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/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
	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 2026-08-05 20:55:38 ( v t e ) Writing: 21 August 01:00 (16 days left; 84%) Publishing: 22 August 01:00 (17 days left; 85%) There are 15 days, 4 hours, 4 minutes and 22 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-08-05 20:55:38.
July 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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 02	August 2026 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 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06	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

File:Ghost of Larry Sanger.png

@Bri, HaeB, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see from the submissions page that we don't plan a long article on Larry Sanger. I think this is a moment that will be noted often in future Wikipedia histories and would be a departure for The Signpost. I'm not interested in the indefinite ban for canvassing (or the last 2 months) but I'd like to sum up what has been written about Larry in the Signpost since our very first issue. There must be well over 50 mentions of him in our archives, but I'd like to pick about 20 of the most important (including some see alsos) to help readers assess what he has and hasn't accomplished. I see 3 periods in this mass of information, A) 2005-2010 Who did what in 2001-2002?. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement now here - with a lot of storm and fury at the time. I've got about 20 articles that cover this in detail. B) the period of Larry's experimentation with other Wiki-style projects, and the last couple of years C) Larry in the news critiquing Wikipedia. In its own way this is a primer in Wiki history and governance theory. About 2,000 words if I can keep it that short. Just reporting what the Signpost said. Probably ending with a see also in this issue to an article about the canvassing block. Any comments of objections? Anybody want to help write it (especially section C)? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: I started (C) by compiling a list of issues that mentioned Sanger in In the media here. It's a little rough, I can come back and improve formatting. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Formatting is done on my ITM review. I did some light summarizing too. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you (plural) haven't seen it, Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia was a good read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Bri and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Looks like I've got my reading and summarizing to do. I've got A) read (including Larry's memoirs from Jan. 2005 14,000+ words linked in our artiWith a little luck I'll have 2 sections done and ready for review by July 6. Would In focus be the best slot? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think In focus works well. I'll keep an eye out for useful material, first place I'd look is at his contributions, especially since he has been using the same account since March 2001 (The page says Jan 2002 but the oldest dated contrib is 1 March 2001). Mitchsavl (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The software that kept every edit wasn't available until mid- or late-2002. I do believe that User:Reagle has reconstructed many of the edits though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: I think we should cover the perceived threats of doxxing admins as part of this. There's a little bit of back-and-forth about it on User talk:Larry Sanger with a link to an X post by him. The word "doxxing" (inc. doxx, doxxed) appears 28 times in the ANI thread that led to the community ban. An interesting data point would be how many non-admins participated at ANI, I'll try to get that later. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You can find several doxx at the current User talk:Jimbo Wales as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Copied a reply I made on WP:JIMBOTALK:

As I understand it, Larry believes that admins, check users etc. should have to reveal their identity to hold the position, seeing their influence on the global information landscape. I believe Larry meant for the admins to reveal their identities, not have the community do all the digging. If the admins consent to revealing such information to hold onto their positions, that would not be doxxing.

•••

If we write an article on this, we need to make sure we acknowledge that distinction. “Doxxing” is a highly loaded word which can distort perceptions, so determining its applicability is essential. Mitchsavl (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Some more coverage, we've seen worse:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• • I've just discovered a serious omission in the In focus article (about April and May 2010) about child porn. The omission was inadvertent, and has been corrected, but it still spooks me. Just listing articles from the Signpost archive could turn out to be a very controversial article! But others should check this as well.
  • It does reinforce my belief that I should *not* write about the current Sanger matter in N&N. Could somebody please write that up?!. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I'll start with an outstanding News from Diff item that was published there today https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/03/we-need-to-innovate-with-wikimedia-decision-making/ . I think this is the best comment (and the best proposal for action) that I've seen on the subject of Wiki-governance. I know there are a couple proposals here already for News from Diff articles. If necessary, we should publish at least 2! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article I proposed about Sanger's Wiki-history was meant to be exclusively about how the Signpost has documented the history. I don't want to include the last 2 months simply because it would be too difficult for me to do to combine them. The 1st is about pure reporting about our Signpost history, there will be some analysis, commentary and opinion in there, but it won't be mine - it will be from the Signpost authors who originally wrote about it at the time. For me to make sense of all of this would be too much for me. BTW the 2 commentaries suggested above https://thedispatch.com/article/wikipedia-progressive-bias-israel-iran-palestinians/ and the sub-stack are very good - probably better than I could do. They should be featured in In the media. But reviewing Sanger's Wiki career as reported on Wiki is something that will give readers something "better" than that analysis and commentary. History "as it happened" summarized. I do strongly suggest that the last two months of Sanger's Wiki-career be reported - with any needed analysis and commentary, in a different Signpost article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's enough room for two separate pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely agree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I pity whoever wants to write the second article though, given the excellent job Jake Orlowitz did here. That piece should at least be acknowledged/mentioned in the next edition. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree here as well, though it's really an analysis rather than straight reporting. Put it in In the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: The In Focus piece is coming along ok now, but it's still a bit shaggy. Don't worry though, I'll have a workable draft on Friday. There is a very important quote (from Sanger's Memoirs) in the top green box. I would appreciate 1 or 2 Signposters to verify the quote - otherwise some folks might question whether I made it up! It's easy to verify - just click the link at the bottom of the box and then text search for "boss". There is one sentence I just added immediately below the box, any comment on that would also be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Provenance of the quoted bit is confirmed. I'll come back with a thought about the "merely an employee" term. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I put off saying due to time constraints. Still under the gun so I must be brief. Sometimes in Sanger's writing I can't tell if he is speaking for himself, repeating what someone else said, or sarcastically repeating what they said with implied air quotes. I feel like the "merely an employee" phrase is one of the latter. He does squarely say in the memoir "I am partly responsible for bringing it [Wikipedia] into the world" (emphasis mine). I also feel like the ambiguity is potentially there on purpose either as a quirk, or as an out so he doesn't have to vigorously defend a position that turns out to be indefensible. But the fact is that the piece he wrote does have those internal tensions, contradictions, or whatever you want to call it. And we should feel free to call that out. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I left my notes used in counting Signpost coverage of Sanger at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus/Fact checking. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence, Quarterly Brief — April to June 2026, appropriate for the Community view section? https://wircuny.commons.gc.cuny.edu/quarterly-brief-april-to-june-2026/ The article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International License and most of the pictures are too. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

At a glance, I think it will work. @Wil540 art: I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the talk page to make your suggestion more visible. Mitchsavl (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bri: it appears that you started N&N. Here are some things that N&N may be good for covering.

1. m:Next 25. Tomorrow or Saturday, I plan to add notes that I took, so if you start to write about this then you may want to check back later for updates. See below for notes from the initial meeting.

• Etherpad
• m:Next 25/Meeting summary
• m:Event talk:This is not a meeting

1. m:Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations/Recognition and Funding for Movement Organizations
2. Following up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-06-21/In focus, the m:Proposed baseline NPOV standard has a planned discussion period though 15 July.
3. Also tomorrow or Saturday, I plan to announce the July edition of the m:Wikimedia Café, and would appreciate having the invite mentioned in N&N. I will send another ping here when the announcement is available.

↠Pine (✉) 04:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Another item for N&N, this time from Commons: c:Commons:Requests for comment/Policy update for AI content. ↠Pine (✉) 06:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
• @Bri and Smallbones: these don't seem to be mentioned in N&N. Can one of you add them please? I will shortly set up the Café invitation, which can also be added. Thanks. ↠Pine (✉) 23:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: I got the Next 25 note in under the wire. Will press to do the Commons link. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Bri:. Thanks. Regarding the m:Wikimedia Café, the focus will be on Wikimedia governance, including follow ups from the meta:Movement Charter process. The meeting times will be as follows, 1 day later than usual this month because of Wikimania: https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1785078000 and https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1785121200. Please include this info in N&N too. Also, I suggest adding on a separate line m:Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations/Recognition and Funding for Movement Organizations. ↠Pine (✉) 01:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it's OK for Pine to update any new items in NaN that don't have a personal conflict like Cafe. Feel free to take byline credit too. Let's be careful of an edit conflict though – I expect JPxG to be here soon to publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: thanks. I added myself to the byline, given that I contributed indirectly with the notes above that went well beyond the Café. Thanks to HaeB for the expansion of my note about affiliates, which he got to some seconds before I did. I was working against the clock. ↠Pine (✉) 02:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Clovermoss and HouseBlaster: I have content tentatively planned for this Signpost issue's "On the bright side" section, and I'm very happy to have more people involved. I plan to write OTBS in the next 24 hours. If either of you would like to contribute then please let me know. ↠Pine (✉) 04:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit busy IRL so I don't think I can do this one—apologies! Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bri and JPxG: The writing deadline is approximately 21 hours from now. You may want to start looking through sections and sending reminders where needed. The publication deadline is approximately 45 hours from now. ↠Pine (✉) 04:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I'm stopping for now. Will continue tomorrow. ↠Pine (✉) 07:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Thanks for ping. I'll be busy for a while Saturday morning (Pacific Time), but will check in later. @JPxG: How's your availability look? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Given that most sections aren't ready to be approved yet and the limited activity today, it's evident that we're nowhere near making the tentative deadline in just over 90 minutes from now; so I just went ahead and moved it by a day.

  Also, considering that there hasn't been a response to Bri's question, it's time to think about invoking WP:EICAWOL - Bri, would you be willing to take on publication again? In that case I (and hopefully other regulars too) can chip in by reviewing and approving sections per the usual process.

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, Sunday is better for me. Having sections approved helps a lot. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @HaeB and Bri: thanks. OTBS is now ready for copyediting. I'll move on to creating the invite for the next Wikimedia Café, which can then be referenced in N&N. ↠Pine (✉) 00:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Recent move to the 13th makes this doable for me; I had today written down as the publication date and could make it in a crunch but tomorrow or Monday are very easy. jp×g🗯️ 00:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: I think the team has done about as much as possible if this is publication day. Note that Recent research doesn't have its usual content yet from HaeB, and as usual I did not sign off copyediting sections where I am on byline. Taking an offline break, will check in later Sunday (Pacific Time). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Everything is good to go now, with the one exception of In focus. Everything else marked as copyediting needed very minor work, but I hitnk this requires a medium- to significant- amount of work. It is currently, more or less, a big list that does not really add up to a solid conclusion. There are some vague notions that you could draw from it, but it doesn't really say a whole lot, and I feel like crafting something that finishes it off is not a tonight task. My intuition is that the whole thing being ready aside from one article that wasn't marked as copyedited at deadline means that the article must sit at the station for the next bus, which is a sad reality but I am hitting "do it live". jp×g🗯️ 07:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There were still links to "In focus" in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-07-13/News and notes, I have removed them.

(I agree that it could use some additional work and it not a super timely topic. One might also take the opportunity to add some other relevant bits and pieces, e.g. this vow from 2013 or this angle which seems to have been a little underreported.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for feedback on In focus. I'm happy to see the new issue out today. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was quite surprised this morning when I checked the new issue of the Signpost and didn't see my article on Larry Sanger's career (See [[2]]) There was a huge amount of work that I put into that article. And Bri put in considerable work as well helping with the data. While I fully understand that the E-i-C has the duty (not just the right) to make the final decision on publication of articles, I think he made a huge mistake in not publishing this one. Especially since I really had no advanced notice of this decision. I must have been asleep when the last few additions to this section were added. I haven't got an email about it either. It would be rare, but I think not unprecedented, to add an article after publication, and that is my preference now.

The more likely route of just holding it for publication in the next issue is certainly possible, but I'd need to know directly what people would want me to change. I'd asked above about one part of it and got Bri's reply. I should have let him know why I pretty much disagreed with his take. With apologies, here it is now. Bri had said he though Sanger wasn't serious about the part I quoted, that he was being satirical or using "air quotes" in that part. I just disagree with that analysis. I'd read all of Sanger's 14,000+ word Memoirs (the large majority of it twice) and didn't see that at all. Sanger's prose wanders a lot, is vague in places, and extremely verbose, so I may be wrong, but I just didn't see it the same way as Bri here.

I also think the E-i-C missed the entire point of the article - I had described it a bit above. The point is that Sanger is in the news now and it's reasonable to ask what he has done along this line previously? Does he have a history of doing such things? Well, the answer is in the Signpost archives. I very intentionally wanted to avoid putting in my opinion wherever possible - just keep the whole thing "as flat as possible". Others might disagree, but that is what makes the article work IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of whether the decision was correct (you make some reasonable points), I don't think this is a case justifying to add an article after publication.

I think the big problem here is that this kind of feedback (and ultimately publication decision) should come earlier in the process; see also the conversation about submissions in general below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Pine:. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's a little bit of a hidden message in the pull quotes and even the thumbnail at the top of the draft, but I think it was a good call to try to make this piece follow the media reactions to Sanger's intervention/realignment/whatever you want to call it vis-à-vis Wikipedia, and not the reactions of anyone in Newsroom. There's room for that in other venues. I just found out that Jimmy Wales considered writing something in The Signpost himself. If we can facilitate that happening in the next issue, these two things would go along nicely. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: It should be clear to everybody who has read the post publication comments that there is a serious problem here. As Editor-in-chief it's up to you to address it. That's what you signed up for. As far as my complaint, you can address it here or send me an email. I'll let the others who are complaining speak for themselves. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, what I said at the time was basically the total of factors that went into the decision. For a long time, it has been common for issues to be postponed repeatedly on the basis that pieces weren't ready when the clock rolled around. This led to much chaos in the past, and many late issues, which brought about the current practice, which is that stuff not marked as done by the deadline does have a risk of missing the bus.

The point of the draft process having stages, as I understand it, is to avoid chaos: at each step of the process it's clear who thinks what. So it is of course possible for something to be marked "needs copyedit" and be fine, or to be marked "fine" and need copyediting. But my general practice, hitherto, is that if something is marked "needs copyedit" past the deadline, and it does need a copyedit, and the rough consensus here indicates that it's not considered ready, then I do not make the bus wait for it. From what I could tell, based on it not marked as being ready, the discussion in this section and in #Sanger history Part II not sounding like it was ready for publication, it not looking finished to me, and the viability of publishing it in the next issue, I didn't put it in. I apologize for not having made more time to go through and finish out the submissions for this issue. jp×g🗯️ 16:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jake, it's time to cut the BS. It's very likely you didn't even read the article. Am I right? The section above #Sanger history Part II that you say shows that my article was not ready at the time, is correct - it wasn't then. But it's dated July 3 - July 8. That's 4+ days before you showed up this month (which was Sunday July 12 on this page) Your only other comment on this page before publication was at 7:17 UTC Monday, 4 minutes before publication. Saying then that it wasn't marked copy editing completed, was also BS (if you'd read the article). Neither Bri nor I marked it as CE completed for the same reason that In the media was not marked as CE completed. We were the sole authors of both articles (Bri was in the byline for helping with the Sanger data) and we both copy edited both articles. Why not mark it completed? We have a good rule about that, the authors should not be the only copy editors.

So why do I think its likely that you didn't read the article? Well, you showed up on Monday and did one minor copy edit on the Opinion article at 6:18 UTC, and then marked that article as accepted at 6:59. All the other articles you made minor (if any) copy edits starting at 7:01 and then made approvals ending at 7:19 and published at 7:21. So in the hour from starting your work, when did you have a chance to read anything? Your ignorance of the article content also shows that you didn't read it. Do really think that Larry Sanger writing in 2005 that Jimbo hired him (and laid him off) and that Sanger "was merely a grateful employee" with the whole world owing Jimbo a debt of gratitude is boring, after that there was nothing boring about the article at all, seeing how Sanger's view changed over time.

So you spent less than an hour editing (or considering editing my article). It took me 10-15 hours to put that article together. I suspect Bri spent several hours (or more) also. I had to read about 60 Signpost articles (or sections of an article) to select the 40 most interesting (out of about 130 total). Sanger's Memoirs were 14,000+ words. And you couldn't be bothered to read my submission before rejecting it.

There's a problem here, Jake. When are you going to start editing before the writing deadline? When are you going to meet the publishing deadline? Why do you think we have WP:EICAWOL? Do your job Jake or get out of the way. Don't talk to me about chaos. If the submission process isn't working smoothly, who do you think is to blame? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Smallbones: while I understand that you are upset, I am concerned that this is not helping the situation. JPxG is a volunteer here, and there is no one else who seems interested in the EIC role, so I view JPxG as doing a favor with what he's doing and I would completely understand that he can't be stretched for more. I am inclined to view this more as a capacity problem, and I'm concerned that it may be unfair to blame what's foremost a capacity problem on someone who is a volunteer and already stretched thin, and for whom there is not any willing and capable replacement. In in the interest of newsroom peace and in fixing something that I think there is consensus is a problem, specifically the capacity shortage, I would request a calmer approach. Thank you, ↠Pine (✉) 20:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ELappen_(WMF)/Wikipedia_outside_cat_1_OSA came in as a possible article.

I also like https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/03/we-need-to-innovate-with-wikimedia-decision-making/ as I mentioned above.

Either look fine to me. My personal preference is the 2nd, but the 1st might be of more general interest to our readership. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I find both of those essays interesting. Is there only room for one? Could the first article fit into News from the WMF and the second into Special Report? - Wil540 art (talk) 01:17, 11 July 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.

@Bri: I assume you're planning to complete your draft review shortly? Apart from that, as always, I'll take responsibility for having this section in a publishable state by the publication deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Expanded what I started and it's probably publishable, though I should go over it again with a fresh eye. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
• @HaeB: reminder, publishing 22:9 today ☆ Bri (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just became aware of a draft FOIA request in the name of The Signpost, currently residing at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion.It was moved there on 22 June, I just didn't see it until now.☆ Bri (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see this as an opinion piece. I do think I can help the author a bit with the FOIA request, I have a very small amount of experience with them.

Revert me if you want to but I'll replace this with a second diff piece this month. I think it is a very important policy proposal.

This is from the 2 possible articles section above. The second one I might put in Special report.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, Smallbones, and JPxG: before any FOIA request goes out claiming to be from The Signpost, I recommend a discussion on this talk page of whether this should be done, and a consultation with WMF Legal. I'd prefer that Wikipedia be seen as a neutral information repository and not a Wikipedia:Battleground or political football. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation to some degree cooperated with the information requests that came to them from the current administration. I have heard of no friction since, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. ↠Pine (✉) 06:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine, Bri, and JPxG: Pine, I agree with you in this case. There may be a delicate balance with the US administration in this case and the last thing we want to do is rock the boat and get their nonsense started up again. In the general case though, I think that FOIA requests are a matter for the journalist, with possible consultation with the E-i-C.

Note that I did put the above 2 articles in Special report and Opinion and think they look very good! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think a consensus is emerging, and I endorse it, too: FOIA requests attributed to The Signpost should be discussed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: while your boldness is commendable, the FOIA piece is not in the plans to be published in this Signpost issue. The Newsroom talkpage here would be a good place to ask for consensus to do something like send a FOIA request which involves the use of the Signpost's brand and could have side effects which not everyone wants to sign up to deal with, possibly in this case including the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. ↠Pine (✉) 23:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Slaporte (WMF): we may want to get input from your team on something like this. I could envision a FOIA request like this causing some friction, and I am concerned about the potential for such a request to spark a political and public relations incident which does more harm than good. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 23:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Y'all are welcome to do as you like. The legal attribution for the FOIA will be under my name and address. I only submitted this to the signpost because @Bluerasberry: asked me to. The FOIA request is going out without consultation from WMF legal unless they indemnify me from any costs or possible retaliations associated with the request. I was happy to delay until the signpost published my piece. However, it seems like Pine wants to delay further. I don't know who that is, but I submitted my piece through the normal submissions process and it was accepted, so I would not expect a departure from this process unless JPxG decides for it. Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: I don't know what WMF's position would be on this. There might be trademark issues with using the word Wikipedia without a signed trademark agreement with WMF, but I don't know and I'm not a lawyer. @JPxG: did you approve this piece? It seems that Bri did not, and I don't know who else could have granted an approval. ↠Pine (✉) 23:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cool sue me then. Is this a WP:THREAT ? Czarking0 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a really pointlessly inflammatory comment and I'd prefer you not say stuff like that. jp×g🗯️ 15:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lane did, how about you check SUBMISSIONS or the page history before you start making a bunch of baseless statements? Czarking0 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. It looks like Bluerasberry and Shushugah reviewed this, but JPxG didn't provide an opinion one way or another. However, I don't know what might have happened off wiki. What I'm concerned happened, and certainly appears not to be your fault Czarking0, is that a couple of other people moved this op-ed through the editing workflow, but it appears to me that the piece was not approved by JPxG who should make the final call regarding inclusion of pieces in Signpost issues. And I am concerned that this op-ed, and the use of the Signpost's brand, should have been discussed here and/or with JPxG before the plan got to this point, because moving pieces out of the production line at the last minute is very very suboptimal for everyone. @JPxG: I am thinking that there should be a higher barrier to moving pieces out of the submissions desk before they ever get staged in a Signpost draft, by requiring that you be the only person allowed to do this. Otherwise we end up with frustration at the very end of the production line. ↠Pine (✉) 00:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Trademark protection is to avoid brand confusion. There's no issue with using trademarked phrases (I can talk about Coca Cola all I want), as long as I'm not using it in a way that allows people to confuse my products or services with those offered by the trademark holder. There's no offering in this situation that can be confused with those provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, so there's no trademark protection problem. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Trying to disentangle some things:

• The object of the conversation above is here (i.e. the last version of the draft - btw, on a housekeeping note, I don't think it's a good idea to overwrite such a draft with an unrelated one; better move it to "Next next issue" or such)
• I think we have room for investigatory journalism at the Signpost, but yes, before sending out a FOIA request in the Signpost's name, it should be discussed here. (On the other hand, I do not see the point of publishing a draft FOIA request as a Signpost article.)
• Yes, we should be mindful about the Signpost being (ab)used for generic political advocacy or for political reporting about the misdeeds of the current US administration in general. That said, the particular issue here is clearly of direct interest to the Wikipedia community (as one of the - so far very few - concrete actions taken by said administration that had the potential to affect the Wikimedia movement directly).
• I don't quite follow the trademark concerns, especially given that the draft request emphasizes the Signpost's independence from WMF.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to start a separate section entirely on the workflow of the submission page. There have been multiple occasions in the past few months where op-eds or related pieces could have been stopped or modified earlier, and instead got moved out of the production line at the last minute, which is a bad and inefficient practice in my opinion. ↠Pine (✉) 04:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This has been done. Perhaps in this section the discussion can now focus on the FOIA component and what to do about it. I regret the suboptimal Signpost submission process, and I would prefer that the FOIA component be discussed long before this got as far as it did, but that can't be helped now, so I suggest focusing on whether The Signpost's name is okay to use in this FOIA request. My personal opinion is that I don't think this is a good idea, but I'd like to hear what others think especially JPxG. I'm concerned about the potential to trigger an incident which could impact Wikipedia well beyond The Signpost's readership, and I don't think that the risk is worthwhile at this point. On the other hand, if someone starts initiating a bunch of scrutiny on Wikipedia again, there may be less to be lost in sending a FOIA like this. ↠Pine (✉) 05:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, as a purely clerical matter, pasting a new op-ed over a blanked previous one requires a manual WP:HISTSPLIT which is a giant pain. How come we did that instead of moving the page...?

Second, and this is a useless thing to say, but mostly what has been said I agree with. A FOIA request is a grown-adult thing to do. We are (at least supposed to be) a grown-adult publication, so if we are unable to do that, it is rather wimpy. But our ability to do it does not mean that any particular instance is a good idea. While I do not know what the proper procedure is supposed to be for these, I know people who I can ask and get authoritative answers. I do not think the trademark thing makes much sense, since we are officially the Signpost and not the Wikipedia Signpost (and if the domain name is that much of an issue we can simply use https://signpost.news for which these situations are the main raison d'etre). It would be very good to do this if we had our shit together. There is a process for us having our shit together. I do not know if we have gone fully through that process. For example, the part where we request a waiver, it kind of reads like we are doing it on the basis of "give it to us for free because you guys all suck". Is that what you're supposed to do? I find it unlikely.

Third, I am much given to concur on the issue of moving things into the next issue space on the understanding that this means inclusion. Hitherto, the general way it's worked over the last few years has been along these lines:

• Submissions get made on the submission page.
• Every-issue features that combine multiple stories (like N&N, ITM, RR) are created directly in the /Next issue/ space (even if we don't run one thing, these features always have several, so the rest will remain).
• Long-established contributors will tend to create articles directly in the /Next issue/ space, because they are familiar enough with the process to know what will work and what won't.
• Editors virtually always write their own articles directly in /Next issue/ because they're the ones who would approve them anyway.

Every once in a while somebody will just submit a new article there, or someone will move one from the submissions page to the /next issue/ space; most of the time this does not create any awkward situation. Also, in previous years, more active EiCs (me) prowled the newsroom subpage list more actively and notice it more in advance. But it is still the case that the {{Signpost draft}} template says in its header that it's subect to editorial review. Perhaps there is some benefit to be had from making this more clearly laid out on the submissions page?

Fourth, a completely different article now exists at the linked page title, which is really not ideal (I guess this is the first one again), but anyway, I guess there is no real problem with this (other than I disagree with its basic premise, but not so much so that it is not worth running anyway). jp×g🗯️ 06:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about the fee waiver? That is an important part of any FOIA request which is not for commercial purpose. I could edit the tone, but the meat of it is I don't want to pay $100,000 (which is a realistic estimate without the fee waiver). Czarking0 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed (see also e.g. this explainer). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a decent explanation generally, but there is more nuance around volunteer/non-staff requests made with the expectation of publication within a news outlet. Czarking0 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I needed to state again this specific point to clarify: The FOIA request will not be sent in the Signpost's name. It will be sent in my personal legal name and address. I do not wish to be outed on wikipedia at this time so I redacted that from the draft. I do not understand why this was misunderstood.Czarking0 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that discussion above was about the reference to the Signpost in e.g. this part of the draft:

IV. NEWS MEDIA REQUESTER STATUS AND FEE WAIVER I request that this request be processed under the news media requester fee category, limiting any applicable fees to reasonable duplication costs only, with no search or review fees assessed. I am a published contributor for The Signpost, a newspaper that has covered Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the broader free knowledge movement continuously since December 2005. [...] The Signpost has previously reported on at length. The Signpost volunteers publish original journalism. Records obtained through this request will be analyzed, contextualized, and incorporated into original reporting, not republished as raw data. They will be submitted to The Signpost for editorial review.

But yes, we should be precise here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in this suggests that this is submitted on behalf of the signpost. I do not believe the signpost is a legal person and thus does not have the right to submit a FOIA request. I am perfectly within my rights as a US citizen to submit a FOIA request in the the news media category on the basis that I have published in the signpost and expect to publish further analysis of this FOIA request within the same. Anyone who does not understand that should educate themselves on FOIA requests before commenting further. Czarking0 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I assert that The Signpost has as much or more independence from the Wikimedia Foundation as anything else that the Wikimedia community publishes in the Wikimedia platform.

The following are to be avoided:

• Seeking permission from the Wikimedia Foundation or its representatives to publish
• Seeking approval or advice for editorial focus or scope of The Signpost
• Imagining a chain of authority running from the Wikimedia Foundation into The Signpost

Obviously there is overlap among the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia community projects published in the Wikimedia platform, such as The Signpost, but generally the relationship between Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation is analogous to YouTube videos and permission from Alphabet to publish them. The Signpost has a good relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation because of its independence and maintaining conventional journalistic boundaries that are common between newspapers and the institutions in their scope of coverage.

The Signpost is an independent Wikimedia community newspaper. It never has offered editorial power of any kind to the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation has always completely supported the editorial independence of The Signpost.

If anyone sees things differently or wants to phrase any of this better, then please share.

@Pine: All seem cool here? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Bluerasberry: thanks for the ping, but I have mixed views of this. I wouldn't want WMF wading into many Signpost issues, but on something like this I think their advice could be valuable. WMF has its own public policy staff, and I would prefer that their expertise be brought into the picture. It would be regrettable if something published in The Signpost, or in any way associated with The Signpost, was to reignite a controversy with an external entity that has plenty of resources and could divert a lot of attention from other important matters. Whether someone could do something, and whether it's a good idea, are two separate questions that are both relevant to the proposed FOIA. ↠Pine (✉) 20:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Once monthly there is a meet between Wikimedia Foundation public policy staff and Wikimedia affiliate organizers in the United States. The next call is scheduled for 11am EDT Friday 31 July. Pine, I believe you organize with Wikimedia Cascadia. If you want to join with Cascadia or you have another United States community collaborative reason to join, then I can get you an invite. The two Wikimedia Foundation staffers there are Stan Adams and Franziska Putz. It generally is out of bounds to publicize the discussions of that meeting, but in this special case, can I ask you to either join this meeting, or write questions for me and others to relay in that meeting, with intent that you bring back an answer? Alternatively, you could just write them now, as they are the ones making themselves available for government and policy general discussion about United States issues. And if you are interested generally about such issues, you could just start joining this meeting as a regular attendee. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry: thanks for the suggestion. I'm not a representative of any affiliate including the Cascadia user group. I wonder if pinging Stan and Franziska in this talk page would be easier, and better for transparency, to ask for input regarding this matter. What do you think? ↠Pine (✉) 20:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Do it! Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Thanks for asking the question. I met with Stan and Ziski yesterday for the regularly North American monthly policy meeting. While I am here discussing this, If anyone wants to join the private virtual policy meeting last Friday of the month at 11am NYC time, then let me you know. You have to identify yourself and while conversation is not sensitive, Chatham House Rule applies.

The response was to ask @Slaporte (WMF):. Stephen, we have a wiki community member doing and attempting a FOIA request to the US Department of Justice. Along with that attempt, the user wishes to republish their request in The Signpost, and write an opinion piece about their experience and feelings about doing all this. Questions: 1) Wiki community members frequently advise Signpost editors to seek WMF advice or permission whenever we run articles on political or legal topics. Can you please give or point to a statement that we can direct people to when they want to know the relationship between Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation? 2) By wiki community request, and for this case specifically, I offer the WMF the opportunity to participate in The Signpost's editorial discussion about running this FOIA piece. Which WMF staffer might we invite to The Signpost for discussion?

See the rest of the discussion here if you like. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Bluerasberry's statement above. Given that it has been a week without update. I would like some consensus on if this belongs in the next issue. Obviously this is not a binding RfC as JPxG has full authority over publication.Czarking0 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC) A: publish the piece Czarking0 wrote in the next issue B: do not publish any draft FOIA request relating to the Weaponsization Working Group / Ed Martin unless some new event brings this up again. Note that if this option is selected Czarking0 will still send the FOIA request and share the results with Signpost editors. C: publish a draft FOIA request relating to this matter, but the actual piece Czarking0 wrote is not goodReply

• @Czarking0: thanks for being willing to discuss this. I have a lot of concerns about option "A". Option "B" is the most cautious and is where I'd prefer to hold for now, but I'm open to considering option "C". If there is a decision to proceed with this, I'd prefer that both the FOIA content and the Signpost piece be worded carefully and respectfully, in order to minimize the risk of an inflammatory confrontation while also making a valid journalistic request. ↠Pine (✉) 20:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi @SAdams-WMF and FPutz (WMF): I would be interested in your perspective on this proposal. As I've discussed on this talk page, such as with Bluerasberry, I'm concerned about the potential for a FOIA request to spark a controversy that could go badly, including for Wikimedians who are far outside of The Signopst's readership. What do you think about how a FOIA request would be received, as discussed on this talk page? What are the risks, benefits, and tradeoffs, from your perspectives on public policy? If someone wants to proceed with this FOIA request then how do you think the request should be done in order to balance risk with benefit? Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 02:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I just want to make clear again this RfC is not about the FOIA request. The request is happening regardless of consensus here. The RfC is to publish a draft of it Czarking0 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    @Czarking0: thanks for clarifying, although I hope that you will wait to send the FOIA request until after WMF responds with their input. If you want to proceed with this, I request that the FOIA request and any Signpost publication about it be in a civil and non-confrontational tone. If the tone is non-confrontational then I am hoping that the risk of a FOIA request and any subsequent discussion will be less likely to spark political interest, or worse yet, a confrontation which could drain a lot of resources and create risks to the project or individuals not involved with the FOIA request. ↠Pine (✉) 17:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think the WMF should respond here. That would muddy the clear editorial independence. I also do not care what the WMF thinks of the request because I assume that their legal strategy involves little to no risk taking which is not how I want to live my life. If you want to edit the draft to be less confrontational I am happy to collaborate on that. Czarking0 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Actually, I have a lot of respect for Lane (I read their comment after I wrote the above). I'll deffer to his judgement in this matter. Czarking0 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bri and JPxG: there have been multiple occasions in the past few months when op-eds or similar pieces were moved out of the Signpost production line near or on publication dates, but the major concerns regarding those pieces could have been addressed earlier when they were, I assume, on the Submissions page and before they got copied or moved into place for publication in an upcoming Signpost issue. Ideally, major concerns with the pitches for the pieces would be found very early in the process, during the "Unreviewed" phase, and before authors spend a lot of time on them. Can I request that one of you, or designated submissions reviewer(s), put more scrutiny on pieces when they're on the Submissions page and before an author puts a lot of work into them, and that only you or your designated submissions reviewer(s) be allowed to approve concepts of pieces that are placed in the Submissions page, and that only you or the designated submissions reviewers be allowed to move pieces from the Submissions page into the "Next issue" staging area? Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 05:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This has my full support, thanks for bringing more attention to this. As someone who has submitted several pieces, the process does not work well. In fact it works so poorly, it often makes me think you do not want submissions. Czarking0 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wow the next conversation below this is such a beautiful example of what I mean Czarking0 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

While there is a + tab to start a new section on this talk page, there isn't one on the project page. I would like to submit a piece for Signpost. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

While there is currently a conversation about how to improve the processsing of submissions (see preceding section), there are actually already instructions on top of this talk page about where to post them:

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.

I guess "proposals of a feature" is a somewhat unclear phrase, so I'll change it to "proposals of Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing)" (adapting the wording from the Submissions page), unless there are other ideas on how to avoid such misunderstandings. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. See Special:Diff/1361521480 in response to community question about a statement concerning the WP:SANGERBAN situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that the original Opinion was overwritten at Special:Diff/1363759492. I'm proposing here that we restore the two separate pieces via WP:HISTSPLIT. This will allow the proper handling of the original article (the one containing a FOIA request), whether it be returning to the contributor's user space, retaining in Wikipedia draft space, or outright deleting it. It's already quite confusing with a post-publication link on this page discussing the original page contents. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes please Czarking0 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request pending at WP:REPAIR. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I mentioned this a few sections up, since I noticed it when prepping for publication. I could technically do this myself but it is a very annoying process and there are many who -- miraculously -- actually find it enjoyable. jp×g🗯️ 16:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This was done a few days back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I find where it was put? Czarking0 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind it is User:Czarking0/Are we embarrassed yet? Czarking0 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll just note this without further comment. As far as I know, it is unprecedented. One of our contributors was warned, then blocked, over comments they made in the talkpage of their own contribution in issue 22:8. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-07-13/Op-ed This might also be the longest discussion in a Signpost comment section. AI metrics for conversation -

It is good when lots of people comment here.

Regarding the block, I am never quick to second-guess admin rulings, but for this conversation, the contributor and their personal views are supposed to be the center of attention. That is a different situation than someone forcing themselves into a public space where the conversation is more group oriented. I am unclear whether there is a personal attack accusation here. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/107384 which is a list of article talk pages by length. jp×g🗯️ 18:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now having had an opportunity to review this whole bolus, I am left a little perplexed. The author did have a very long and acrimonious dragout with multiple parties in which they became really angry and said some regrettable things. On the other hand, they were being met with pretty substantial hostility, which at least to me felt unnecessary. It is not really my place to go dick around with other admins' civility blocks, but it does seem kind of unfair. Such is life. jp×g🗯️ 23:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think, in future, it may be a good idea for you to warn your contributors that English Wikipedia policies do, actually, apply to Signpost contributors -- namely, no casting aspersions and no making personal attacks.

Yes, even if the contributors have a pre-existing professional relationship of sorts with the Signpost editors -- and yes, when the WMF gives you just under $50,0000 to research, then you have a pre-existing professional relationship of sorts. [3]

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I certainly do not want conflict but I am not sure what to do to prevent it. If you like, you can join other discussions happening here in the newsroom right now, which are about orienting new contributors to Signpost submissions. Those discussions are seeking to do more screening of submissions to fail out drafts as soon as possible if they are not publishable. In my view, the recent failed submissions were either publishable or near publishable, so it is not a case of obvious bad content getting through. If you want a conduct reminder added to the screening process, now is a great time to suggest that in Signpost_submissions_workflow, which is also connected to FOIA request.

I agree with your idea, but I would appreciate your suggestion of how to warn, or you could edit any of the infrastructure here to just post the warning yourself. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Amazing! This one is #6!

Wikipedia Signpost Articles

Title	Author	Column	Date of publication	Bytes
Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching	Gamaliel	Editorial	October 21, 2015	211,609
Let's get serious about plagiarism	Moonriddengirl / The Signpost team	Dispatches	April 13, 2009	199,563
English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia	Smallbones, Andreas Kolbe, and HaeB	In the media	June 19, 2023	165,047
Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month	Emily Temple-Wood	Op-ed	February 17, 2016	136,226
How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine	The Signpost team	From the Signpost team	March 27, 2022	130,277
A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community	Brett Buttliere	Op-ed	July 13, 2026	130,177
WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment	Sdkb	Special report	January 30, 2022	128,441
Wikipedia has cancer	Guy Macon	Op-ed	February 27, 2017	119,466
Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?	Tony1	News and notes	October 30, 2013	109,713
"Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events	Nathan TeBlunthuis, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer	Recent research	March 9, 2023	107,509

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is an impressive amount of discussion. - Wil540 art (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added 4 more, making this a list of 10. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• July 17, 2026: Welcome to the high-stakes universe of World Cup Wikipedia editing - NYT/The Athletic article on a FIFA World Cup focused event hosted by Wikimedia NYC and WikiLatinos

Wil540 art (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• July 14, 2026: In the age of AI slop and misinformation, we need Wikipedia more than ever - SF Chronicle opinion piece -

Wil540 art (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: I encourage you to add your findings to the draft ITM, add yourself to the byline too if you want – we need contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added the NYT article summary. This is my first attempt at writing in this column, so please review my work and give me feedback, if needed. I will get to the SF Chronicle article. I wish I had a gift link for that one. Is there any signpost policy around using gift links? For example, in the summary I just wrote, I swapped the NYT link with a gift article link. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of a policy against gift links; however, NYT gift links only last for 30 days, so ... not a panacea. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have access to https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/2504577/wikipedia-host-faces-union-recognition-demand ? Andreas JN466 21:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: Sent – Doc Taxon • Talk • 18:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Doc Taxon Cool. Thank you. Andreas JN466 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I'm inclined not to take up more matters related to the union signature/NLRB issue for In the media, lest the column become a turn-by-turn accounting of a specific workplace unionization effort, which I don't think is really what we want. And the coverage increasingly lays bare which outcome they prefer (e.g. today's 404 Media story). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An article from the Jewish News Syndicate was written about this publication from the University of Haifa.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 19 Jewish veteran editors of the English Wikipedia, this study outlines a four-phase model of editorial engagement: idealistic entry, emergent friction, emotional erosion, and adaptive coping or emerging silences.

I found the JNS article link on the "In the media" draft page, but I think a academic analysis of this is warranted.

It does include references to several sources considered marginally reliable or generally unreliable on WP:RS/P, such as the Anti Defamation League (WP:ADLAS) and Pirate Wires (WP:PIRATEWIRES), though considering that this article is centred around the Wikipedia community, I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The link to the paper is here. I don't really understand what you mean by "I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided."

There is something that has to be said about the academic article. It is absolutely one-sided, in the sense that no Palestinian or Arab editors are interviewed. It might even be implied by the paper (or just inferred by this reader) that the author thinks the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim side is not worth considering. Stating this outright, the idea might be "How could Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims know anything about anti-Semitism?" Actually, I'd think they would know a lot about discrimination, hate, and even genocide. It could be essentially the same story, just with the ethnic/religious labels switched. In short, if we're not careful we could be stepping in some deep shit here. Let User:HaeB decide, maybe with the help of User:Bri and User:Piotrus and others. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

forgot to ping @Mitchsavl: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

About "deferring judgement should be avoided": I think the op meant that the deprecated sources list should not be applied in this case. If followed blindly, it could lead to a sort of trapdoor where any critique of the community's decision-making process would be off limits to consider in order to re-evaluate the community's decision-making process. I'm not sure I follow it to that conclusion, but I do appreciate the thought that we should be extra receptive to criticism in our internal discussions, especially when coming from an academic source. To put it bluntly, I don't think WP:RSPS was ever intended to be prescriptive in terms of winnowing what we choose to present in the Recent research column. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have never been active in the modern Isreali politics, and I am trying my best to avoid historical too. I fully agree with the 4-step trajectory described, but if the article tries to argue it affects only Isreali editors, it's obviously is quite biased (and frankly that pattern can be generalized to most contentious topics). So in essence the research is finding that "some editors burned out after editing a contentious area for some time". Riiiight. News. Let's move on to the next paper about "Wikipedia articles about US politics can be edited by anyone", "Fooian propaganda actors are trying to edit Wikipedia" or "Zooian companies are spamming Wikipedia". Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article and related study appears interesting:

1. https://www.psypost.org/female-biology-professors-are-now-more-likely-to-have-a-wikipedia-page-than-their-male-peers/
2. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.2566

Mitchsavl (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Added Czarking0 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Jake, I see you've set the deadline for the next issue for August 1. That seems terribly optimistic given that you haven't addressed the problems from the last issue and how we can fix the problems. I let you know by email early last Sunday that the issue had lots of problems. I did not get a response.

The next day you showed up for 1 hour and 3 minutes to do your EiC work. You did some extremely minor copy editing on about 10 articles and published. That's all except you rejected my article apparently without reading it, suggesting that it was my fault since you thought it wasn't ready, wasn't copy edited, and if I read you right suggesting that I was causing chaos. I've asked you as directly as possible. Did you reject my article without reading it? Could you answer the question? When did you even find the time in that 1 hour and 3 minutes? How do you expect anybody to submit any substantial work if you reject articles without even reading them?

You have a habit of not showing up at all to to do the EiC job. We've been working under the WP:EICAWOL for a year or two now, but the problem was there even before that. Allow me to make a prediction. On August 1 (the publication deadline) you'll wake up, remember something about a deadline, maybe delay the deadline for a few days, or maybe just let @Bri and HaeB: and all the others take responsibility to publish, or maybe do an hour of "work" and publish sometime over the next week. Does that sound like your previous work?

Well I can't work like that. You need to take responsibility for the chaos in the last issue and the decline in quality over the last couple of years. Other people are trying, but not you. I can't work with an editor who rejects an article I write without reading it. I'd be happy to return here after you are gone.

One last thing. Please answer this question directly. Did you reject the article I wrote for the last issue without reading it?

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your frustration but The Signpost continually faces existential threat due to lack of staffing. If JPxG were gone, then that solves none of the problems you raise, and also creates many more problems. I greatly appreciate JPxG being here and making the extremely valuable contributions that they make.

I am sure that JPxG would appreciate editorial consensus and support. Along with JPxG, there could be a co-editor-in-chief, a consensus process among other editors to review submissions and demonstrate review to help JPxG make more effective decisions with less time commitment, or any number of other interventions.

An unorthodox standing offer that I can make is to meet anyone for video chat to talk about their submissions and I will personally type out review and responses as a record of diligent journalism, if that could improve our editorial process. I could just do this online asynchronously if it mattered, but for the complexity of these pieces and the related ethical issues around them, live conversations with document review often save a lot of time and are normal in journalism.

I have more to give and can be deployed in ways that stabilize the publication process. It is easy for me to recognize the difficulty here but I am not convinced that attempting to squeeze more labor out of JPxG is the route to a solution. I trust JPxG to make executive decisions, and it is not easy to recruit trusted users for these positions.

Smallbones, and JPxG, I can go through the piece [4] and document review and fact-checking here. That can establish diligence and review in the editorial process, which would be useful if the lack of documentation of diligent effort were the problem here. I have not deeply considered the piece, but if there are opinions here, I have the background knowledge and experience here to constrain the piece to neutral reporting and the facts. Opinions are fine, but not for the "in focus" column, if that is the issue. It is unclear to me what the blocker is in publishing this, but I am just guessing that consensus and support from multiple editors could establish diligence in review, which should be standard. There are litigious issues adjacent to this story, none of which involve me, nor do I want to be a part of them, but as a group we ought to be able to negotiate neutrality in reviewing submissions. I can even recruit other qualified but external reviewers of this piece, if we want more opinions.

I am unsure of the problem but I do want both of you around, engaged, and enjoying your time here. Smallbones - can you make a request to me of some way that I can help you? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry, JPxG, Bri, and HaeB:

Let me just spell this out as directly as I can. Sanger has been in the news a lot over the last few months attacking Wikipedia with at least a dozen major news sources putting his claim that he is the co-founder (some even just say founder) in their headlines. Just about about every Signposter has expressed some opinion about Sanger (probably most Wikipedians have some opinion). The last thing we needed IMHO was somebody expressing even more opinions about him - that wouldn't really solve any problem IMHO. So where to "get the plain and simple facts" about what he's done regarding Wikipedia. My premiss was simple, just check what the Signpost wrote about him throughout his career. Sure different authors had their own opinions but most of those are not here anymore (even on-Wiki) and there were lots of different authors over 20 years. I was also intrigued to find that the Signpost wrote about him in the very first issue in January 2005. So this was an "easy" way to just present the facts as they happened. Well, it turned out that there were more than 20 or 50 Signpost articles to read and summarize. (best count so far is 128). But that's just a fact of life: in journalism sometimes you get more facts than you bargained for. I just needed to do the work. I checked on this page if everybody was cool with that, and no real disagreements (some people wanted me to put in other things as well, like "outing admins" but that was never part of my plan. After going through about the first third+ of the needed work, I ran into an unexpected problem. Sanger had clearly said that he was *not* the co-founder. So what to do at that point? I suppose I could have just said "game, set, match" and give a summary opinion of why Sanger was full of it. Instead I just asked on this page #1 for a couple of people to check the quote, and a more vague #2 let's call it "Am I missing something here?" Bri soon verified the quote, but anybody could have done it in less than 5 minutes, Bri (who was clearly pressed for time) then added that he though Sanger might have been kidding, so I checked that but didn't see any evidence of that. Let's look at the quote.

In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia.

To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. He was specifically interested in finding a philosopher to lead the project, he said. He made it a condition of my employment [at Nupedia] that I would finish my Ph.D. quickly (whereupon I would get a raise)--which I did, in June 2000. I am still grateful for the extra incentive. I thought he would be a great boss, and indeed he was.

To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy’s, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.

— Larry Sanger, Memoirs

"(Any inconsistency between being "merely a grateful employee" and being a "co-founder" — a word he used twice in the Memoirs — was not mentioned by Sanger.)" I added this below the quote after reviewing Bri's suggestion that it might have been a joke.

You can check the quote simply by clicking on the link at the bottom of it and searching for the text "great boss".

Checking whether Sanger was joking or not is probably much harder - you might want to read thru Sanger's 14,000+ word Memoir to see if you can find any humor in it!

So this is where it stood on or before July 8, 4 days before Jake showed up on this page, (5 days before he did any editing of any article text for the latest issue - spending 1 hour and 3 minutes at it).

In the meantime, I'd gone through another 20-25 Signpost articles, summarizing them, putting the article into shape. Bri greatly helped giving me orderly lists of even more articles. He put his byline on the article for "helping with data" and I certainly agree with that. Bri and I both copy edited the article (much as we had both copy edited the In the media article - where both of us were also the only editors. In neither article did we mark copy editing complete due to the rule that somebody other than the authors needs to copy edit an article).

So what did Jake do to the article when he showed up to publish on Monday the 13th? Essentially nothing. He noted that Bri and I had some sort of disagreement and that the article wasn't ready then (thtat was Bri and my discussion of the 8th) He noted that the article hadn't been marked as copy edit completed. It was also clear that he hadn't appreciated the importance of the green box quote above (or even read it). He clearly didn't know the first thing about the article, and that was his reason for not publishing it.

So why is this important to the Signpost? It means that he has intentionally driven me out of the Signpost. If the EIC is going to reject an article that he hasn't even read, I can't justify putting any time into my writing (like 10-15 hours on my last submission). That's just "lost time" for me, stolen from me under false pretenses that he'd actually read it.

How does this affect other Signpost editors? His lack of effort robs them too, causing confusion on when the actual deadline is, likely f'ing up their articles too, messing up the submission process. He's just driving away lots of potential contributor.

But isn't having any EIC better than no EIC when we're permanently short handed? Doesn't he get something done around here? IMHO, No, other than his one line captioned comics. He drives away contributors, messes up production schedules, doesn't write anything in-depth anymore. Worse than nothing IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I emailed you. I agree to talk publicly here by text if necessary but the points you raise are of the sort that voice conversation, and not asynchronous text posting, usually address. I do not have anything private to say here, but if you are willing to voice talk with me I request that. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"So why is this important to the Signpost? It means that he has intentionally driven me out of the Signpost."

There's a level of paranoia here that's hard to describe. The simplest explanation is much more likely to be correct. There was a deadline. The piece wasn't marked ready to publish, wasn't flagged as copy-edited. JPxG used his authority as EiC to go "it's time to go live, we can polish the piece for the next issue".

I certainly understand the frustrations of writing a piece and seeing it sidelined. But you're attributing to malice what is 99.4853% likely to being overworked. Or, in other word, take a breather, WP:AGF, and remind yourself that the world hasn't ended. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones, note, too, that the above Sanger quote is about Nupedia, not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an idea that Sanger came up with in January 2001 (Jimmy was sceptical at first); the name Wikipedia, too, was coined by Sanger. And early Wikipedia press releases and media articles, such as the September 2001 New York Times piece "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You" by Peter Meyers (link is a free archive.org copy), did indeed describe Wales and Sanger as equal co-founders. (Personally, I suspect this was partly due to a desire on Jimmy's part to make Wikipedia sound a bit more respectable by being able to say that it was cofounded by a man with a Philosophy PhD.)

This is all covered pretty exhaustively in History of Wikipedia, and I think any Signpost piece based simply only on historical Signpost articles and ignoring the sources cited in article space would not go down well. The narrative presented in article space was fought over in the early days, but has long been stable and agreed to be factually correct. Andreas JN466 20:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just noting for the sake of my fellow contributors that I plan to use this slot for the upcoming issue. I'll draft something up offline and post it here if I get it ready in time. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You should mention the effectiveness of previous drives briefly within the article. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An apparent WMF ex-employee dropped the following on my talk page:

• https://wikifired.org/2026/07/20/unethical-conduct

It purports to speak to WMF management's responses to criticism – some of which may have been published by The Signpost. Also alleges staff being directed "to withhold information from the Wikimedia movement community in order to avoid criticism". This is not entirely implausible; we have noticed transparency being more and more reduced over recent years (quarterly department reports/Tuning Session presentation decks no longer being published etc.). I am not saying I want to write a Signpost article about it, but it seemed worth mentioning here at least. Regards, Andreas JN466 13:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: and all. This looks interesting, but quite difficult to do right. It can't really be an anonymous complaint if we are to write an article about it. Somebody has to be public in most cases of an accusation like this. In other cases we might get a large group who are anonymous, or get the Wiki self identifications and edit histories, but both of those are difficult. The website you give above can, with some effort and luck, identify a person, but you'd likely run into some outing problems since the self-identification I've seen is not on-Wiki and could even be faked by a motivated person. I can give the purported self ID to a serious Signposter if you promise to be careful. I actually think there is at least one other Signposter who has heard of this case before and has some reasonable contacts with people involved.

Like I said - interesting but difficult to do right.

BTW, on another matter, the website Law 360 they name a US union involved with the Wiki-worker unionization effort Communications Workers of America. I'm not doing anymore paid subscriptions anymore, so I can't write that article, even though the temp subscription might be cheap. It's significant in that somebody has come forward and put their name on something (the earlier case - which we mentioned briefly - was a UK union which only applied for UK workers - so the main San Fran/US workers' group really hadn't gone public - now they seem to have. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

She links from the website to her linkedin-page, so really not much effort.

But I agree, difficult to do right. Ideally, we would have a second independent source.

Sadly, contentwise I can imagine people in the WMF behave like that Isderion (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Isderion: You may be right, but a social media account doesn't really help us, we need on on-Wiki self identification. And then we'd need them to either give us an on-the-record interview (probably via email) or some diffs on-Wiki where they discuss the same problem. A 2nd independent source would be great, but current WMF employees are probably (rightly) prohibited from disclosing private details of somebody being fired because of potential legal repercussions.

I suppose I can imagine *some* WMF employees doing something like that sometimes. But I'd prefer to give them the benefit of doubt unless this was really solidly nailed down. Wikipedians have to work with WMF employees and absent a set of solid facts, I think AGF applies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, my above comment looked a bit overly discouraging, so I checked out User talk:Jayen466 to see what is there. I provides a lot more context, but it still would be difficult to write up. Maybe if I could get their email, I could approach them to see if they want to be quoted and take this beyond an anonymous person with a poison pen blog. Anybody got an email? Andreas, could I leave a message for them on your talk? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, feel free to leave them a message there, Smallbones. (It's a wiki! ) If you do want to take this forward, please check that the whistleblower is aware of any potential legal liability they might incur for speaking out. (I would assume that they thought that through before creating their site, but best to check just in case.) Andreas JN466 21:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mostly agree and prefer your wording "*some* WMF employees. Not sure if a on-wiki self identification helps though. In the end it would just be the word of one fired employee (I don't want to appear mean, but maybe play the devil's advocate a bit here) Isderion (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

also discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Unethical_conduct_by_a_WMF_manager_according_to_Wikifired Isderion (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This section will be a response to User:Pine from the section "I'd appreciate a response Jake" and to User:Bluerasberry in "New Deadline". Both their questions/requests seem to imply that I'm being too negative toward User:JPxG. I probably am, since I really haven't given a way to move forward. In my defense, I'll say that it's been a while since Jake has been replying (other than very short "hey I got your note" - type replies) to my emails, and a much longer time since he seemed to put any thought into his email replies to me. If we could have had a decent conversation by email, I'd have much preferred that. But I think I've made my point that there is a major problem with how the Signpost is being operated, and that nobody has been doing anything about it. We need to recognize the problem and then figure out how best to solve it. We're all volunteers here, which mean thats nobody is forced to show up at all for any particular issue. But that means that one person, the EiC, has accepted the responsibility to see that the newspaper operates acceptably - he has chosen to do this. I have not been previously informed that he's asked to resign as EIC (somebody mentioned that) but that's really the only way out of his commitment. To write this calmly, and to give this comment some organization, I'll try to take my time on describing the best way out of our current problem (and avoid edit conflicts). I'll be back with at least a few more posts in this section. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for Jake since I was in much the same position myself. During the COVID pandemic I got overwhelmed by my responsibilities to my family and my responsibilities here as EIC, and really could not figure a way out for about 5 months. It took me a couple of months to figure out that resigning was one way out (I should have - but didn't -figure out that I could just dial back my expectations for the Signpost. Surviving is often the best option, rather than trying to be perfect). But it did take a while before anything happened. I finally just had to say something like "I'm leaving after the March issue". So what do I suggest that Jake does? Probably the best thing would be to take a month or 2 off and figure out what he can and cannot do here. Make a promise that he thinks he can keep. If its not enough to be EIC, I understand completely.

Nothing I'm saying here is a criticism of User:Bri. When he saw that the Signpost was in a bad position he stepped up to the plate and did everything he could do. I'm not speaking for Bri, but I really appreciate what he's done over the last year or two. Still, I've worked with him long enough to realize that he's not happy with how much he's had to do. We all need a change. Pine, and Bluerasberry and others have said that we "just have a capacity constraint" as if that solves any of the problems.

We should be honest and say that "our writing and publishing capacity doesn't match our expectations or goals for the Signpost" and then come up with a way that makes it possible to make the inputs and expected outputs a good match. I don't have all the answers here, but will say that this is not a unique problem. It's something almost every organization has had to deal with at times.

Problem solving 101: What output can we expect to produce with the resources we have? Publishing once a month, we can certainly produce 5 good articles: say News and notes, In the media, Recent research, Traffic report, and one other (Disinfo report won't come out every month, but a good Opinion, In focus, or Special report is likely to be submitted every month). We should be able to find good articles from Diff, the WMF, or WikiEd also. But say 5 is our goal, we can still meet that and have time to actually to read all the submissions. For newby Signposters I suggest that we tell them that it's always better to submit a more-or-less complete draft. We should even have time to plan for EIC succession as well.

More details for the short-term problems coming up next. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Suggested program

Please realize that coming up with a action planning is more difficult than just recognizing a serious problem. But it has to be the first step. All criticism and alternatives welcome.

1. Recognize the problem and resolve to do something about it.
2. Jake should take some time off and tell what he wants to and can do for the Signpost.
3. If he wants it, Bri should take some time off too. We need him too much to let him burn out here!
4. Publish on a strict monthly schedule, say the last Sunday of the month starting in August. We all need some rest.
5. We need some interim EICs for the next few months. I'll suggest myself, HaeB, and Bri (all former EICs) in any order they want.
6. As soon as possible, start an EIC succession plan. The lack of one is a long-term problem here
7. Figure out what we plan to accomplish for a regular issue. Maybe 5-6 articles minimum (I forgot On the bright side earlier).

• organizing some copy editing folks. Maybe contact the Guild of copyeditors
• read and give feedback on all submissions, without promising that the article will be published
• probably do a "From the editors" simply explaining how to contribute to the Signpost (without any panic) - we're just going through one of our irregularly scheduled renewal phases.
  • Maybe put up a list of possible stories for some of the newer folks here, without suggesting that these are the only possible stories

Gotta run. Duty calls. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have thought about this quite a lot, and I have also seen that the Signpost is struggling. I think that, as a community, we need to develop a plan of action to revitalise the Signpost, and created a userspace page to do this in. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Smallbones:

Thanks for sharing suggestions. I think there is agreement that the responsibilities assigned that are currently grouped under the EIC role all need to get done, including final reviews and approvals for publication, the actual publication process, and regular time investment in watching and commenting on proposed articles in their early stages of creation. However, one person doesn't need to be responsible for all of these every time, and in practice others, especially Bri, have often been doing extra duty minding the fort while the boss is away, and they too have capacity limitations and don't seem to want the EIC title and all the responsibility that comes with it. I don't know that there is anyone who has the interest, capacity, and skills to take on more coordination tasks.

Regarding deadlines, it's a bit tricky to know what to set. A full month of content could be so much that actually publishing in shorter intervals is better for reducing the amount that a reader would go through in one entire pass of a Signpost issue, and also for shorter turnaround times covering events such as the disbanding of the Community Tech team. Additionally, if a piece that someone wants to publish is punted to a later issue, the delay may be much less problematic if that new issue will happen sooner rather than later. However, publishing more often also requires someone to do the final reviews and publication process more often. My experience was that the technical publication process was relatively straightforward, but the reviews could take a few hours. My first choice would be to publish more often, such as biweekly, but with an expectation of only 4 pieces per issue and accepting that the quantity of content may vary significantly from issue to issue.

I like the idea of rotating the EIC responsibility between issues. If that can be coordinated for at least the current month plus one issue, that might work well.

Yes, it is fine for volunteers to take breaks, including JPxG and Bri. If the EIC responsibility rotates then maybe this will help with them feeling that taking a break for an issue is fine, which may also recharge their batteries for a later issue.

The EIC role could easily be a paid half time job, including writing content. However, finding a willing funder that isn't the Wikimedia Foundation would take some effort. Is anyone aware of an open knowledge non-WMF organization that might be a willing funder? I have one idea.

↠Pine (✉) 21:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

One idea that I have thrown around a little bit is that of a companion publication to the Signpost, which is not restricted by the issue format currently used. My thought with it is to allow for some reporting on significant and time sensitive processes, and reducing the need to rush to get articles on major events done quickly in the cases where the event in question occurs shortly before scheduled publishing. I have drafted that here.

In regards to the EIC role, the idea of rotating it to avoid burnout is excellent. I think I'll add it to the action plan I am drafting as a potential option. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl: at times in its history The Signpost has been published weekly. A weekly cadence is nice for significantly reducing the delay between issues, both to improve timeliness of breaking news reports and reducing the delay if a piece is punted to the next issue. It is possible that The Signpost could occasionally publish more frequent issues and/or "extra edition" issues to cover time-sensitive topics, but I doubt that there is enough human bandwidth to have weekly issues regularly. I wish that there was, and perhaps if the EIC role became a paid part-time job, there would be. In the meantime, what do you think about formalizing the option to have extra editions in case of time-sensitive news which doesn't fit well with the current cadence of publishing every three to four weeks, assuming that there are enough of the correct people to do editorial review and publication of extra editions, and with the specification that extra editions may have as few as one Signpost section? ↠Pine (✉) 17:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be a good option, as you say it is unlikely there will be the human resources for a weekly edition, but having some process or mechanism for extras would be good. I thought of doing The Signpost Gap as a way to allow this to happen without disrupting the rhythm of publishing, and overriding existing articles before they have a chance to be seen by semi regular readers etc. but at the same time, such time sensitive stuff does need to be seen. We would need a way of ensuring extra content is both easy to find and not obtrusive of the latest issue. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

From Editor-in-chief: The editor-in-chief heads all departments of the organization and is held accountable for delegating tasks to staff members and managing them. my emphasis added. Maybe having departments here could help. Having a small group who report to the EiC but that are themselves in charge of most of the effort for (just looking over stuff) N&N/Tech Report/News from WMF, In the Media/Recent research, and Featured content/Traffic report. Maybe Arbcom/Discussion too. Those seem to have heavy overlap so a single team/committee/whatever you want to call it could oversee it. Once said team thinks it's ready they then pass it onto the EiC. Publications regularly have this, whether it's one person or a team overseeing a section, they handle getting it ready and then pass it up for final check. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recognize the problems which Smallbones identifies and agree that resolving them would greatly improve the efficacy of The Signpost. I am backing JPxG until and unless they make a decision to change things, because I feel dependent on the order they bring, and appreciate the extremely difficult executive decisions that they make, and because they uniquely hold community esteem and respect to avoid catastrophic errors which could end The Signpost. My primary concern here is in avoiding existential threats to The Signpost or its independence as a community newspaper. I see that Smallbones has spent a huge amount of personal time producing good journalism, but good journalism is also risky, and I trust JPxG sending it back because ultimately I believe that the piece will get published, and because I think the piece will be better if we have more community review and support of controversial pieces. I also experience the pain of rejection for pieces where I have recruited labor to organize, and where I would like for phases of community pre-review and review to repeatedly confirm that an article laboriously developed is on a path to get editorial consensus to proceed to publishing.

The strongest statement that I can make at this time is that I am ready to take orders from the Editor in Chief, and that I also want an open forum for anyone who has complaints and ideas for how to make things better. I do not see an obvious simple change to make that will readily improve our situation. We are a volunteer operation with only a few pieces to move around the chess board, and when a player is down in material, that is not the time to make sacrifices of available resources. I would greatly appreciate any ideas for outcomes that retain all our good people, but support them with delegating duties so that everyone can be at their most effective without being burdened beyond their availability.

Smallbones, even if you are EiC, someone else in authority needs to have legitimate, confrontational, critical power to review the piece like the one you submitted, and JPxG adds a lot of legitimacy to the eventual publication of your submission by sending it back. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See m:Requests_for_comment/The_future_of_Abstract_Wikipedia. Community view leans strongly towards closure of the project. Andreas JN466 07:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start in News and Notes. If someone wants too, please feel free to expand it or start an article in the Sister Project column. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If there's a spot open, I'd like to be able to publish an essay about my experiences attending wikimania. It would be less of a generalized what went on in every session I attended like the last time. Instead, it'd be more focused, because I attended a handful of sessions to get the most out of them and had meaningful conversations outside of that, while using the rest of my "free" time to take care of myself because it was all very emotionally exhausting. But I have a lot of important info when it comes to the board, foundation, and some affiliates that I think is worthy of The Signpost. I'm drafting it off-wiki to make sure I don't accidentally say things that might get people in trouble, but once I'm certain I've met that responsibility, I'd like to publish it for visibility. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a great idea! I don't think it should go under Essay though. In general that has been used to republish "old" Wikipedia essays, in cases where they seem to be especially relevant at the time. I'll suggest Opinion or Op-ed but it depends what you want to do. Perhaps Special report if you stick particularly close to the facts of what you observed and why these facts are relevant to current concerns. We've even used a plain Wikipedia heading before.

If this is the only article about Wikimania, you might start with some basic facts and statistics to summarize the whole in just a paragraph or two. But I'll suggest to others that we try to have an article about the Wikipedians of the year. In particular, we should mention User:Jules* and User:Barkeep49 who have both written for the Signpost. (Did I forget one this year?) In the past several WotY's have written for the Signpost. Jules* and Barkeep might even consider writing up their own first person articles. There was even somebody from Canada a few years back.

Other articles about Wikimania might try to cover all the highlights or review any especially interesting videos. Only 1 author would need to give the 1 or 2 paragraphs about basic facts and highlights.

Yes, there is room. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: There was even somebody from Canada a few years back. Yes, me. Anyways, I think opinion or op-ed would probably be the best fit. I'll update you once I've actually finished writing and reviewing the piece. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my hokey (hockey?) sense of humor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Clovermoss: perhaps for this joke you should send Smallbones a Canadian Wikipedia:Trout. ↠Pine (✉) 21:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I chuckled ;) Isderion (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm definitely open to doing this, but am a little fuzzy on what you're thinking. Also what's the deadline? Having just spent a week doing almost no work and Wikipedia for basically every waking hour, I'm going to need to flip that ratio for a bit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Clovermoss: thanks for volunteering. I watched some of the online sessions, and could pitch in a few comments about those if you'd like additional content from an online viewer. If you have enough content and want a Signpost piece solely for your own writing, that's great too. Opinion, op-ed, or community view sections could all work. ↠Pine (✉) 20:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Started a Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026! News from Diff from this article: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/22/meet-the-wikimedians-of-the-year-2026/ I added some images and captions. I also slightly re-ordered the article because they had Hijiri last, while the Wikimedian of the Year article pairs him with Mari Avetisyan. That is how I structured it. -Wil540 art (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: I noticed this has a lot of wikilinks; the very first even links to the article about Wikipedia. Is this an intentional choice or an artifact from Diff itself? My first instinct was to remove them but wanted to check with you first. Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 08:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The links are an intentional choice. Puzzlingly, Diff hardly uses links at all. I was trying to show the other side of the coin, the power of links. Unless there is a MOS against them here on the Signpost, I prefer to leave them in. If they are too much, I'm ok with the removal of some basic ones. Thanks for asking. - Wil540 art (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, just wondering! :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 21:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones, @Bri: I just wanted to check in to wee what will be happening with this piece. It looks like it has a lot of content, but hasn't been edited in ~2 weeks. Is there anything else that needs to be done with it? Mitchsavl (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's only 1 day left to make any changes, and I haven't heard anything from @JPxG: as far as suggestions for changes or even a response from him to my question Did you even read the article I submitted before you rejected it? The article I submitted still stands on its own, and I submitted it so it can be published as is, with a few minor changes from me. Without an answer to my question, I don't think that any extensive changes (beyond simple copyediting) should be made. He hasn't addressed the fundamental issue that there are problems that we can deal with in his performance as E-i-C.

What I might be able to change in 1 day. First, to @Jayen466:'s assertion that the 1st quote in the green box was about Nupedia, not Wikipedia. I can just add the full title of Sanger's The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir. The whole article is about both Wikipedia and Nupedia. It may take awhile to go thru the whole 14,000+ word original, but Sanger did everybody a favor by condensing it to 2,800 words on-Wiki as User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia. It doesn't give the same quote but discusses the same topics and refers to Wikipedia about 10 times more than to Nupedia. So that's a very simple change to make. So is the piccy. @HaeB: quickly suggested another link to a Signpost article. It's quite relevant and I can include it. What I can't do is just include all of the 70 or so Signpost articles that I didn't include earlier. The article would then be about 4,000 words.

I could add an intro that previews the results of the investigation, and a conclusion that reviews them, but I wanted to exclude anything that would reflect my own opinions. But I can do it if folks really want that.

Along that same line I found something that @Bri: might be interested in. See the bottom section added in 2009 to Sanger's blog. It's very funny (but not ha-ha funny). I think he realized that his claim to being co-founder was utterly destroyed by the quote (according to the usual definition of founder used for businesses and other organizations), so he gives his own personal definition for the word. The funniest part is is the example he gives, saying that France could be described as the founder of the United States according to the business definition because it donated money to to the cause. And then he states a definition for social movements, etc. that gives credit to Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. That's not needed in order to call the signers of the Declaration or the Constitution "founders", I think it would be impossible to name the founder(s) of a social movement (other than of an organization related to a movement). It's just a bizarre definition.

There is a huge, effectively infinite, amount of information that could be added to the article, but it needs to stay at a reasonable length. Just tell me what you want and I'll see if I can do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

He should just use the USN term "plankowner", and nobody would bat an eye. I also find his attempt to separate the usage of the English word "founder" into two flavors baffling. In my mind, the founder of a company is someone in a position of authority, not just original company employees. See History of Apple Inc. for a good example – the original business partners are listed as the founders. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where you say, Any inconsistency between being "merely a grateful employee" and being a "co-founder" — a word he used twice in the Memoirs — was not mentioned by Sanger, you would have to mention –

• that Larry was indeed called a co-founder in early press releases and articles like the New York Times piece I mentioned ("I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. (He also works as the editor in chief of another online encyclopedia, Nupedia, which relies on a more traditional system of peer-review editing to assemble its contents.)), and
• that Jimmy described himself as "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" in 2002.

I fear you (and The Signpost as a whole) would be roasted if you skipped over that. There is a reason why the Wikipedia articles on the early days of Wikipedia use the co-founder term for both Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. We can't rewrite that history. Andreas JN466 19:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: You're being a bit overdramatic aren't you? The early articles can be covered briefly to the extent they haven't been already, but do you really think that I'd mind being "roasted" by Sanger supporters? I get the occasional hate-email from supporters of much more terrifying people than Sanger. It's not a big deal.

If you know where I can find the press release(s) from 2001, I'd love to see them. There should be one from July 2001 just before there were half-a-dozen articles about Wikipedia, including the Sept. NY Times article. BTW that article in no way gives equal billing to Wales and Sanger. Wales is mentioned about 6 times at the top of the article. Sanger gets 1 mention in the middle. And both get mentioned in the caption of the one pic, which appears in the archive at the end. The supposed first press release from Wikipedia was in January 2002, just after the first anniversary, and not too long before Sanger was laid off.

Wales did say that he was "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" to the yahoo tech blog in August 2002. He just didn't mention Sanger (or anyone else) as being another co-founder. It would seem that since he'd laid off Sanger 6 months previously, he'd more likely be talking about his business partners at Bomis, or even to the whole group of Wikipedia editors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 (archive.org record of prnewswire copy)

• The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.

That page was created in January 2002 by Larry Sanger and subsequently edited only by Brooke Vibber and Erik Möller.

Similarly, edited by Jimmy personally: Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003

• The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger.

There is a broad range of people who are familiar with that history and who'd expect the Signpost team to be familiar with it too. Andreas JN466 07:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm considering covering this presentation: Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist / Commons:File:Actualités, Kurier, Signpost…wikijournals, wikizines, wikiletters, wikipress?.pdf from Wikimania on Wikimedia journalism. Recording can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKOImdtm9jg&t=885s Are there plans to cover this elsewhere? Wil540 art (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Wil540 art: I mention this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/On the bright side but don't go into detail, so more coverage in a separate Signpost piece should be fine. Please also note Clovermoss' plan mentioned above on this talk page. Thanks for volunteering to write about the presentation. ↠Pine (✉) 22:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Pine: Will do, thanks. I'm aiming for a deep dive here that includes quotes and a selection of the Q&A. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Big discussion on the recent WP:LLM policy: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Recent changes to WP:LLM are too restrictive and actively harm some parts of Wikipedia Mitchsavl (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl, can you follow up on the WMKO open letter? There is one more open letter from Malaysia, as well as responses from the T&S team. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I won't be able to do it right away, so if somebody else could do it, that would be great. I'll do so when I have time if nobody beats me to it. @Robertsky, could you post the links to the Malaysia letter and response here? Mitchsavl (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I found the WMF response, and added it, though I was unable to find the open letter from Malaysia. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl, the Malaysia letter is here: m:Wikimedia_Korea/Open_letter_to_the_Wikimania_community_July_26,_2026/Wikimedia_CUG_Malaysia's_response_in_support_of_Wikimedia_Korea’s_statement_on_Wikimania/en – robertsky (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I copyedited this article, finding little to edit. User:Pine, I was wondering about the blurb? Before copy editing, it read: The World Cup, and Wikimania music. I edited it to: The World Cup and Wikimania music. Not sure if another element was going to be added to it? Perhaps Tour de France? Or perhaps I'm missing something? - Wil540 art (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: thanks. I revised that blurb and a few other things. Please do a quick check of the updates. ↠Pine (✉) 02:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: All looks good except one capitalization question. How to write out wikipress? You have it: WikiPress, in the recap article I used: Wikipress, I just checked the slides and Noé used: wikipress, no capitals. Should we standardize here or is it ok for there to be multiple capitalizations for the name? - Wil540 art (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Noé - Where do you stand on what is the correct capitalization: wikipress, Wikipress, or WikiPress? Or is there more than one correct way to capitalize it? Some light research informed me that German Wikipredia had a short-lived publishing initiative called Wikipress in 2005 where they published books under that name. German_Wikipedia#Wikipress_series is where Wikipress currently redirects to. (Perhaps this should be re-redirected towards a Wiki-news outlet page?) WikiPress goes nowhere... - Wil540 art (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noe replied via French Wiktionary. "I don't know. I may not use capital in French, but in English, it is up to you" I changed the recap article to "wikipress" no capitals, as it describes a type of press and is not a proper noun. That's what I'd recommend here but also fine with it staying WikiPress and there being multiple ways to write it. - Wil540 art (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: thanks for checking this. I modified the article, and created the project page Wikipedia:Wikipress. ↠Pine (✉) 16:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll be around later today. @Smallbones: I will run the Larry thing. jp×g🗯️ 13:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Thanks! the version from 2 weeks ago is still publishable IMHO, but in response to @Jayen466: I was expanding the article, which is a harder slog than I thought. I will decide on which version at 16:00 utc and let you know. @Bri: either version might need copyediting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can help on and off today and will give this priority. Glad to hear it is accepted for publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri and JPxG: I'll be 30 minutes finishing up a complex paragraph or two. An hour if you want a conclusion (I'd guess it's needed - maybe). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones In addition to the 2002 and 2003 press releases mentioned above, you may want to factor in somehow that in 2001, Jimmy credited Larry with the idea of Wikipedia:

• After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process. As it turns out, Wikipedia is dramatically more successful on some measures, ...

It is also generally well known that Larry coined the word "Wikipedia". [5] See also [6] [7]

Of course he was an employee throughout. As mentioned above, I think the co-founder billing was partly because Larry had a Philosophy PhD (a matter that appears to have been important to Jimmy at the time, as it represented credibility). Andreas JN466 16:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is just too much poorly presented or unclear information in most of the refs you suggest. To be understandable I need to present the clearest info. I've seen those you mention and previously rejected them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what's unclear about

• Jimmy himself writing that Larry had the idea for Wikipedia,
• the 2001 New York Times article
  • describing Jimmy Wales as "Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project",
  • mentioning "Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales",
  • describing "Larry Sanger of Las Vegas" and "Jimmy Wales of San Diego" as "the founders of Wikipedia, an online reference tool"
• the 2001 MIT Technology Review article
  • citing "cofounder Jimmy Wales",
  • describing Wikipedia as a "free-wheeling Internet-based encyclopedia whose founders hope will revolutionize the stodgy world of encyclopedias" and "the brainchild of Wales and its full-time editor Larry Sanger",

– but thanks for at least including the press releases. Andreas JN466 19:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, note this great paragraph in the MIT piece:

• Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.

Andreas JN466 20:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Ok I'm finished with it @Bri and JPxG:. Sorry it took more than an hour. I'm also sorry that it's a bit oveer 4,000 words, but at least that answers most of the questions people might raise. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  It's about as polished as I can make it now, but someone else probably ought to do the final copyedit signoff. Just due to the potential for my own blindness from over-familiarity. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to avoid confusion regarding "Recent research": I wasn't planning for a RR in this issue (as most here will know, it's a generally monthly effort and I count on there being another Signpost issue this month). I see Czarking0 has started the draft already with a brief stub about a noteworthy paper (thanks!), but it's not enough material yet to justify inclusion in the upcoming issue, so I would normally take this to the next issue. But if anyone has a chance to flesh this out more in the next few hours (for example by adding some of the freely licensed charts from the paper as illustration), or covering the Lir paper discussed above, then I might be able to help get it into a publishable shape later tonight Pacific time - but please don't hold up this issue for it. (PS: general reminder that our usual custom is to have the publication deadline fall on a weekend day, which has various advantages.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd support delaying publication of this piece Czarking0 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear I mean my RR contribution Czarking0 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mailing list post done. --Andreas JN466 11:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't get around to creating content for Serendipity in this issue. The placeholder can be deleted. ↠Pine (✉) 17:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri and JPxG:Is it too late to get this piece approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is pretty brief. Was there nothing of interest happening in July? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I boldly set the next publication deadline to 22 August 01:00. @JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, and HaeB: Would one of you like to volunteer to be acting EIC for this issue? Aligned with the discussion above, perhaps JPxG and Bri can take a nice wiki-holiday and not need to think about The Signpost for at least this round. ↠Pine (✉) 19:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply