This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals of Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing), 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/SuggestionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SubmissionsWikipedia 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, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2026-10-20 01:06:17 ( v t e ) Writing: 30 October 18:00 (11 days left; 64%) Publishing: 31 October 18:00 (12 days left; 66%) There are 10 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes and 43 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-10-20 01:06:17.
September 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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 01 02 03 04	October 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 28 29 30 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	November 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 26 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 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06

I was a guest presenter in a podcast. Here a proposal for covering it in the "in brief" section. I feel reliable in reporting the contents of the one-hour podcast to save the effort of editors here listening to it, but anyone else here can make a call on what to do with this.

• Exploring Wikipedia starting with the penis Interviewer PJ Vogt of the Search Engine podcast talks about the illustration choice in the Wikipedia article for human penis with user:Bluerasberry. To arrive at understanding, other topics discussed include Wikipedia's editorial process, its coverage of sexuality, online age verification laws by country, and the incarceration of Wikipedia editor Osama Khalid.

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, wow, that caught me by surprise. What's this vandalism in our newsroom??? Oh, okay then... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you load up this article on mobile the Dolly Parton images make the next look terrible. I noticed this issue in an article from the last publication after release as well. I think the problem is the image template, but I am not sure what the right fix is. I think this is effecting all articles.Czarking0 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just fleshed out the agents story a bit.

I confess to be very confused by the current title Five shocking photos may be changed on Wikipedia, even after reading through the entire draft. Which five photos? May be changed to what?

Generally, while I'm not opposed to good jokes and witticisms, attempts at such feats risk falling flat or becoming obtuse. (To take the subheadings in the current draft as an example: "AI overruns German wiki site" is more helpful in orienting our readers than "We all wear a mask".)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am 100% just spoofing on Buzzfeed style headlines. I would like the signpost to grow its readership. The photo changing was Dollyx3, Delveyx2 but the count is not that important. I think We all wear a mask is good. Delvey is complaining about the anonymity of wikipedia editors.

I'd be much more receptive to your feedback if you proposed what you think things should be changed to rather than saying that my work is bad. Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Epilogue: After publication, several readers likewise criticized the obtuseness of this headline (even after it had been slightly edited). Let's keep this in mind in the future in cases where a contributor might become a little to enamored with their own witticisms. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

the CEO didn't even actually know about her in the first place The CEO being David? This doesn't make sense. Czarking0 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's easy to think about why this would be a problem if CBS was already ruled reliable, and that there's not much problem with a CNN takeover. @CatPencil: I think this is too poorly written to be copy-edited.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as this is explicitly an opinion and the piece for Community View is also an opinion, I think CatPencil should be limited to one opinion piece per publication. I think neither piece is good for publication in its current form, but this one is closer.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hey @Czarking0 got your feedback, and fixed per your comment. I'm sorry that neither piece lives up to the standard. If its better this piece can be published and other can be postponed. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Based on your interests and writing I assume you are are young American. I am also a young American. Phrases like that harmless are something I would say casually, but I do not think these colloquialisms make for good press.Czarking0 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Czarking0 Changes are made per request, thank you! let me know how it looks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Starting to look better / get close but this is a run on Now per WP:RS, reliability depends on the context and where, or how the topic is presented by the network; as in, if CBS were to cite somewhere like Reuters, in their coverage, you can pass that as reliable information, however, changes in outlets' management can affect their wording and toning of that specific news, in a somewhat negative coverage despite the source it comes from. Czarking0 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

That would definitely be a long-debated discussion, and don't worry; as usual, I'll cover it in here, at the Signpost. I recommend against this. Czarking0 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

changes done. @Czarking0 I was gonna change the first part to something better but I suppose how reliablity is established was explained in the third part already, so yep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

To be blunt, while I appreciate CatPencil's efforts here and agree with a lot of the substance, I do not know why the Signpost would run this piece. It seems to be partly a recap of skepticism about CBS, which is something that seems outside the scope of the Signpost (and which has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere), and partly a belated/extended RfC !vote (or effort to offer an alternative closing statement to an RfC). Commentary about an RfC or type of RfC is in scope, but I don't see anything here that wasn't already articulated in that RfC? FWIW, sorry. (Also, I am a mere passerby and not a Signpost editor FYI.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hey @Rhododendrites lets establish what is this and what is this not; this is an opinion piece on the events of CBS and CNN deal, why wikipedians arguing about it, the skeptism of the RfC despite it being ruled as reliable, and the possible effects of CNN deal. Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened, Signpost has both editor and non-editor readers who might be interested in this, and its pieces can get pushed to mainstream media. As for the coverage, Opinion pieces, are definetly more subjective, and full of opinions per the name, might not be an usual signpost article. This opinion specifically comes with a skeptisim vibes, that's beacuse I'm writing it, have enough sources to be skeptic, and the RfC was skeptic too. You can think like The New York Times publishing an opinion piece about therapy when obviously the times itself generally does not cover opinions about theraphy.

I really like your feedback though, so to see what may make one see that way, I will make some changes to the tone of the article. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened I have no idea what you are saying Czarking0 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere I certainly agree with this. CatPencil seems to have no special insight about the topic which the average reader could not gather from reading Wikipedia pages about the situation. However, I am still inclined to publish if CatPencil so desires and we have no alternative opinion pieces. I do not think such a publication would actively harm The Signpost. Publishing it may develop CatPencil's authorship, and it may attract other readers or opinion authors. Czarking0 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I was not able to reply this for some reason. Oh well, I would be happy if this get published, if not, theres always fish in the sea, try till happens. For the first part, I was refering to fact that this is, in fact, not that objective nor important compared to other pieces. Thanks again. Now me going to sleep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Czarking0 I have made some overhauls and made the article more "opinionized". Hopefully not too much, you can filter some, and I would like to hear how it looks now, more specifically, could you lead me into what you liked and didn't liked about this new direction? so I can improve things from that way, instead of making overhauls. Thanks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Our template for image display looks terrible on mobile. I believe this css should be added starting on line 177 here

   @media screen and (max-width: 720px) {
       .signpost-sidebar-fillerimage {
           float: none;
           width: 100%;
           padding-left: 0;
           text-align: center;
       }
   }

However, it is template protected. I see @JPxG: made the page. Is someone here able to edit before publication or should I make a template protected edit request? Czarking0 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is it the web it the app? The web is fine but the app is... yeah, ugly. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 05:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just learned of meta:Community Wishlist/Community Wishlist 2027. It is the updated Community Wishlist process going for the next year or two. I don't know if I will be able to work on it, but if I can I'll do my best. I am thinking a full report on this, will see what happens. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have begun working on a piece for the next issue: User:Mitchsavl/SP Community Wishlist changes. As of yet, I am uncertain what column to put it in. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have continued to work on the draft, and have copied it over to the Technology report, as I deemed that to be the place where it would best fit. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just took a quick scan over the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report. It's very long. But it's in four sections. Maybe it should be carried as a multi-part thing over more than one issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this should in part be edited down. If I ctrl+p I see 32 pages. About half of that is prose. Given that this is essentially an opinion piece I think limiting to about 5 pages of prose would be reasonable. This is especially because it is clearly AI written. AI written tends to be longer in a way that is not beneficial to the reader. Czarking0 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Consider footnote 7. Currently 93 words. It could be

Analytics data are fuzzed for privacy or unavailable for many languages. Geolocation incorrectly shows U.S., France, or Singapore for some data.

I don't think meaningful content in the 93-word footnote are lost in this proposed 20-word rewrite. Radical streamlining of more content would benefit the piece. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

For many reasons (data consistency and quality, external trends, and a crabload of other things)

This could be a phrase that just doesn’t exist in my dialect of English, but I’ve never heard anyone say a ‘crabload’ before, and Wiktionary gives no result for it. Is this a phrase? If not, should it be changed? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 03:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I assume it's a spoonerism for crapload. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense; I’ll leave it as it is. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 06:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just made a copyedit pass but it didn't center on concision. At this time the piece is fundamentally problematic because it is a bunch of data science^[a] with some very useful observations about intervention to convert readership to editors sprinkled in, followed by what looks like a footnote about changes in governance and accelerating experiments to reverse bad trends. This isn't very readable. The data should support the central arguments, instead it looks like a research paper with some blushing personal observations. To the author: get out there more with your opinions and urgent call to action; I think this is by far the most important part of the writing. Make the research the footnotes, or links to completely different essay pages if that works better. Or as the English expression goes, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

If I can be so bold, I've re-outlined the piece this way.

Problems

• Readership is falling, masked by bot traffic
• Core medium-edit-count editors are falling, masked by a temporary reprieve due time on editors' hands and lack of alternatives to online activity during COVID lockdowns
• Growth only seen in high-edit-count editors (concentration risk)
• Community ossification and social cost of making mistakes discourages innovation

Solutions

• New governance model
• New relationship to readers as a resource of future editors
• Less glorification of high-edit-count contributors
• New relationship to AI providers as a straight-up "truth" provider, better exposure of source qualifications

I'm not so sure about the solutions, I may have mis-understood or mis-prioritized. That's actually a problem because already at this point my time reading and re-reading is probably much higher than the average Signpost reader, who you are trying to persuade.

My advice is to lay it out very clearly as a set of really severe problems that undermine sustainability. An introduction section could lay out the problems without any research, then there could be a section that just provides a gloss of the thorough research providing evidence that those problems exist. Then get into the solutions with gusto. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just noting here that this was not published in 22:13. Bri.public (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

October 3-4-5 feels about right to me. Anyone else? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I actually updated the deadline because of rendering issues before I saw this! Given the time I think Oct 3/4/5 is a bit too early, but the deadline I previously set (Oct 18) might be a little too late, so shall we agree on an Oct 10 deadline (the in-between)? Bonus: it would be 10.10 on that day! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 07:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is from a new Signpost contributor user:1F616EMO who is an experienced Chinese language Wikipedia editor zh:user:1F616EMO~nya. I am sharing here to request early feedback. I have asked them to provide images over the placeholders in there now.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed

They confirmed that they wrote the piece with their own ideas but did use AI for copyediting. I do not think this needs further disclosure for AI but if anyone has another opinion then share. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Author might want to check the difference between idioms "go off track" and "run off the rails". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice, fixed in diff with AI assistance on understanding the idioms. 1F616EMO (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should pay attention to the reasonable readers, that is, those who agree to our vision and code of conduct, the five pillars, policies and guidelines, and applicable consensuses. I would suggest that the wording around this be revised, I don't think that disagreeing with some aspects of Wikipedia makes a reader unreasonable, which is heavily implied by this statement. I do think this is a good article overall, but I think the tone could be revised a bit to be less exclusionary to those with a different perspective of the encyclopedia but can nonetheless be valuable contributors to the project. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I used the wrong word. Almost all "unreasonable" should be "improper", as in WP:CONACHIEVE: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised", and the implied counterpart - such a decision does not take into account any improper concerns raised. I wrote the essay with both Chinese and English Wikipedia in mind, and that resulted in awkward, non-native wordings. I will revise the essay later today to reflect this.

And by writing the essay, I did not mean to exclude those who raised improper concerns as a person, but to exclude those specific concerns and, as a precaution, be extra careful to other opinions they give. Of course, they can still contribute to our movement, given that they do not insist when it is better to move on, or put something into action to prove the community wrong.

The tone is intentionally exclusionary due to my Chinese Wikipedia background. On my home wiki, there is a surprisingly high tolerance to disrupters, that administrators often fail to prevent those who insist on improper concerns from further disrupting, repeat offenders are often released from a block on the sole basis of a simple promise, and the RfA/RfDA are vote-based. The tone could be revised, but the core idea should prevail: We, as stewards of our mission, should safeguard our projects from improper demands; we may advocate and invite them into our mission, and alternatively guide them to the correct venue, but if all efforts failed, we would have no choice but to force them away. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is now 5 days left before the deadline, and the article is not yet marked for copy-editing. Should I mark it myself? 1F616EMO (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. If the article is ready, mark it yourself. Wil540 art (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've marked it for copy-editing. 1F616EMO (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

A lot of users have said that the news was very concerning If I was writing this piece, I would not say this. I would say something more along the lines of Several users such as Username 1 and Username 2 indicated heightened concern for the reliability of CBS. I would then reach out to Username1 and Username 2 for comment and find new information about how they think about the future of news.Czarking0 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry didn't see this before, I didn't reached out yet, do you have anyone in mind for this piece? Or perhaps I can find some from the CBS RfC. Thanks again. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion by WhatamIdoing (2026-09-14), where I've submitted an informational article that relates to the upcoming fundraising season. It's basically finished, so you should be able to drop it in to any upcoming issue if you choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, JPxG, and HaeB: User:Vysotsky emailed me to say that he wants to submit a Serendipity article. I've always loved his Serendipity pieces, so can we reserve that slot for him? I'll very likely have a Disinfo report as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. More content is better! Hopefully Vysotsky is aware of the current deadline and I don't think we've decided it's final; it still could come in one week if others think it's appropriate. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a very good draft from @Vysotsky: in Serendipity. I have not started writing anything for the Disinfo report, though done a lot of research on 2 versions, the first would be a bit boring - just another rich guy involved in politics with a possible pardon being sought. The other may be too big for me - or even for the Signpost: the P(doom) uproar, with lots of disinfo on all sides including some about the end of humanity, the future of AI and the internet, and what can Wikipedia do to help stop it all. Is it a news story about Wikipedia? Or would it be an opinion? Well Wikipedians are certainly involved in the future of humanity and the internet, and very closely involved with LLMs. Would anybody like to co-author this? I haven't quite got the technical chops to do it alone, or haven't got the right angle yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to see some reviews of Sunshine Hills Reality Edit (Tina Connolly), in a post-truth world with a Wikipedia-like entity. The book doesn't even have an article yet as far as I can see. Going to wait just a bit and see if a) it is notable and b) if more reviews appear. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to add this at the 11th hour. Frankly the story turns my stomach, but it needs to be told calmly. It looks like the guy who supervised Christa Pike's botched execution supervised 3 other executions in Arizona in 2022 and likely told the executioners to look up the proper dose on Wikipedia. And the appropriate Wiki article provides (still!) that information (despite the MOS for medicine strongly saying that we shouldn't provide doses). I know I don't write well when the story turns my stomach, so extensive copy editing for style would help, as would some independent fact checking. For some reason I can't bring myself to name and link the Wikipedia article where the dose is given. Something about "what if somebody else uses it?" Any help appreciated, but please keep it dignified and conservative and don't put it in the title or blurb. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a strange development to that horrible story. Wikipedia's involvmement is mentioned in this article interview: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/07/nx-s1-5991884/former-tennessee-prisons-chief-also-oversaw-botched-executions-in-arizona It doesn't say that Wikipedia misled them; however, it does say that the records indicate there were instructed to look up on Wikipedia what the "appropriate dosages should be." - Wil540 art (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the NPR story is perhaps the best story to base this on. I've got a lot of on-Wiki stuff sorta related to this. But it really doesn't make a lot of sense. Other than some good Wiki editors ignoring the Meds MOS, there's nothing I can say about them doing anything wrong or acting in bad faith. It's just very bizarre that a government official seems to have told the executioners working for him something like: "Hey guys, you want to kill this person right, just check Wikipedia". But no jokes allowed here, ok? @Bri, HaeB, Wil540 art, JPxG, and Czarking0: any ideas? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I don't participate in death-penalty related conversations Czarking0 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not anybody's fault here, but I don't love the passive voice in the NPR story: in the records when department employees are told to check Wikipedia. What records? Who says those records exist? Who wrote the records? How were they disclosed? Who told whom to check Wikipedia, and what were they supposed to check? Was it the only reference used for the lethal doses in execution protocols? Was Wikipedia even consulted about dosage, or something else (potency of aged chemicals, maybe)? It's just so thin – far less than a sentence of substance. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is at least one indisputable fact here, that Frank Strada was in charge of 3 botched executions in Arizona and then in Tennessee he was in charge of Christa Pike's super-botched execution, the buck stops with him if ultimately he (or the states) cannot produce where they got the dosage or what was the protocol for getting it. Judge Duncan's expertise only extends to his investigation in Arizona and he just refers to "records". Are they printed protocols or emails or maybe even just an interview with an execution staff member. He doesn't say. His whole point in that short paragraph is that many records of protocols are intentionally being hidden (by the state or its employees) so that they can't be held accountable. So does that mean that we don't report what the media has said, or that we just report what we know from the media and from the record as reported in the Wikipedia database of records. I've added that I found "little or no" evidence showing that Wikipedia editors broke any rules. More evidence of course would be better than the little we've got. But I feel that publishing what we've got is a lot better than not publishing it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is my personal policy to try to never edit Wikipedia articles related to a Signpost article that I've written. As a journalist it could put me in a dubious position and as a Wikipedian it could put me in another dubious position under different rules. It also eliminates the need to include a distracting COI disclosure in the Signpost article. Except for one or two much earlier Signpost articles I think I've succeeded in keeping the two roles separate. Case in point, Rhodo has removed the doseages in the affected article(s). I'm glad he did, but it was not at my behest and we did not cooperate in any way on it. No harm, no foul. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

NPR came out with an "update" this morning at [1]. The text at that link is different including a very slight change (in words, not really in meaning) so I've started updating the Signpost article. It's also clarified that this is an "exclusive interview" that must have been done recently. One potential problem, NPR doesn't update the audio or a separate "transcript" usually for 24 hours (but I'm not sure about weekends). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This:

Accusation of Qatari propaganda In this narrative, American freedom of speech protections make Wikipedia a channel for bad actors to spread propaganda as the Qatari government and likely other political forces use the encyclopedia to advance their propaganda. (RealClearPolitics) – BR

@Bluerasberry: There wasn't a link in this, so I tried to find the article with a web search, but I don't see anything at all at RealClearPolitics about this. Even if I just search for Qatar and Wikipedia on Google News, the most recent things I can find are from March. I don't know if this is a formatting error or what, but I am going to take it out for now since it seems like a phantom item. If anyone finds out what it is supposed to refer to, and has a link for it, then it should go back in. jp×g🗯️ 22:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Thanks and good catch. I both messed up the link and the source. I staged it for next issue. It is actually from ReadClearWorld, the global imprint of the much better known America-focused RealClearPolitics. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Doug Weller has died. I think the Signpost should run an obituary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

+1. St☆rlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made a start on one. It's not quite finished, but anyone else here who knew Doug better than I did can feel free to help out. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made one small change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/By the numbers

User updated this article and it is ready for review. This was previously submitted about a month ago.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Does_the_country_of_birth_affect_the_likelihood_of_having_a_Wikipedia_biography?

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

OpenAI “rogue” agent activities found on Wikimedia projects -> Started tranferring this Diff article written by Selena Deckelmann here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from Diff - Wil540 art (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very good. It's possible to publish this instead as "News from the WMF" since it is also published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10/05/openai-rogue-agent-activities-found-on-wikimedia-projects/ (I haven't 100% checked to see if it's exactly the same, but likely it is). I don't know which would be better. The Verge has summarized this and asked comment from Open AI at

https://www.theverge.com/news/1004929/wikipedia-openai-rogue-bots-wikimedia-foundation-outage which should go up top at In the media. I've been thinking about getting something about LLMs and P(Doom) [see above] and this might be the angle - What can Wikipedians do to stop a takeover of Wikipedia by Open AI. I've got ideas, but the main idea should be to collect others opinions on what the community can do to stop the Borg, or is resistance futile? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’m fine with it being published in News from WMF. That would probably be more accurate since the article is coming from the CTO.

I support you cooking up a “stopping the borg” article. BTW, the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup are doing heroic work. - Wil540 art (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I popped in something to In the media, since The Verge has reported on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If the MIB image is too playful, we could use an image of a data center like this one: File:Amazon AWS us-west-2 morrow east AZ 01.jpg.

@Bri, I want to propose a more descriptive blurb, something like: Selena Deckelmann, CPO/CTO of the Wikimedia Foundation, explains recent detection of AI agent activities on Wikimedia projects. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Courtesy link:  this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#OpenAI rogue agent activities found on Wikimedia projects, mainly because it appeared as the 2nd most viewed article on October 5. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 00:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Thanks for the heads up, I added it the article, putting it after the attribution line. -Wil540 art (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it would useful to add a mention that the default editor for both mobile and desktop users (anonymous and new) is now the VE. The RfC was centrally advertised, but as far as I am aware, when the actual switchovers were done (mobile, followed by desktop a few days later I believe), there wasn't any announcement or indication. In addition, there is a new edit check, LLM paste check, which uses technical signs to conclusively (mostly) detect when text is copied from some of the popular LLMs. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done This suggestion has been incorporated at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes#VisualEditor is now default. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2026 (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 sixteenth 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) 17:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not believe that the results will be a surprise to most Wikimedians who have been curious about generative AI. It is however disheartening to see that the journalists and science communicators we may be trusting to provide high quality, verified information, do not seem to share our caution. This is not an opinion piece so authors should not express their beliefs and what disheartens them personally. Czarking0 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

RR has been inviting opinions in the form of paper reviews (a very standard format, cf. wikt:review#Noun #2) for fifteen years now, as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to. Happy to hear your arguments if you believe that this should change, but for now we'll stick with the existing format. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to" do you really have to start with this insufferable attitude? Best regards you could ever have, Czarking0 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Czarking0, while you have made various good contributions to the Signpost in recent months, and I don't mind healthy disagreements and unvarnished feedback, I am starting to worry that you might have been getting a mistaken impression that insults (such as insufferable), passive-aggressive dismissal of feedback, or trying to shut others up are effective means for getting your way here - despite our editor-in-chief having called you out for such things back in July already (This is a really pointlessly inflammatory comment and I'd prefer you not say stuff like that). We are having lively debates here in the Signpost team all the time, but I can't recall any other team members behaving like this in recent years. Since you were just partially blocked for several weeks for a similarly combative attitude in another area (including accusations and suspicions that other editors judged as unfounded), and seemed to be oblivious that this is not something that is acceptable on English Wikipedia, now might be a good moment for you to reflect and make some changes.

As for your edits to E_mln_e's review: Separate from whether opinions are allowed in reviews (I hope we could clear that up above), things should be attributable to the bylined author(s). That doesn't mean that the bylined author has carte blanche for offtopic rants or is granted the ultimate authority over what is being published in the end, or that others can't make some uncontroversial smaller factual additions sometimes if they can reasonably assume that the bylined author is OK with them. But there is no NPOV policy here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

While occasional expressions of frustration happen, and sometimes those expressions of frustration become focused on a specific person, I share HaeB's concerns here regarding a pattern of incivility in Signpost discussions, and I would ask Czarking0 to please become more of a team player. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is Recent research ready for copyediting? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, what's there is ready for copyediting (and I think the first piece has already been copyedited quite well). I'm adding some finishing touches as we speak. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see plans just changed again (from EICAWOL and Bri publishing this evening Pacific time, to JPxG suddenly showing up for duty a few days after the deadline). Anyway, so this will have to be in the next issue, I have changed the heading accordingly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "Israel supporter Robert Kraft" should be evaluated by someone who isn't me. Specifically: are those two words sufficient to describe Macklemore–Ed Sheeran tour controversy § Robert Kraft? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri Well, there's a whole section on Kraft's own page that might come in handy in this case. Oltrepier (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, Oltrepier, and HaeB: and all. I might be missing a fine point here, but it looks to me like there is a question of balance here. My personal feelings are that in the Gaza conflict, it's not going to be possible to present "balanced" text in any article about Gaza that will satisfy everybody, and I'm not going to try. Re: Traffic report in general, they give lots of info and lots of context or other material on a regular basis just because they are trying to write something interesting in a list of some of the most controversial current topics, and I don't know how to formulate an interesting article that would do otherwise. In general, I settle for "truth" as I see it and accuracy, or at a minimum adherence with WP:BLP. I'll go out on a limb here and say "Israel supporter Robert Kraft" is "true" and accurate and is consistent with WP:BLP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I worry about characterizing anything complex with a short phrase. The choice could have been "opponent of anti-Semitism", "billionaire Jew", or any number of things. But I'm satisfied with your true/accurate criterion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is several hours past writing deadline. Sections should be marked ready for copyedit as soon as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Will you be available to manage publication of this issue? I only ask because your last edit was on the day of the previous issue's publication. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 00:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow maybe, Sunday definitely. jp×g🗯️ 01:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's good to hear. Thanks for the quick response. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @JPxG: would you please share a status update? I believe that some sections need copyediting before publication, so unless you have extra capacity to handle both copyediting and publishing in the near future, perhaps the publication date will slip slightly. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, things IRL have built up and I don't have more time for the Signpost this weekend. I tried to finish up the leftovers in In the media. My advise is that if they aren't good enough, just delete them - they are not worth the time. I was trying to write a Disinfo report about what the Wikipedia editor community can do about Open AI's editing onsite. I have some ideas, but they aren't ready yet. Maybe I should reserve an Opinion or Op-ed slot for November? Sorry but I'm outta here for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: thanks for the note. Depending on what happens between now and tomorrow, perhaps you will have time to finish anything that you'd like to complete on Monday before the publication of this Signpost issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: I'm almost recovered from IRL, but will delay my proposed Disinfo report until the next issue (hopefully as an Opinion or Op-ed). The topic is important but is not going to disappear soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Pine: and all. I think it's time to invoke EICAWOL again. JPxG's last edit was on this page on October 10, and before that on Sept. 16. Bri, can you do the publishing honors again? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Smallbones: are there any updates about publication? ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to give JPxG a chance to reply. Will make time Tuesday evening (Pacific) if I'm still required for publication then. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: thanks. This might be a good time to mention that I recently discussed with Bluerasberry that the editor-in-chief role involves enough work to be a paid part-time job if its scope includes substantial Signpost content creation, managing the newsroom, and executing the publication process, and that on-time publication has been a problem for the Signpost for many years. If you are interested in being looped into a discussion about how potentially the EIC role could be funded while minimizing potential conflict-of-interest issues, then please email me. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 03:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine & @Bluerasberry I support this effort to fund an EIC role. My 2 cents can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#WP:EICAWOL? fyi: @User:JPxG & @HaeB responded unenthusiastically to the idea of paying an EIC. - Wil540 art (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support seeking funding for a technical and administrative publisher for The Signpost. I do not support funding for an editor in chief.

More broadly, I support funding many Wikimedia groups to have infrastructure support distinct from programmatic support which directly has an impact.

Here is what I want funded generally - meta:Wiki administrative executive

Here are past proposals to seek funded administrative support for The Signpost

• meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Bri/Signpost publication manager
• meta:Grants:Project/bluerasberry/fund a Signpost publisher

Out of scope: editorial decisions, content creation or development

In scope: technical act of publishing, administrative communication like pinging people in queue to submit or volunteer, do documentation, connect Signpost to other Wikimedia systems/project/affiliates to get their submissions

Being an editor in chief is a lot more fun when it is about executive decisions and upholding ethics and social values, and a lot less fun when it is about administrative backlog and scheduled task management. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• For the essay: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/two-roles-one-wikimedia-education-ecosystem-lessons-from-wikiconference-north-america-2026/
• For the Technology Report: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/09/ai-and-the-future-of-wikimedia-reflections-from-wcna-2026/
• For the WikiConference Report and/or Community View. These both cover Wikimania, from complementary perspectives.

• https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/my-first-in-person-wikimania-reflections-lessons-and-outcomes/
• https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/05/from-local-contributions-to-a-global-movement-my-wikimania-2026-journey/

༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just regarding the second item, I don't think this is a very good fit for "Technology report" (whose main scope is news and developments in the technical platforms used by the Wikimedia project).

I would also encourage us to be selective regarding conference attendance reports by individual scholarship recipients, considering that may not be written with our audience in mind. E.g. how much do the Signpost's readers really benefit from "Key lessons learned" like this?

I learned that extended user rights on Wikimedia projects are not limited to administrators. They also include roles such as page patrollers, file movers, file renamers, stewards, bureaucrats, checkusers, and other users with specialised permissions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Plus, I thought we've had already two pretty good contributions about Wikimania on Issue 11, right? Oltrepier (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @HaeB and Oltrepier: I considered the value of the conference reports to experienced contributors, but something that is not a "key lesson" for an experienced contributor may be a "key lesson" for a new person. Our experienced readership might benefit from being reminded that some people are new, and the opportunity to see the world through their eyes. Here is a suggestion: this month's Signpost conference report section could simply list and link to each of the recent conference reports that have been published in Diff. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• In the absence of objections, I will adapt https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/two-roles-one-wikimedia-education-ecosystem-lessons-from-wikiconference-north-america-2026/ for "In focus". Other uses have been found for "Community view" and "Essay". ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Pine Wait, how about putting that blurb in "WikiConference report", and leaving a list of the remaining articles on Diff at the end of the column? Oltrepier (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Found this out from a media source.

I can honestly say that a good 10-15% of the active accounts since 7 October 2023 have either been my own sockpuppets or other users I have personally and intimately coordinated extensively externally (on sources like Discord) with to ensure the project has a pro-Palestine bias.

The title contains my question for The Signpost: how and when do we approach this? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like worth covering, perhaps as part of a Discussion Report in case we'll have one lined up for the next issue (together with the subsequent appeal discussion and administrative decision), or in ITM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@HaeB: Thanks for the suggestion. I started Discussion report with that quote. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: one thing to consider is whether a confession may be false and intended as a provocation. I don't know one way or another, but it's one thing to keep in mind. I would be interested in hard evidence, and I recommend being cautious about how a statement like this is described in The Signpost. I have not looked into the facts surrounding this particular statement or the Discussion report draft. My caution would apply the same if the statement supposedly confessed a different attempt to tilt content. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I put very little stocks in these confessions. "User:SuperbGazelle said she and three of her high school friends were personally was responsible for at least 23.75% of Soviet casualties in WWII." Sure buddy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, that's kind of why I had suggested to cover it together with the subsequent/surrounding appeal discussion linked above (see e.g. the comments by Kowal2701 or Moneytrees there). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like we have a leftover draft that already has some good material but which was left out of last month's issue because nobody got around to editing and fleshing it out a bit more, and was just skipped again for today's issue. I think it covers some important topics and should work with just a little additional editing (e.g. the author of the piece about the "Journal Cited by Wikipedia" reports might want to add a disclosure of their own involvement in it; also, @Mitchsavl: does the Wishlist item need any updates?). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

As reported on by The Telegraph and The Guardian, apparently Sandi Toksvig is working with the University of Cambridge on the Mappa Mundi project, which aims to supplement Wikipedia and other portals with more information about women in academics.

Without a doubt, this looks like a lovely initiative, and Toksvig is right to point at the wide information gap that still exists on Wikipedia, but I don't understand why she focused this much on firing shots at the site, instead of giving more insight on her own project...

Anyway, this should be an interesting story, and I can work on it myself, now that I should have more time to contribute again! Oltrepier (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also The Spectator, paywalled, author Toby Young. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now also a critical Opinion column in The Irish Times. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri Ok ok, I think it's enough, let's cover it! : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi JPxG, I have boldly written content for this issue's essay's section. I am fine with moving my essay to a different section or postponing this if there are other needs to use this essay section. If my essay needs to be postponed then I would be fine with you copying my content to a new page in my user space, then replacing my content on the Signpost page. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 22:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I boldly started the upcoming Signpost "In focus" section as an adaptation of "Two Roles, One Wikimedia Education Ecosystem: Lessons from WikiConference North America 2026" from Diff. @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) and Bukky658: I'm hoping that this content will remain on track for publication in the upcoming Signpost issue. Before publication there will be reviews from at the Signpost editor-in-chief and possibly additional contributors, and plans may change. However, please feel free to boldly edit the Signpost adaptation as needed. I hope that this will be published in the next issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This essays seems to conflate Wikimedia education with Wikimedia in education. - Wil540 art (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: perhaps LiAnna or Bukky658 will respond to this concern, and possibly edit the text to clarify. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art@ Thanks for raising this point. I agree that distinguishing between Wikimedia education as a broader movement and the use of Wikimedia projects in educational settings is important. Our intention in the article was to highlight the complementary roles of Wiki Education and EduWiki Hub, particularly the distinction between classroom-based support and global, community-driven support for education communities.@Pine It may be helpful to make this distinction more explicit in the Signpost adaptation so that readers can better understand the different scopes of work. Bukky658 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine How about putting that blurb in "WikiConference report", and leaving a list of the remaining articles on Diff at the end of the column?

Sorry, I've come across your original message a little late... Oltrepier (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Pine! This piece was fully authored by Bukky658, so she should get the authorship credit! I just helped with the actual presentation. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's an important story about a well known Russian contributor to the Russian Wikinews being arrested for 1st "minor hooliganism" then rearrested for "minor hooliganism" and then for "treason" regarding being "paid" with "stars" on Telegram worth $26. I have some problem reporting his name - but only because I don't think making it a major issue in the reliable press would help him at this point. We can see what's going on in the press just before we publish. The case is discussed on Jimbo's talk page, on a Russian Wikipedia talk page (those folks are brave!) and in Medusa (Russian language reliable source located in Latvia?) and originally Vot Tak a Russian-language Polish-government propaganda radio station originally aimed at Belarus. Vot Tak (which means something like (there that, voila, or you got that right in Russian) has lots of details, including details about Wikipedia which are more correct than Medusa. I suggest we just report the details that might be given by the main stream Western press, or by the WMF. But we can wait until the publication date to decide. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply