issues? I don't remember coming across that, but it should be quite an eye-catching, albeit disturbing, experiment to write about. Oltrepier (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @E mln e: I noticed your recent addition to this Signpost article included broken link formatting. Could you please fix the remaining formatting issues, as I wasn't able to correct it? Thanks. oops, forgot to sign earlier Mitchsavl (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

Hi JPxG, with the closure of Wikinews, the community has released an article about it: n:Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years. Would you be able to import (using Special:Import) a copy of the page to the "Special report" section for republishing? Thanks in advance. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl Hello! I've imported manually the text of the article by myself. Now, it just needs some more copyediting!

I've also mentioned the main authors of the original article, so they can get proper credit. Oltrepier (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Should there be a hatnote at the top specifying this was originally published there, with a link to the article? Mitchsavl (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl Oh yeah, I forgot to add it! If you want to add it yourself, go ahead. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]