This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals for a feature, see Submissions. For general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-02-22 21:58:59 ( v t e ) Writing: 23 February 00:00 (1 day left; 6%) Publishing: 24 February 00:00 (2 days left; 11%) There are 2 hours, 1 minute and 1 second until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-02-22 21:58:59.
January 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	February 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02	March 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06

The Signpost (talk  · chat)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content + resources Formatting (cheatsheet) Style Technical (talk)
Recent changes: main · talk
Newsletters
v t e

A Newsweek piece, published today, says they "contacted Wikipedia" for a response. Anybody have any idea what or who the author thinks they contacted? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek has been a bit flakey for awhile. The "Wikipedia hits back" in the headline might be a bit of this and a bit of that, e.g. edited articles, Jimbo's response on x on the 21st (I first thought it was recycled from Dickipedia days), but any response from the WMF should have been mentioned. I take it as a non-response. IMHO WMF should not respond to questions about a non-response - they'd let Newsweek do that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I'm trying to submit a short and sweet blurb about John Green and AFC Wimbledon by the deadline (it will all make sense, I promise). If I'll have enough time, I'll also help you sort out the mess over at the first lead story... Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones Right, my John Green blurb is (belatedly) in!

I'll try to help you deal with the other lead stories and the short blurbs as much as I can in the next few days, although I've still got such a hectic study schedule in real-life... Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I think this story is fantastic. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I'd like to withdraw the "Roman salute" story and resubmit it as an Op-ed. I was just storing the most relevant sources and ideas in what I intended to be a short factual blurb, but the story just hasn't turned out that way. The world exploded over that story over the last 11 days. I should be able to get the Op-ed posted tonight. I'd think that putting a 2 paragraph blurb just before the In briefs with a link to the Op-ed would work well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones That's totally fine, let me know if you need some help reviewing it! Oltrepier (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited down the Musk part of the article, in an attempt to remove my part of the submission (as proposed above - sorry if I've made a mess of it). I just don't think I should both write an op-ed and cover what the news media said about it. I've removed much of what I recognized as my work (hopefully the irrelevant part), and didn't mean to remove others' parts. Please just rewrite as you wish, maybe cut it down a bit. Definitely there should be an answer to the title's question (See NY Times) or change the title and the pic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, Oltrepier, and Josve05a: I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands that I don't think I should participate in writing up the Musk part of Itm. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I've done a bit more editing and am happy with the way it stands now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll try to go through the stories and the short blurb one more time myself! Oltrepier (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Harrison just published "Project 2025’s Creators Want to Dox Wikipedia Editors. The Tool They’re Using Is Horrifying." in Slate [1]. I read it once quickly so give me an hour to get it written up. My first reaction is that it is really big - as in covering 2 or 3 big stories that we've pretty much kept separate. That might call for a discussion of how all the pieces fit together, or even what he left out (but we'll see). Also see video from NYC Wikibirthdayia

[2] (19:05-50:00) The intro is something else (ending 21:30). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably holding all of the below for next issue.

• Elon Musk Wants What He Can't Have: Wikipedia, The Atlantic, February 5, 2025
• Big Tech must block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation, New York Post Editorial Board, February 5, 2025

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Yes, I saw the Atlantic article, too, but at this point, if we included every single reference, I'm afraid the ITM piece would become just too bloated (and it's already quite saturated right now)... So, I agree we should keep these bits for the next issue. Oltrepier (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones - @Funcrunch wrote a piece on trans editors on Wikipedia handling the Trump administration (full disclosure, I was interviewed for it) for the trans news org Assigned Media: On Trans Issues, Wikipedia is a Bulwark Against Disinformation - Might be good for the upcoming issue! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link & ping! I wasn't sure if Assigned Media would be considered an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article cite, but should be fine for The Signpost! Funcrunch (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist:

This looks very good to me! A couple of minimum requirements here - full permission from Funcrunch to submit and their agreement to use their name or username (which one?) as well as making the license CC-BY SA 4.0. Would Assigned Media have to change the license or does Funcrunch still own the copyright? I'm not the E-i-C here, so @JPxG: would have to approve it, but he doesn't have a lot of time these days. In his possible absence, I'll suggest that several regular contributors, e.g. @Bri, HaeB, Bluerasberry, and Oltrepier: sign off on it. It's very clear that Funcrunch is a very good writer and The Signpost needs good writers. So I'll suggest Funcrunch consider doing something more here, perhaps write or curate a semi-regular column for us. I'm just making a suggestion here, so everything can or will change. Here goes - the column could be called "Gender and such" (I love silly names), appear whenever you want - say every 3 or 4 issues, have different main authors with Funcrunch selecting the topic and or author (I guess Bluerasberry would be interested a couple times a year), the general topic could be anything about LGBTQ+ issues plus related editor bios/autobios/experiences/interviews/community and such. The details generally take 2-3 articles to get a feel for it. Let us know what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Smallbones! I didn't realize we were talking about reposting the whole article in the Signpost, just linking to it. I wouldn't be in favor of the former.

I have contributed to the Signpost in the past (when @Pete Forsyth was editor in chief), but not sure I can commit to a regular column right now. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Funcrunch. I look forward to reading that article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I obviously jumped the gun on that one. About the only place I can see to use it now is on In the media. It might be hard to summarize the article in one paragraph, but we'll see how it goes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones @Funcrunch Yes, I also think "In the media" would be the right place to park this interview at.

Thank you for flagging it, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Smallbones, @Pete Forsyth, and @Oltrepier! Also tagging @Tamzin and @GorillaWarfare who were included in the piece. Funcrunch (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch Just so you know, I've included a short blurb about your article in the "In brief" section of the ITM column. Nice job, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :-) Funcrunch (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Fathoms Below/RfA would be a good option for this issue's opinion piece. Courtesy ping to Fathoms Below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this debrief would be the best opinion piece, because I don't think I'm the best writer in general, but if people think it's a good essay, I'll allow it. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good essay. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss @Fathoms Below It looks good to me! Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss and Fathoms Below: Just so you know, I've boldly copied the debrief into a draft for the Opinion piece!

I don't guarantee I'll be able to go through and copy-edit the whole piece (including the very cheesy title I've chosen) soon, unfortunately... Oltrepier (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier I don't mind. I personally worry that the essay was too much, and that I put too much emotion into it. But it was also the most difficult time of my Wikipedia career and I felt like I needed to say something. Especially after my nominator made an essay of his own and I could tell how much bravery he had when he wrote it. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think in the intro, we should link to our prior coverage about admin elections, and position this as kind of a follow-up to that? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems appropriate. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In previous Signpost coverage, we noted the kick-off of Administrator elections trial. In the future, elections may run in parallel with "old fashioned" Requests for adminship, or they might eventually replace it altogether. We asked an editor to allow us to publish some reflections on their Requests for adminship experience here, which may provide insight for our readers as to why many candidates find it excruciating.

^^^ sample text above. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I strongly advise against making potentially libelous statements about a living person, especially if they are made on a website the person frequently criticizes. If discovered, what would prevent Musk from pursuing legal action against you, as part of his attacks against Wikipedia (as we've seen with Asian News International), given that your report links to an article that states Musk is considering suing someone else for making the same accusation? We've previously discussed BLP violations in The Signpost, and readers regularly raise these type of issues in the comments sections of reports. The page is clearly an WP:ATTACK page, and while I understand it's an op-ed with a disclosure at the top, that does not exempt the content from compliance with BLP policy—which applies to all pages on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, I'm just saying that some of the language needs to be revised to ensure compliance with both legal requirements and Wikipedia's policies.

My second point is: what relevance does this have to Wikipedia, for publication in Wikipedia's newspaper? It only briefly mentions Wikipedia at some parts. The Signpost is not WikiNews, nor a personal blog. Svampesky (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you restored the potentially libelous statements, and we frequently disagree on everything, I'll request additional input. Svampesky (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: If you want to stop me from publishing in The Signpost, here's what you should do. Email @JPxG: and tell him that he can't allow me to publish here anymore. You should stay as far away as possible from editing anything I've written. You just gutted the entire point of the article "tell it like it is" by putting in your "apparents" and removing "Nazi salutes". There is a difference between "hand gestures" and "Nazi salutes", and if you can't see it, go get yourself some new eyes. Musk is not going to sue Tim Walz for saying that he gave a Nazi salute - because he did make a Nazi salute, as at least a thousand sources have published.

If you can't see the relevance of the story to Wikipedia, it can only be because you haven't read the story. End of conversation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is a community-run newspaper with editorial independence, meaning it is not subject to the same policies that govern Wikipedia articles. Unlike mainspace articles, which must adhere strictly to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, The Signpost (just as any user talk page might) publishes opinion pieces (op-eds) that allow for analysis, critique, and subjective perspectives. This distinction is crucial - while Wikipedia aims for neutrality in articles, journalistic publications, including The Signpost, have the freedom to interpret and comment on current events. Disagreements should be handled editorially rather than through attempts to censor an opinion piece. I stand with Smallbones and their op-ed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Josve05a:. I do want to be clear on one thing. Signpost articles are subject to WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPTALK. I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE is quite important here as well. I've just reread the whole BLP policy and it's always good to do it before publishing an article. Just a minor example: everything about the BLP has to have an inline citation, presumably on the right line. So I'll be checking that out for awhile. I do think that the main application of BLP is in the top part of the article, where I say that he made a "Nazi salute." Now the discription of the salute is given there, with a link to the video (several times). Links to many reliable sources. A general definition of Nazi salute (from the holocaust museum). Slightly more in depth descriptions of what the NYT and Die Zeit wrote. I'll review that again, but wouldn't mind other people doing their own reviews and writing them up here.

The lower part of the article is not so much subject to BLP since it is about the editing on Wikipedia, not about Musk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why poke the enraged billionaire bear? As Shakespeare had Falstaff say, discretion is the better part of valor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start? The richest man in the world gives 2 Hitler salutes and then somehow attacks Wikipedia for mentioning it. Why is that worthy of inclusion in The Signpost? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what you are saying. I'll just say for now that I believe that the story as currently written is fully compliant with both libel law and WP:BLP, see especially WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPTALK. Meeting both these standards is of course stricter than just meeting either one of them.Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page exists primarily to make the highly-contentious definitive claim that a living person did give a Nazi salute, but the reliable sources on the page—and the mainspace Wikipedia article on the gesture—fall short of supporting such a definitive claim.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

• The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to give fascist-style salute after Trump inauguration
• Daily News: Elon Musk considers suing Gov. Tim Walz over Nazi salute accusation
• AP News: Musk’s straight-arm gesture embraced by right-wing extremists regardless of what he meant

Other sources (noting that I don't know how to search the reliability of some sources):

• France 24: Did Musk give a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration parade?
• The Jerusalem Post: Did Elon Musk Sieg Heil at Trump's inauguration?
• A tweet of a video of Nick Fuentes from Right Wing Watch, which is ran by an advocacy group.
• Die Zeit: A German Eye On Elon Musk's Hitler Salute (Yes, That's A Hitler Salute)
• Diario AS: ELON MUSK mimics NAZI SALUTE during TRUMP'S inauguration

The highly-contentious claim that Musk did give a Nazi salute is not widely supported by high-quality, reliable sources, so violates all three core policies of BLP: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia also has policies against using it as a soapbox, and the creation of pages primarily intended to disparage the subject; so I wouldn't be suprised if it ends up at MfD, but I won't nominate it myself. Svampesky (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we disagree. The proper way to address this on The Signpost is to submit your disagreement with me to @JPxG: and he'll decide. That's all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky I just wanted to note that Die Zeit should also be within the "green-light" sources, and France 24 is usually pretty reliable, too.

There's no consensus about the reliability of the JPost (and further discussions on it would likely be even more heated in the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war), while Diario AS is considered as reliable, but is mostly a sports media outlet, so it has minor importance in this case. Finally, I don't know anything about that Fuentes guy... and I don't think I want to know more, honestly. Oltrepier (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(coming from BLPN) there is likely a way to, uh, reference a famous man doing a salute that many (most) reliable sources interpret as alluding to an infamous regime, without triggering BLP.

IDK about libel, but BLP policy should be protected. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree with svampesky that flow also could use work... I don't see a direct connection between Elon Musk's salute and his attacks on wikipedia in the article, it just kinda skips to that. Attacks on wikipedia def are concerning, but needs a better way to introduce illiberal billionaire tendencies and connect to wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let me know where you see disconnects in the flow. Also, if anybody finds something where Musk actually denies making the Nazi salutes - an actual denial rather than a non-denial denial - I'd love to put it in the op-ed. As above, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. If you can quote a line from the op-ed and explain why you think it violates BLP, please do. I will likely just respond that the line is sourced from multiple reliable sources, but let me know if I'm wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, sources [3] have connected his salute with his comments about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may include it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really fucking hate to do this, but I cannot wrestle myself past the objections here -- I have turned this over in my head many times and I cannot see the move. Not, of course, to imply that we are forbidden to say such a thing, but it is not a thing where I feel I have a solid sword and shield to weather a week or two of MfD and noticeboards. I hope to have more time by next issue; I will be moving boxes on three hours of sleep after I post this message and publish, and have requested less damned days of this per week. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done @SWinxy. Here are some suggestions:

• Adding Clay Shirkey's name to the into paragraph with Stephen Harrison's. You could argue Shirkey is equally, if not more notable, than Harrison.
• Mention Craig Newmark's appearance? I added his quote to WikiQuote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Craig_Newmark

Wil540 art (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Shirky can be added in the abstract. I had forgotten Newmark had sent a note; I'll have to watch the livestream for everything that happened. SWinxy (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes of potential topics to add:

• adding a mention of the Wikimedia NYC 400 project
• adding a mention of Ryan McGrady's lightning talk about community
• adding a mention of the orgs at the tables in the atrium? WikiTongues, Farming Concrete, BetaNYC, Cybernetics Library, others?
• 15 years after the first Wikipedia Day celebration in NYC

Wil540 art (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added NYC400, but the other three I don't know if I can speak to. @Wil540 art do you have anything to add yourself? I think that's it for me; the deadline is in a few hours. SWinxy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running late, sorry, but expecting have this up in publishable form by 2am UTC. I should then also have some time to help tying up loose ends in some of the other sections if needed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost 1900 UTC, I guess this isn't coming in? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my anticipated window for this didn't quite materialize as expected yesterday (even within the since updated deadline), apologies. I am back at this now and should have it up shortly, but also will not be offended if the issue goes out without it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased this came in, good work HaeB. I'll encourage the author to go "out on a limb" (see what I did there?) and get gutsy with this passage it seems interesting that compute budget constraints would apparently prevent the deployment of a better-performing tool. I'd support a more obvious and frontal critique than "interesting" in pointing out the misalignment of WMF's spending priorities with community needs. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "the Sargodha airbase attack of Pakistan" is ambiguous and needs to be corrected. No criticism of the TOP25 folks who probably got the text from the lede of the film's article. Since the airbase is in Pakistan, and based on the plot summary, I think it was an Indian Air Force strike on the Pakistani airbase. Maybe someone who can figure out the actual history can help? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 pretty good articles

• Recent research (as always I'm sure HaeB will be high quality and on-time)
• Traffic report (ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Community view - this is the exemplar of Community views!(ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Opinion - needs some copyediting
• News and notes - a bit short, but not much newsy+noteworthy seemed to have happened, needs copy editing, better piccy
• Arbitration report - still needs copyediting checked off, but looks good to me
• In the media - needs blurb, copyediting. I like it.
• Op-ed needs copyediting, BLP review

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Almost ready to go?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased you like the community view! Wil540 and I worked hard on it. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the shift ends it'll go up. jp×g🗯️ 05:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-02-07/In the media went out with a big redlink to an "op ed" that is missing. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently did not go. What the hell? It said it had been sent, but it never actually showed up and the MassMessage never actually got sent? Okay, I guess I will do it manually. jp×g🗯️ 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is done manually. I don't know what was going on there. jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Thank you for this! I've noticed that the "Op-ed" is still stuck in the Newsroom, though... Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not publish it in this issue. jp×g🗯️ 19:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these stories in Christian press and thought they were not appropriate for The Signpost. It really doesn't have anything to do with us IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I strongly agree, especially because Sanger's post doesn't appear to address his current view on Wikipedia in any meaningful way, aside of a few quick mentions here and there. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. This really has nothing to do with us, and we don't need to be reporting on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However you feel about whether we need to be reporting on it it does have cleary have something to do with us... We can't just memory hole Sanger. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Sanger is an important individual, but we don't need to report on every aspect of his personal life. We should only report on his actions if they directly relate to Wikipedia, and the same goes for anyone else. Just because he was part of the process of creating the site doesn't mean we need to report on him every single time he's in the news. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that we need to report on him every single time he's in the news, thats a red herring. However we do seem to more or less kneejerk Wales into the Signpost, but I will admit that the Wales coverage is also generally much more directly related to wikipedia. Maybe this is just my own perspective because I'm not an elder enough editor to remember the era in which Sanger was directly involved in the project, to me he's always seemed like more of a historical figure but one who was still immensely influential on the project. This doesn't seem like just anything, this seems significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why his religion would be significant to a project he is no longer involved in. It might contextualize his criticism a little, but even that's a stretch. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting, its the sort of thing I want to see in the Signpost... Which is generally pretty boring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are appropriate for the Signpost because Sanger matters a great deal to the community (even if just as a punching bag). The Signpost isn't a formal part of wikipedia, we should have leeway to cover this sort of thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back That's true, but my biggest point against reporting this is about Sanger's post not addressing his current stance on Wikipedia in any meaningful way... Oltrepier (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why it is relevant to Wikipedia at all. It just seems like being weirdly stalkerish about Sanger's life on our end. Or trying some sort of oblique "ha ha, we win" sort of mention. I don't think this should be included at all. And I say that as someone with strong negative opinions of the person in question. Silverseren^C 17:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @QuicoleJR @Silver seren @Horse Eye's Back In my opinion, the best we could do is just a quick mention in the short blurbs, as we usually do with the events Jimbo's involved in... Still, I stand on my previous comments. Oltrepier (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not throw a fit over a quick mention. However it still seems unrelated to our audience. Would we go out of our way to report on him experiencing other major life events, disconnected from Wikipedia, such as marrige or change of city of residence? I don't think so. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri You're right, and I've just noticed that Sanger already wrote about his reported conversion almost two years ago, so that's likely a closed case... Oltrepier (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, JPxG, and Smallbones: Just to clarify, are we going to cover the piece we discussed about over here, in the end? I feel like ITM would be the most fitting place, since Funcrunch themselves prefers not to re-post the full article. Oltrepier (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; even if I had permission, I wouldn't want to repost it in entirety on-wiki. Would be happy to see it in ITM though. Funcrunch (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks well suited for In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones Good, thank you! I'm afraid I won't be able to take care of it, though, since I'm already working on the other lead story about the 404 Media report...

Could you write something for it, please? Oltrepier (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this front? Oltrepier (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Maharashtra cyber police thing and the article Chhaava. I don't understand what's happening and reported it at AN. Here's what Malcolmxl5 said: Sambhaji has been seeing a lot of activity, prompted no doubt by the release of the film Chhaava. Basically, people are objecting to the depiction of Sambhaji in our article. Both the article and article talk page are currently protected. I'll try to work this into the item, somehow. It might have to get a big longer (i.e. moved out of "in brief"). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, see Talk:Sambhaji#Surge_of_requests_incoming!, perhaps it'll help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [4], it seems people watched the biopic-ish film Chhaava, noted that the WP-article Sambhaji didn't match in all details, and started talking about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I just wanted to notice that I've moved this item at the start of the "In brief" section, due to various changes to the lead story line-up... I hope it's not a big deal. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri@Oltrepier Have you noticed that none of the press on this seems to be willing to go into what the problem is, as in quotes of WP-content and naming refs? Have they concluded they will be in trouble if they do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zee 24 TAAS, a Marathi news channel, has once again proven the power of fearless journalism, launching a high-impact campaign against Wikipedia for hosting derogatory content on the revered Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.". Good to know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I guess we should just ignore them... Oltrepier (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source [5] actually mentioned article-content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to follow up but India Today says that the cyber police are filing charges against 4 or 5 individuals [6]. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Safe to say that my previous statement is going to age like milk, then... Oltrepier (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...turn into a delicious cheese? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things are happening fast today. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"Legal_Issues" and the recent mega-edits at Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Bri Ok, so would you like to swap the last entry (about WikiTok) with this bit of news? Or should we wait until the next issue for further developments? Oltrepier (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on that, I'm thinking more on where should this go in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Do you mean a dedicated article? Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be adding something at Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials should be covered in this issue – gov't irked, police called, people charged, editor(s) appeared at ANI with some legal stuff, and admins are discussing "protective" blocks of the affected accounts. This all needs to get community attention before the train really leaves the station, which could essentially be the case by the next issue. The ordering of ITM stories isn't my first concern. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, Svampesky, and Jayen466: I've finally submitted my article on the 404 Media report about recent declarations by WMF executives and staffers on the development and extension of user protection tools.

As it's usually the case with my blurbs, there might be various passages that sound too clunky or verbose, so feel free to cut down or edit everything that needs to be fixed! Also, I've highlighted a couple of paragraphs towards the end that might need sources I wasn't able to find.

I'll now switch to copy-editing and other minor tasks, since I likely won't be able to write another full story on time... Oltrepier (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter, 245 signatures from French Wikipedians right now.

• fr:Wikipédia:Lettre ouverte : non à l'intimidation des contributeurs bénévoles

Related discussion

• fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/17_février_2025#Lettre_ouverte_contre_l'intimidation_de_contributeurs

The letter describes how a journalist for Le Point has done Wikipedia misconduct targeted to an editor. The magazine does not have conventional views of climate change, and the Wikipedia editor does.

I am not able to write this up just now but expect to return to this. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I wrote a blurb on the issue in News and Notes. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the open letter here, and is now also available at the French Wikipedia. Romaine (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, Romaine, and Bri: I posted the open letter yesterday, after being notified of its existence by User:Jules* at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view (btw there are 711 signers now). I only see 2 or 3 minor problems with it now: the translation is not so much a problem now. Last night I compared my copy edited google translation with Romaine's and made a few changes. There never seemed to be a problem with the meaning of the translation - only putting it into more idiomatic English. The 2 remaining problems:the piccy and the blurb, which anyone can change. I've tried a couple of piccies. Eugene Delacroix's "Marianna on the barricades" (1830). This got the point across that it's a French topic and was about some sort of fight. But, it might seem to be a cliche to many French (kinda like putting a photo of the Statue of Liberty in an article about American immigration), and it's too violent for my tastes. I replaced it with a French flag, but that doesn't work that well. The blurb, which is still there is "Liberte, Liberte cherie" (Liberty, Liberty, beloved) is from La Marseillaise the French national anthem and might have a small bit of relevance. But please change these to something less cliched and more relevant. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind the deadline. I've been known to mess up, but I think there is just 1 day to go for writing. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Svampesky There's one more day now! Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to Sennecaster about publishing their RfA debrief, but they haven't been online. Svampesky (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky No worries, there's always the next issue if that doesn't make the cut! Oltrepier (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I've created a mostly-finished advice article, "How to protect your privacy on Wikipedia from outside interference", which explains how we expose our personal information through our Wikipedia editing, how other organizations can access this information, and how we can prevent our information from being revealed. The article was written in response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and the leaked Heritage Foundation slide deck published by The Forward. There are two sections that still need to be completed ("Technical means" and the conclusion), which I intend to finish as soon as possible, but I wanted to present the draft here ahead of the next issue's deadline. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 14:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An important topic, but with respect: This is an already very lengthy piece with a lot of irrelevant information. E.g. it devotes pages of text to detailed explications about browser fingerprints - Your hardware fingerprints, which are calculated by performing tests on your device's graphics processor and sound chip etc. - only to admit in a single paragraph that Wikimedia sites don't record them at all (besides the user agent part, which covered in similar breadth in another section).

Other parts are outright misleading due to (apparently) mindless copypasting. E.g. the "Legal means" section implies that Metadata from file uploads ("such as the place and time you took the photo") is among the Personal Information [that will be] deleted, aggregated or de-identified after 90 days under WMF's privacy policy. That would come as a surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity to Commons uploads.

And lastly, despite its length, this article omits some of the most important advice regarding activities that have in the past led to editors getting doxxed or legally attacked - like attending real life events or taking on formal roles in Wikimedia organizations.

There are already various existing pages which cover this topic more competently and more succinctly, e.g. WP:OUTED and some material by the Foundation's Human Rights team (e.g. [7]). I'm not saying that a new treatment couldn't have value. But I would strongly suggest to:

• focus more on actual threat models, in particular mechanisms by which editors have in fact gotten outed frequently
• don't dump pages of technical or legal information that you read somewhere and found interesting (about a device's number of processor cores or such), instead focus on the most actionable and important advice

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest feedback, HaeB. I've converted the page into a userspace essay with the introduction removed and will gradually improve its contents over time. The intent of the page was to provide information that existing pages, such as WP:OUTED, did not cover. For example, I wanted to explain the significance of using a VPN on Wikipedia to a reader who may not necessarily understand what an IP address can reveal about them.

In response to a couple of points, I covered browser fingerprinting because the Heritage slide deck specifically listed "Technical Fingerprinting" as one of its "Targeting Methdologies"; this connection would have been explained in the "Technical means" section. I've replaced the "90 days" mention with a link to the WMF's Data Retention Guidelines to prevent that sentence from being misunderstood; thank you for pointing that out. Although off-wiki activity (such as attending real-life events) does introduce privacy risks, the scope of the page is limited to on-wiki ("on Wikipedia") and online activity; I believe off-wiki event organizers should explain privacy considerations to participants in a way that is specifically tailored to their local situations.

I am still interested in submitting a concise article that would focus specifically on one topic: the privacy significance of using separate email addresses for donating to the WMF and for communication on Wikimedia sites. Do you think such an article would be of value to The Signpost? — Newslinger talk 19:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: I was at meta:WikiCredCon 2025 and a recommendation that came out of that was that people who want privacy should disassociate their Wikimedia-registered email from their other identities. Yes that is a great topic for a Signpost article. I edited your essay a bit and would coordinate further on this. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My schedule has again been changed to random days with no notice, so I am apparently working tonight, after which I (supposedly) have a day off -- I will move the deadline thusly. jp×g🗯️ 19:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more time to double-check everything! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]