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

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

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-04-27 10:24:18 ( v t e ) Writing: 26 April 02:00 (-1 day ago; -5%) Publishing: 27 April 02:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

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

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

Hello! Since the deadline for next issue hasn't been agreed to, yet, I just wanted to let you know that any choice would be fine to me: I've resumed uni classes, so I won't have much spare time, anyway... : D Oltrepier (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly picked a mid March Sunday for publication amd reset the timer. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be a Monday, actually ;)

But thanks for jumping in there. (We should look again at having the publication script automatically set a default publication date for the upcoming issue.)

@JPxG can you confirm you will be available to finalize and publish this issue tonight? Otherwise it would be good to update the deadline template and/or initialize the usual contingency plans (assuming Bri could take on publication).

Right now e.g. ITM still looks very drafty and N&N hasn't even been started yet. RR already has one item that folks are welcome to copyedit, I hope to have the rest up in publishable soon too, but more likely by like 4:00 UTC. I could then also help out with wrapping up ITM if needed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on some code that, if finished, might make some stuff easier. I guess we will have to see what we got. jp×g🗯️ 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given the current state of the issue (6 out of 8 draft sections not even yet marked as "Ready for copyedit"), I just took the liberty of moving the deadline by a day - feel free to adjust with a more precise estimate. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this myself. There is some very good stuff in this issue, though, so I think it will be good-- just needs some time, which I shall have tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started News and notes, but it doesn't really have any content other than two RfAs to report. I won't have hurt feelings if it's held over. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: Well, there was a lot of news about the Le Point situation in France, as I reported previously, but maybe that's more suitable for ITM.

On a side note, I apologize for almost missing out entirely on this issue: my uni schedule is getting pretty hectic! Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There sure is more material worth covering, e.g. [1] (in particular the CentralNotice policy changes) and [2] (in particular recent lawsuits we haven't covered yet). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I'll try to go through and copy-edit some of the articles (at the very least) later tonight. Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Greenlandic_Wikipedia There's this, there's also the lightning fast admin recall, also that big resysopping thing at BN. jp×g🗯️ 01:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Village_pump#March_2025_update_from_WMF_Legal_on_"Vogue_Taiwan_and_possible_Copyright_Washing"_discussion, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AI_images jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these, I have another hopefully interesting piece for N&N almost written up, which should help in providing this section with enough substance for publication. I should be able to post that in about 10h from now and also get RR into publishable shape. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I have finished the software to look at the noticeboards and village pumps, I think there is probably some recent stuff we can use for N&N. Unfortunately it took quite a bit longer than I expected, as I am now completely pooped. The issue has a lot of good stuff I would like to expand on a little and then it looks like it will be good to roam.

I would exhort everyone to take a look in the collapser down here and see if there's anything worth throwing in there... I plan to write some more on these for the next issue's discussion report (as we have basically stopped having those except as occasional features) but we could spare some for this one as well. jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Wow, there were a lot of threads in there! My humble guess is that either the Kash Patel situation or the discussion about suspected POV pushing of the Iranian government would be the most interesting topic to discuss. Oltrepier (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uh, no notice on this, and I didn't get any either: I have apparently been scheduled for three back-to-back shifts with zero notice on the days I was supposed to have off, including the day I have to drive two hours the other direction for a DMV appointment I had to wait a month for which is necessary to register my vehicle -- hell yeah dude that's awesome. Well I guess I am just sleeping in my fucking car tonight so you will have to publish without me. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Well, that's a shame... but don't worry, we'll be fine! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing challenge accepted!

I've reset the publication countdown to Friday evening (my time; US Pacific), and have done some copyediting. News and notes is still open for editing if somebody can get more content there. I'd like to declare In the media done, unless something really big comes up. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to run Wegweiser (which populates the module database and enables e.g. the single-talk page to work) because the scripts are on my computer and I will be sleeping in my car today and possibly tomorrow. As a stopgap it is also possible to populate the module database with SignpostTagger. I believe SPS.js is working properly and you should be able to use it without issue. One of the problems a few issues ago was that there was a redirect in the Next issue space, but all other script bugs are fixed. jp×g🗯️ 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking all the articles as approved but make sure they are c/ed before running (if not already). Particularly the obit needs to have its original authors filled. jp×g🗯️ 07:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bestimmt ☆ Bri (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another story to N&N (and removed the story placeholder). It could still use some copyediting - in particular to style the quotes consistently - and an image and a more interesting headline would be nice. But it should otherwise be publishable already. Note though that the "Brief notes" section still has two open TKTKs.

I can look into those things myself later, but should first get the rest of R&R up (to Bri's question below: I will have something publishable by the deadline, although I could also make use of some more time if that happens to be the case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that publication will be on the first full day following the Northern Hemisphere's spring equinox. Maybe a related quick note from the editor is appropriate? Any ideas? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Maybe a Hanami-style note would be fun enough?

By the way, I wanted to copy-edit ITM a little more, since I haven't managed to do anything in thr last few days (I'm so sorry for that...). Oltrepier (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice idea for an angle. As a by-the-way, I'm surprised the Hanami article doesn't mention Seattle (shown in my picture here); it has deep historical connections to Japan.

@JPxG: I don't know if you are able, but if you want to take over From the editor draft, it's yours. Otherwise I'll probably get some more publishable text in there tonight. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @JPxG Fancy a suggestion for a spring-themed haiku, too?

I've got one by Kobayashi Issa (it's on the Italian Wikiquote, by the way): "Plum flowers: | it's an ecstasy | my spring". Oltrepier (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated the haiku, thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I'm comfortable approving Traffic report, In the media, Recent research, and News and notes, and of course my own From the editor(s). But did you want to retain say-so over the Opinion item? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, and Adam Cuerden: copyeditors listed at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/About: can we get help copyediting on open sections including In the media by the Friday deadline? Most particularly, In the media and News and notes ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time today. No promises, but I'll see what I can do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll do my best, as well! Oltrepier (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting just a bit longer before publishing, to see if any volunteer copyediting happens on In the media or News and notes. It will be tonight, though (Pacific Time). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK everybody, please stay out of the pages until it is published. I will start in about 10 minutes. @Smallbones: apologies in advance but I'm going to chicken out and wait for JPxG's approval on the Opinion piece you authored. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any feedback or seen any complaints, could you let me know what the hangup is? It's an opinion piece so there is a little leeway - I do get to state my own opinion! Will it be published late? Like say an hour late? Waiting for three weeks again (without an answer!) - I would not consider that to be acceptable. Sorry to send my complaint to you @Bri:. Are we going to hear from @JPxG: within an hour? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the publishing script without the Opinion sorry. There was an error during the page moves, but I think I straightened it out manually. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checked some talkpage subscribers, looks good. I'm going to hang up the PC until tomorrow. Happy weekend, all! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I just sent you an email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion by Smallbones is good and should be run -- I thought I had gotten to it when I was going over the submissions. jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it has already run. Shit! I thought the deadline was the 22nd still... jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am moving boxes for the next seven hours so I cannot do anything about this. God damn it -- @Smallbones this is my fault, apologies. jp×g🗯️ 07:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: per my talk page, let's retropublish it asap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (see below), with my feathers completely smoothed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the new addition announced via a watchlist notice? I didn't see it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The script added a request under my name, but it hasn't been acted on yet. To my knowledge, I can't just do it myself, with my permissions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It got acted on starting 24 March for 7-day appearance. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding for next issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved verbatim to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I don't know if you covered that in the last issue already, but it might be useful to use one of the lead-story slots for recent media coverage of the fr.wiki vs Le Point case, as QuicoleJR and I suggested a while ago...

Surely some more updates have emerged in the meantime. Oltrepier (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A news source has posted a dossier relating to Tech for Palestine (as in this). We'll have to decide what to do with it for The Signpost. I'm not even sure if it's OK to post a link. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have identified ~ 250 edits done due to TfP -I have more edits in a single day, at times. I believe the expression is " A storm in a teacup"? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be putting random stuff here that I see of note. jp×g🗯️ 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added one ☆ Bri (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a nice update about the WikiWikiWeb anniversary! Oltrepier (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri I definitely won't be able to go through that whole interview with Cunningham, but if you can, I hope it will be helpful! Oltrepier (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south (114 articles batched -- is that a record?)
• WikiWikiWeb, the first wiki, launched March 25, 1995, 30 years ago; can we include this? It was not noted at WP:OTD. There's some coverage about this in the media, as well, and the wiki's founder, Ward Cunningham, has recently been interviewed by Yaron Koren on the "Between the Brackets" podcast!

The feature is pretty rough, especially the News from WMF section. My availability today is poor. Help?? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll try to go through some of it...

Maybe @Soni could give us a helping hand, as well? Oltrepier (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be free in half a day to a day at the earliest. I put down my notes so someone could write it up later when they can. That later has not happened for me yet. Soni (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni No worries at all! Oltrepier (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offers of help. I think it would be a good idea to try to finish in the next 8 hours or so, since we are past our deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oltrepier for your help! I've marked this ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See m:Special:Log/WMFOffice - more than 7000 accounts are locked today. GZWDer (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any announcements about this on wikimedia-l or elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#More_than_29,000_accounts_compromised.--GZWDer (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Here's the announcement, just in case you're still looking for one: m:Wikimedia Foundation/March 2025 discovery of account compromises. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll incorporate that in a NaN writeup. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, Ziyad has been released from prison. I have added a small section to N&N (will tidy it up and add the link to previous coverage later, do let me know if his release has been covered in the Signpost already). Osama Khalid is still in jail. --Andreas JN466 16:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 There's excellent news, indeed, so thank you for the update!

Let's keep praying for Osama, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/03/27/strengthening-wikipedias-neutral-point-of-view/

To support the Wikimedia communities and reaffirm our commitment to neutrality, the Wikimedia Foundation will convene a working group of active editors, Trustees, researchers, and advisors to explore recommendations for common standards for NPOV policies that can protect Wikipedia, increase the integrity of the projects, and equip the volunteers trusted to administer these policies with more support.

Whuh?? jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG It's likely a further reform of standard NPOV policies, so nothing too surprising in my opinion... I'm a bit concerned about the vague definition of "researchers and advisors", though. Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more why you consider it nothing too surprising? When was the last time WMF drove a review or reform of a core content policy and fundamental principle of Wikipedia across all languages?

For our coverage, it might be interesting to identify and explain concrete examples for the "some languages" the Diff post refers to here: [...] at a recent community workshop [...] Editors with extended rights, those trusted by their communities with administering NPOV policies, described the challenges they face when these policies are unclear or underdeveloped in some languages. (I can understand why the WMF announcement doesn't call out specific examples - I probably wouldn't in their place. But that could be an aspect where we might be able to add value for our readers with independent coverage.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB I've messed up, sorry: blame it on my inexperience...

That's a great idea, actually! I'm afraid I won't have enough time, nor enough knowledge to sort that story out, but this piece is definitely worth a detailed analysis. Oltrepier (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have about 4 articles ready more-or-less. I'd like to add 2 (two) diff articles, the NPOV one (in News from Diff) and the one on the site slowdown from AI downloading everything from Commons (on Op-ed maybe). In a perfect world I might be able to comment (in Opinion?) on how these things could be huge. I'm not sure I have the time or the talent for that, though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to expand the article slightly; by the way, I've also credited @HaeB for the assist up above... Oltrepier (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @JPxG Would it be outrageous if I asked you to move the deadline one or two days further? I just wanted to make sure I can actually give you a decent amount of help for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any 9objection to this. jp×g🗯️ 09:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the template (which I assume most or all of those whom it affects have already watchlisted). Btw no RR in this issue, but I might be able to contribute a bit to some other sections. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, will be running soon. jp×g🗯️ 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: - Is there time to submit an opinion article (In focus actually) about the issues raise by the 2 diff articles? It's written but will need formatting and copy editing. I'll just put it in In focus I guess and JPxG can do whatever he'd like with it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: - It's up and had a quick copy edit. I can get another pic of hogs at a trough, but it's a long pic and much too orderly. I'll see if I can copy edit some of the other articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I signed off on In focus copyedit readiness. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, Adam Cuerden, and Bluerasberry: Calling copyeditors ... we are past deadline & have four features that need attention. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I did Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes. That's all I can do tonight. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some very nice work there towards the end. I managed to split out two articles because I thought they oughtened to have more than a blurb in a larger piece. We will see if this was smart, I suppose. Running the script now: single-page talk should be populated soon. jp×g🗯️ 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JPxG It seems like a very good idea, in my opinion.

  Thank you all for contributing to this issue! Oltrepier (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see media about Jimmy Wales' new book, and I suppose it's worth discussing how to cover it here. IMHO it may be treated like any other book about Wikipedia, neither promotional nor aw-gee, but simply factual. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I guess a lead story on the ITM column might be the best kind of compromise... Oltrepier (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the last entries at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/All are from the December 24, 2024 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had a specified enddate of 2025-01-01, I've updated that to 2030. JPxG, any reason that can't be updated to 2099 or 3000 or something like that? --rchard2scout (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first archive on that page was from 2005, so I figured each would be ten years. It ought to loop to a third page for the 2020s. Also, there should be a way to do this programmatically, but due to a variety of reasons I am no longer interested in actively developing software here, e.g. deleting a random internal template redirect that's never been linked to from anywhere can be held up by weeks of paperwork on the procedural objection of a passerby who never edited any of the content involved, meaning that even extremely simple maintenance can take multiple months -- if someone else wants to figure out how to do that I would be thrilled. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Motions active, could result in de-sysop and ban for COI and undeclared paid editing. Worth keeping an eye on. It would be a very brief Arbitration report, maybe NaN would be better? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Subject of the motions reports their real-life name on wiki, and says they are a software industry "communications professional". Seems a bit odd that it took so long for this COI to become evident. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.p.s. I've added a personal response at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community discussion, and probably should not be the one to write this up for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The desysop motion has passed. This ought to go in the issue but not by me. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: - I'll add this to news and notes, but trying to explain the logic of the decision will be challenging. There's also something about a stock market crash that was recently added in the bouncing around section. All long-timers here probably know that I almost never insert my academic qualifications into an article - only when the article is specifically within my finance expertise. Based on a Ph.D. in finance from a major Big Ten university and almost 20 years teaching financial market investments MBA classes, I just can't use the term 2025 stock market crash. It's only a 7.3% decline to date, and a maximum decline after April 2 of 12.2%. Double those declines and I might be tempted to say "crash", but it's not despite the title of the Wikipedia article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this up. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the next issue I have some great videos to share from an Internet Archive + Wikipedia editor conference. I am still formatting at

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report

The theme of it all is disinformation, harassment of Wikipedia editors related to Wikipedia's fact-checking process, and public sentiment about trust in media.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that this event happened. We don't often have stories with a lot of video content – this might be a first, actually. Formatting a pleasing presentation for readers (watchers?) is a new challenge. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, presenting the videos to be accessible is a challenge.

I have done this twice before in Signpost -

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25/WikiConference report
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-10-23/In_focus

I invite anyone to suggest ways to sort or present the videos. I am imagining that this article could be great especially for outside people - journalists or researchers - who want to hear from individual Wikipedia editors about Wikipedia's responses to misinformation. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot there was the videos section in the WikiConference report. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry This is genuinely a goldmine of material, thank you all for your contributions!

IMHO, you might split up the videos in three macro-categories: one might host the clips centered on more generic and accessible topics (see your own "Editing Wikipedia is not a crime" video, or "Disinformation threatens trust"); one might tackle coverage of specific topics on the platform (the clips on climate change, public health and LGBT rights); finally, the last one might include the remaining clips describing how the Wayback Machine and the other presented tools (such as InternetArchiveBot and the Wikipedia Library) work, as well as the videos on WikiPortraits and other projects. Oltrepier (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Good idea, I separated the videos by section. I will think more about what to say for each. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Most of the speakers are identified in the captions by what looks like a real-life name. Except one: B is their Wikipedia username, correct? Or a different individual? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I do not have information about their identity or whether that is them. For the rest, working on copy for the article. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I set the publication deadline for 20 April as it'll be a holiday in most of the English-speaking world, for Easter Sunday. At the moment, there is enough content in the WP:NEXTISSUE to meet this deadline. Svampesky (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with holidays is that for some people it means more time to work on this project, but for others, less. As for myself, I'll be available Sunday. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting we are past the writing deadline. Open articles should be finished up, thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there is enough content in the WP:NEXTISSUE to meet this deadline - instead of that page, I recommend checking Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status, which has better information on how far along the individual draft sections are.

In general I appreciate you pushing for a more frequent publication schedule. But in this case I would have appreciated a heads-up before suddenly moving publication forward ten days[3]: The usual production process for "Recent research" involves some things to be done at least a week before publication, so I'm not sure we will be able to have one this month (even though User:Clayoquot thankfully just started the section - I'll see whether I can get it into publishable form before publication of this issue, this may or may not happen.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was on to copyedit today -- some of the articles look basically good and others look a far ways off. Particularly, the N&N lead story looks very unready (e.g. there's no corroboration of the story beyond that one article online -- shouldn't this be a bigger deal and more widely reported if it is as claimed?) We are also claiming, without any real evidence I can see, that wp is about to be blocked in India, when the report just says that some police agency has requested that the government block it without any info/analysis on how likely that is to happen (base rates?)

• N N&N absolutely must not be published as-is, needs factcheck/corrob/rewrite(?) on lead story and others to be fleshed out
• N Recent research is not written
• ? ITM could go but is extremely thin
• Y RFB debrief is great
• Y I moved Comix from the staging area, that is done
• clock Obit needs authors filled in from the WP:RIP history (also checked to see if there is more info on wp:rip since that was made, and formatted)
• clock Humor is almost done. @Relativity: Is there any way to work a mention of {{stupid t-shirt}} int here?
• N Disinformation report isn't written
• ? Tech report needs to be moved to news from wmf, also its gigantic, also do we have any thoughts about the stuff in it? @HaeB:
• clock In focus is great, although needs factcheck and some minor fmtg

Due to somebody who isn't me fucking a bunch of stuff up I was surprise-scheduled for seven straight days with no warning, including Easter (I cannot edit at work, as a typical workday involves walking about thirteen miles). I would recommend that this issue be postponed. jp×g🗯️ 10:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is at all plausible for this issue to be ready during the coming days -- I think a week may be more appropriate here. I have moved the deadline up to the 24th for the sake of giving us some breathing room, but if nobody objects, tomorrow I will push it to the 26th/27th. jp×g🗯️ 10:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG That's perfectly fine, I would actually have more time to contribute myself, so thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate more time for the disinfo report. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfo report marked for copyedit. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. Today is the alst day. jp×g🗯️ 13:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 1) there had been 0 opposition and 1 supportive comment in response to your announcement above, and 2) that less than 1 hour before the supposed publication time there are still lots of open tasks, and 3) our general custom and preference to schedule deadlines for weekends, I just went ahead and implemented that proposal.

Admittedly this is also a bit selfish because it will enable me to get "Recent research" finalized in time for certain, but I will already spend some time tonight to work on this and other sections - if it all becomes ready before Saturday, that is fine with me too. Apropos, the customary to-do list for RR (now updated) is here, contributions welcome as always (for this or future issues).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, almost back to where I set it initially. LOL. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech report needs to be moved to news from wmf, also its gigantic, also do we have any thoughts about the stuff in it? - I have moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF (NB: leaving a redirect which may need to be removed before running the publication script), also per the discussion below. As mentioned there, I think we really need to avoid blurring the line between independent reporting about tech topics and WMF (or other organizations, or individual Wikimedians) extolling their own work. That said, I don't think we are required to do extra fact-checking as long as it is clear that this is an external contribution that WMF stands behind, as it is by and large a report about its own activities (rather than making claims about other entities).

RR will be in a publishable state by the deadline. The status page still has various other red items. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes, Community view, In the media, Traffic report, and Disinformation report are ready for a copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones @Soni Just so you know, I've boldly moved some of the stories from N&N to the Discussion report section, as discussed in the thread below. Feel free to revert it if you don't think it would be the right move.

On my part, I'll try to go through the ITM column as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @JPxG Also, as per the same discussion I referred to in the previous message, @Bluerasberry and I decided to move the story about WLM 2024 winners to the Gallery section, and we might keep that for the next issue, in order to elaborate more on the contest and give some needed justice to the finalists and their (wonderful) entries.

I hope it won't be a big deal! Oltrepier (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'd like to include Ongoing collaborations from the suggestions page in News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Check out the latest suggestions by JMF and Feed Me Your Skin, too! Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I agree with the concerns raised by JPxG in this discussion that we've still got too little information, except for this article, about the reported request of block of Wikipedia in India, so it's very difficult to say what's going on at the moment.

I suggest we should move that blurb elsewhere, more specifically over at ITM, which is running pretty thin in lead stories, and maybe add some more context. Oltrepier (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to our content guidance, News and notes is "broad coverage of going-ons within the Wikimedia movement.. cover[ing] all major internal news". So I think a block for one of our top readership populations (and a lot of contributing editors) does qualify for NaN. That said, I dont mind a short item at NaN with more expanded discussion of the media angle at In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Yes, definitely, but I thought ITM would be a better place just because news sources on the matter are so thin, at least for now... Oltrepier (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It fits both places, but news is scant on both sides also. Wikipedia community members are hesitant to publish personal opinions because they do not want to gain media attention which could over-emphasize their personal comments, and there is no wiki organization in India that broadly speaks for the country. On the media side, the news is lacking, and although multiple sources exist I think they are all copying some original source because they have the same very shallow information. As this is an ongoing legal issue the WMF is not commenting either. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community members are hesitant to publish personal opinions because they do not want to gain media attention which could over-emphasize their personal comments, and there is no wiki organization in India that broadly speaks for the country. I can get anonymous (perhaps non anonymous) opinions from individual editors from India on recent news. Just need someone (ideally not User:Bluerasberry) to coordinate with me on questions we're asking. Soni (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for corroboration of the Cyber police request to block, and haven't found any. Maybe this should be booted from News and notes, and just treated as something spurious at In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A note in In the Media will be more appropriate, yes. Soni (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This month's section seems to be very large, and probably should be split off into two or even three pages. I suggest "News from Enwiki" and "News from the movement" as broad categories. But someone else can suggest better. This is kind of bound to happen any issue where I'm writing, or any editions where we're summarising WMF newsletters. So, a general "how we do this" could be nice. Soni (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I wanted to note that one of the 11 conference grants from last year, Wikiconference India 2025 had its grant cancelled. This is relevant to the CIS news story by User:Bluerasberry etc, but I shall not be writing for the story due to COI. I can give others information or pointers about the same. Soni (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni I've gone ahead and added a short note about WikiConference India in the CIS story.

To be honest, the section doesn't look outrageously large to me at the moment, but yours might be a good idea if we realize there's too much meat left on the grill, so to speak. Actually, I almost prevented myself from adding a note about WLM 2024 winners, because there's already so much going on... Oltrepier (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier It looks roughly double the size of usual N&N to me already. And I haven't started my 2-3 paragraphs on 2 WMF newsletters, as I usually do. And like you said, there's often more shorter notes we like adding, like WLM 24 winners.

As for the wording you added, I'll note the WCI25's grant was basically affected for the same reason as the CIS license (that the story above already covers). The current wording currently implies a different set of regulations coming in play. Soni (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni You're right...

I don't know @JPxG and the others would be OK with splitting N&N up in two different sections for this issue, but I guess a good compromise would be moving the stories about Tinucherian's removal from ArbCom and other recent discussions to "Discussion report", which should be an equally fitting column. Does it sound good to you and @Smallbones?

We could also save the story about WLM 2024 for next issue, if @Bluerasberry is still fine about it. It would actually help us to elaborate on the contest a bit more.

On a side note, thank you for clarifying that aspect about WCI25: please let me know if it looks better worded now. Oltrepier (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I moved Wiki Loves Monuments to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery. It is some of our best content, and you are right, at the least we could showcase a gallery of photos. That could happen this issue or next. I am not going to prioritize it for this issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Yes, keeping it for the next issue would help us polish it further and paying the right amount of attention to it. Oltrepier (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that (Discussion report). I personally do not care what subheadings we call them under, I just have a strong preference for a N&N that does not go too long. The CIS report feels less like News and Notes and more like a detailed report anyway, so that's another strong option to spin off. Soni (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a newsroom suggestion earlier this year about AI-summarising recent discussions and WP:RFCs that happen across enwiki. As I despise the use of gen-AI, I shall not be attempting that. Instead, here's a hand-curated section summarising WP:CENT discussions from this year. If we choose to continue this section, it could be a "local news" segment of N&N, where we cover important enough RFCs that have happened over the last few months.

I don't know if any other place curates something like this, I don't follow the dozens of newsletters that currently exist. Keeping the scope to relatively successful CENT notices restricts us to more globally relevant RFCs, and would skip a bunch of snow rejected ones. Both of these are desirable for me

Soni (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni For now, I've moved your summary to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report.

I agree it would be an interesting theme to cover, even though I'm not an expert at all on that front... Oltrepier (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Regarding this story, I feel sad to have to remind you of the Signpost's conflict of interest policy (see the first paragraph of our Content guidance page).

It's not just that you are generally heavily involved as a volunteer in the organization that your Signpost article praises in glowing terms (e.g. as one of few examples [of] truly global collaboration in the Wikimedia Movement). It also appears that you were specifically working on the hiring yourself that is at the center of your news piece, and were one of the proposal managers for the grant that funds these hires (presumably - your Signpost article is mum on finances).

This is especially disappointing since you have long been very active in calling for scrutiny and accountability regarding other professional organizations in the Wikimedia movement, and love to represent yourself as Signpost journalist when reporting about these (recent example). It seems that this principled stance goes out of the window as soon as it's about an organization you are yourself involved in. I also can't help recalling how the need to formalize the Signpost's COI policy arose just a few years from concerns about a story authored by someone from the same organization (not you, but IIRC someone you had encouraged or invited to contribute).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: Perhaps I have a conflict of interest. I would appreciate you or anyone else having a conversation about that with me. I am ready to comply with whatever there is consensus to do.

I do not believe that I have what would be called a conflict of interest of the sort that a United States company or institution would expect me to report. I am not being paid or managing a budget, and that grant is not mine.

I do not think that I have a conflict of interest in the wiki community sense, but wiki community opinions vary.

I am not paid from that grant. I am heavily involved in wiki community organizing in many directions, including and especially LGBT+ issues, and in Wikimedia LGBT+. I am not on the board of that or any other Wikimedia organization, nor have I ever been an officer on a Wikimedia community board. Part of how I address problems of conflict of interest is not taking WMF money, and not being on boards. I am sometimes on grants as non-funded investigator. I do go to many public wiki community governance meetings in many contexts - probably 2+/week for 10+years?

My biggest conflict of interest is being a Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia, because that is my salaried job. I feel that this is known.

Yes, the grant you mentioned is the source of funds for the staff. I am listed as "proposal manager", but "advisor" is the more conventional term. I do not get money, I am not responsible for any grant reporting, and I have no promised commitment related to that grant.

I would comply with any policy or do any kind of disclosure necessary, but I feel like I already do sufficient disclosure. I submitted another piece - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report - the grant is somewhere on meta. I am not associated with that grant, but I interviewed everyone and produced the videos, so the conference report is my idea, and I did not clear the piece with anyone on the grant or conference organizing committee. I also write India news in the context of some India related wiki grants which again, I do not receive or manage, but I comment on these and do collabs with people in India and Bangladesh. I have been involved in Wikimedia India affairs and grants as long as I have been for LGBT+. With the LGBT+ report, I wrote that, and did not consult with the organization about it, because it is my own voice and not that of the organization. They did not know that I am running that story, and although it is positive, I am sure that it is not the way the organization or those staff would present themselves.

The only wiki organization on which I ask for scrutiny in the Wikimedia Movement is the Wikimedia Foundation, because they go through US$200,000,000 million a year. Wiki LGBT+ has a US$131,000 grant. That is not important now because this convo is about me, but to explain myself, I think having control of money is the primary indication of conflict of interest, and that scale matters. I am open to receiving instructions or criticism, and I certainly make mistakes, and also circumstances change, but I am not immediately seeing the conflict in my activity here. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather tone-deaf response.

that grant is not mine. - the Wikimedia Regional Grants Committee who reviewed and approved the grant evidently saw that differently (my bolding):

• [N.N.], BlueRasberry, and [N.N.]: Congratulations! Your grant is approved in the amount of 131,000 USD with a grant term starting 1 July 2024 and ending 30 June 2025. [...] can you update us on your search / hiring progress? [...] We look forward to learning about your project outcomes. [4]

(In the final grant report about those project outcomes, are we going to see something like "positive coverage in the Signpost"?)

I am listed as "proposal manager", but "advisor" is the more conventional term. - again that is inconsistent with the fact that the Wikimedia Regional Grants Committee repeatedly addressed you as one of the owners of that grant proposal, e.g.:

• Hello @Bluerasberry and [N.N.],
  Thank you for this thoughtful proposal. [5]

I am not being paid or managing a budget / I am not paid from that grant / I do not get money etc.: Nobody had claimed that; I had already noted that yes, you are involved in this as a volunteer, so these wordy clarifications are besides the point. But in any case, I hope you are not seriously suggesting that it can only be a COI if money changes hands? By that logic, there also wouldn't be a problem if a Wikipedia editor who has been sanctioned in an ArbCom case writes the Signpost's Arbitration report about that case.

I am not on the board of that or any other Wikimedia organization, nor have I ever been an officer on a Wikimedia community board. - I suppose that is technically true, but you are in fact listed in their "Membership of the board" section as former member of their governance committee.

As for the Disinformation report and the India story in this issue, nobody had raised COI concerns about these, so it's unclear to me why you devote space to debating these above.

It would have been great if you would have diverted a fraction of the time you invested in this obfuscatory and misleading response to instead making an effort to comply with said COI policy, by adding a disclosure of your involvement with the grant and the organization to the current draft. That wouldn't yet fix the journalistic problems with the article's content (lack of neutrality etc.). But it would be a start, to help our readers avoid mistaking it for independent coverage.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to pull Wiki LGBT story from this issue, and include it in next issue. This COI is undeniable and it looks likely we will not be able to resolve it imminently. As the primary writer for half of the sections most N&Ns... I do not feel comfortable having blueraspberry's puff piece without a COI declaration occupying the same space as my informative "summary of everything else".

@HaeB @Smallbones @JPxG Soni (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged.

I have a great deal of sympathy for @Blue Rasberry: and I'll note that, with only occasional exceptions, Signpost writers need to be Wikipedia editors and participants, in order to understand what they are writing about, though it can be a problem being too close to the specific subject matter. We all spend a great deal of time living in this "small town" we're reporting on, with some of the same problems any small town reporter has to deal with. And I remember several cases where Br has covered important stories that would have been difficult for others to cover.

The other side is that this does look like a significant COI and and the content guidance for N&N does make clear that it should be "ruthlessly objective." (I'm feeling a bit too ruthless now). I'll make drastic cuts to that story. Later folks can decide a) to revert my changes, or b) just take the story out of this issue (and deal with it however you'd like in the next issue), or maybe even keep my changes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 08:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: should definitely decide on whether he wants his initials on the story and/or make a short COI notice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will likely not be able to get this done before showtime, so would like to delay it for next time, if possible. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 00:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress out about it. It won't be the last Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The page has been moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Technology report. Svampesky (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your move here: I know this has happened before, but I'd like to remind us all that the "Technology report" section was conceived as independent journalistic reporting (in the sense of "reporter") about "news and developments in the technical platforms used by the Wikimedia project", analogous to the "News and notes" and "In the media" sections (see also the template). The WMF reporting about its own work is a different report genre, and I think using this section title for it muddies the waters for our readers. More practically speaking, in this case it also effectively blocks the section from any independent reporting that Signpost team members may still be able to contribute before publication (I don't know about NightWolf1223, but I might be able to add one item in the next day or two). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a place for content via suggestions page. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Do you mean this one? I also think this would be an excellent choice! Oltrepier (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feed Me Your Skin: Thanks for your excellent submission. This is a community view of Wikipedia. I am always surprised to hear of what people see when they try to give an overview of Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Community view sub is really long. Suggest we run this as a multi-part thing across several issues. We could start with Part 0, 1 and 2 in next possible issue, and think about how to treat the rest of it. Just the "conclusion" section is long enough to run on its own. If in upcoming issue, Part 2 might need some trimming (maybe less coverage of ancillary projects like Wikivoyage and Wikispecies?). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is 13,000 words, so would take a person an hour to read. By usual Signpost standards that is long, but also, perhaps the author wishes to publish it all at once in one location. @Feed Me Your Skin:, do you have a preference? I agree with Bri that more people might see it and read it initially if you split it.

Also, can you please suggest an image to represent the article on the landing page? See examples at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue - you can add it yourself in the box at the top, or suggest an image for editors here to format for you. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This revision shows what I have in mind for trimming it down and preparing to make it a multi-issue presentation. This is rougly 25% as long as the original and I think more likely to keep readers' attention. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with splitting the article into multiple parts, but I think that every project should have their own paragraph. If you want to trim the article down, it would be better to remove subsections like Wikicite rather than the projects themselves, since I don't want the article to be too focused on Wikipedia. As for an image, the Wikimedia logo should work fine. I tried to add it myself, but it came out wrong in the preview, so I didn't publish that edit. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are up against the deadline, I made a quick version as discussed here and marked it ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, HaeB, Oltrepier, and JPxG: "Trump Prosecutor threatens Wikipedia in very conservative The Free Press. Ed Martin, Missouri politician and former(?) Phyllis Schafley publisher sent letter to WMF with 3 pages of questions about Wikipedia passing along propaganda from "foreign sources". Not usual for non-IRS to prosecute or investigate non-profits. Apparently non-profits (such as Heritage Foundation IMHO) are not supposed to mess with politics. So WMF has too many foreigners on BoTrustees, JDL thinks WP is biased, and Larry Sanger thinks we've abandoned NPOV. This not not checked yet, but that's about it! JPxG please hold off publishing, until I get at least a paragraph at the top of In the media. I'll try to contact WMF legal also. Then it is time to publish. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basics are all there and there are some simple additions that could easily be added. I'm waiting for outsider comment. I'll take a 10-15 minute break. Then 30 minutes to finish up, redo headline and blurb. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done but will check back. It could use some copy editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for covering this important news. I made a few edits and fixes (also to other parts of ITM), but there is still one broken link. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones @HaeB Thank you very much for reporting this: I'll try to go ahead and see if anything else needs to be added/fixed later in the afternoon. Oltrepier (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't stop writing right now, either at home or from here (or both). I do hope this gets published sometime. Outta here! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Don't worry, I've got you covered on the copy-editing side (hopefully it's good enough)! Oltrepier (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you work on this; I'd encourage to also actually mark these stories as copyedited once you're done (the status list still shows several stories without "copyedit done"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you make it to the next issue alive, and I'd also like to point out that we are actually still a little under two hours away from the scheduled publication time. (Judging from this exhortation yesterday to hold off publishing, I'm not sure everyone has the deadline template watchlisted yet.)

Actually, can we have confirmation from JPxG that he is in fact intending to publish today as proposed earlier this week? Apart from the aforementioned copyedits, there are still various other gaps and loose ends (e.g. in "Gallery") that could use some editorial shepherding.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB @JPxG Oh, actually, the Gallery section is not a big deal: like I wrote in a discussion up above, we can keep it for the next issue in order to polish it and give it some needed justice. Oltrepier (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: Please revert anything I've done today in this article, including the piccy, where I have a COI. I'll note with special emphasis: don't apologize. Your writing is fine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a copyeditor here, and will prefer to not be. So I'll let someone else handle this if they need to.

I just would like some sort of note explaining "Hey this is a new section we are trying out. We will try to bring news from enwiki from last few months that will be missed in the weeds, but ultimately important enough. We may continue this if people like knowing about discussions." With that being the central meaning in mind, I would like a declaration in "recent discussions" phrased however you'd like. Soni (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]