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 centralise 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
	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 2024-11-21 18:01:22 ( v t e ) Writing: 7 December 00:00 (16 days left; 84%) Publishing: 8 December 00:00 (17 days left; 85%) There are 15 days, 5 hours, 58 minutes and 37 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-11-21 18:01:23.
October 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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 03	November 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01	December 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 25 26 27 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 02 03 04 05

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

@JPxG, Svampesky, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: Until the last edit at "Humour" the main issue was that it is not funny, there's no humour in it. Please see this essay that's linked to our Humour resources here. It's not humour mainly because it's just whingeing. There's no surprise or misdirection. Just constant complaint. Not funny! Other important issues with it are supposedly linking to research papers which are not there and impugning the honesty and credibility of The Signpost and all its staff. We have a reputation to protect and having a staff member write that The Signpost is total garbage is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

There's another issue that goes beyond that: you've continued to edit the "humour" after publication without checking with anybody here and just making things much worse. Before adding to an article - it's not just copy editing - at a minimum you need to get JPxG's approval. Everything that's published must be approved by the editor-in-chief. The additions just look like provocations. The worst by far is that last edit. It looks like you are accusing me and others of paid editing. Anybody who wants to accuse me of paid editing, can make that accusation where I can be expected to see it, say it to my face. And then I can give you a proper response.

I'll suggest that somebody should delete that last line until JPxG can decide what he wants to do, then we should not respond, either here or at the article talk but just leave that garbage alone, only reverting future edits to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedily removed that line. The line was added by JPxG at Special:Diff/1252023940. The reason I changed the word 'docked' to 'deduced' at Special:Diff/1252273371 is because the word 'docked' is a close-homophone to 'doxxed'. Svampesky (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think the word you were looking for is "reduced"; to deduce is "to arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion." (Oxford) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word I meant to use was 'deducted'. So I apologize for any implications that my error caused. Svampesky (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my error (changing a word on a line that was added by JPxG), I don't see the any issue with the content. In fact, a commenter on the book review column (Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-10-19/Book review) actually agrees with sentiments of the humor column, that The Signpost has launched an "outrageous promotional campaign" for this book. Svampesky (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I don't think the Signpost humour column is the right place to critique that. Andreas JN466 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are using Template:No ping in articles whenever mentioning and linking a user's account, in order to prevent the user being pinged. Note that this is not necessary: the notification system is only triggered by signed posts (i.e., signed using the four tildes). See Template:No ping#Purpose and WP:Ping. Best, Andreas JN466 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest and say I don't actually know when or how it was decided that we should use the noping templates. It doesn't seem like a very good idea (indeed, I haven't used them in a very long time). If we're writing about someone, if anything, we ought to go out of our way to ping them so they can see it. If they have anything to say, at least in my experience, every time it is to make a correction and say "actually that was on the 12th not the 13th" or something of that nature. A couple months ago there was a brief discussion on this topic, I believe because Piotrus had been mentioned in some article and said he'd have preferred a ping when it was being drafted -- this was when I found out that just linking a username in an edit didn't ping, only if you signed it... jp×g🗯️ 09:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About when "noping" began. I don't know, except that when I started as E-i-C it was one of the first strange things I noticed. Strange to me - that is. I starting out wondering what the verb nope-ing meant. It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what it is, and most of what it doesn't do. In any case it was here in spades, and I figured "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but be consistent about it.

Something else similar - I noticed then that some people used "The Signpost" and some used the "Signpost". I didn't have time to get into an argument about it, so I decided I'd use "The Signpost" for myself wherever it was comfortable to use until I could decide. It would be easier to switch to "Signpost" from "The Signpost" than vice versa. It became quite comfortable after 2 or 3 months. End of my knowledge of copy editing history.

I almost forgot JPxG, Jayen466, HaeB and Bri

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues a) I think it's good practice to use the full name of The Signpost at least on first mention b) I don't see why using {{noping}} is an issue. At worst it's unnecessary, but harmless. I use it myself while I'm typing so I can clear a mental flag "do I need to remember whether or not I'm signing what I'm writing right now", because I often don't want to ping editors in other contexts such as sockpuppet investigations. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes.

I invited existing editors to contribute at Talk:Asian_News_International#Lawsuit_article_removed.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from The Hindu. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that quote about OFFICE actions from The Hindu is clearly not factual for our history. Most such actions involve blanking the related article while the issue is resolved. I remember the same thing being done with Choose Your Own Adventure thirteen years ago (and many of us being really irate about it). Silverseren^C 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'll admit I didn't follow this case as closely as I might have. I don't understand why the lawsuit article is blocked but the article about the corporation is not. Surely the allegedly defamatory information is in the alleged bad acts such as Asian News International#Propaganda and #Misinformation. No? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I interact off-wiki with many professionals in online media, including university faculty, lawyers, and software developers. When I talk with Wikipedia editors, the editors are often surprised when I say that highly trained and experienced Internet professionals have difficulty understanding the difference between a platform (like YouTube, Instagram, or Wikipedia) and its user community (like YouTubers, Instagrammers, or Wikipedians). Based on what I have read in the media, the court's public statements express a lack of awareness between these two, which I feel is a totally normal misunderstanding, although the lack of distinction is strange to Wikipedians. I think the court presumes that the Wikimedia Foundation's staff journalists wrote this article, and again, I think that is a very typical perspective which would be common in the courts of any country. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading a bit about this in the press now. I think we should consider running a special issue just for this, as historic government control of enwp contents and our community process itself. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a special issue seems like a good idea - people have been talking about this quite a lot and it stirs up a ton of opinions. it would also then get its own comments section, which i think would also be beneficial ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For speculative reasons, we should be prepared to do this one with JPxG's alternative publication methodology. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest publishing offwiki somehow, give the office action. I'd assume the office action will be applied broadly, and cover the Signpost as well - causing even the Signpost to be censored perhaps. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing which suggests that the office action will be applied broadly, note that it has not been applied to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) or any other page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic applies, though, and as soon as the court notices the other conversations they could issue an identical demand, and the WMF would be likely to make the identical response. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think its very unlikelely that the WMF will nuke the (by my count) nearly 100 pages (and growing by the hour) with content related to the case... And we both know how wikipedia works, more and more coverage just means it gets included on more and more pages until Wikipedia and India themselves get nuked... You can't fight NPOV across the system, just look at all the coverage we already have from just the one page removal[1][2][3][4]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't apply precedent to a situation that is unprecedented. This is literally the first time that WMF has blanked a page at a government's demand. At this time IMO we're just assuming that the court remains technically inept at enforcing their own contempt orders (like this other editor said). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it is, but the discussion in which people listed precedents (which I believe were all either pre-2020 or on other language wikis... There was a French pornography house) was I think on the now vanished talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pppery listed a list of office actions for en-wiki on their t/p; it might be useful. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs at fr.wiki. fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/juin 2024#Suite concernant les deux suppressions juridiques effectuées par la Fondation Wikimedia sur fr-WP is WMF's statement; I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they had posted the original in English, which was machine translated to French and posted. Because now I'm reading a machine translation back to English, which ain't good. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did they actually remove the articles in those cases? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no publishing restrictions on The Signpost and I have no reason to believe that there will be. However, the Wikimedia community is discussing the possibility of such a thing happening.

The Wikimedia Foundation has restricted Wikipedia from publishing an article about the lawsuit. Questions:

1. To what extent does the Wikimedia Foundation restrict The Signpost from publishing journalism about the lawsuit?
2. To what extent does the Wikimedia Foundation restrict Wikimedia community discussion in the Wikimedia platform about the lawsuit?

I anticipate that the answer to both of those is "not all all, and the Wikimedia Foundation encourages the Wikimedia community to set its own ethical and social governance principles", but because the issue is being raised, I wrote to WMF legal yesterday asking for clarification. I woke up this morning thinking more that it would be better to share that I asked the question at all.

If need be, The Signpost team can migrate the publication off-wiki to an independent platform, and the Wikimedia community can practice independent journalism. Right now there is no reason to do this, as the Wikimedia Foundation has always protected and encouraged The Signpost's community journalism. If anyone ever feels a Wikimedia Foundation restriction on The Signpost, then please call it out and share it, but personally, I have never felt anything but support. (Aside, I always have wished for more WMF transparency and access to information as it is challenging for journalists to get access to information, but I do not see journalist restriction on journalist values.)

As stated above, JPxG has an alternative publication methodology planned for The Signpost. I hope that there is no need to migrate off-wiki. I really do not want to encounter any friction with WMF legal efforts in India, which I support. I believe that the WMF legal team completely supports The Signpost mission. I simply am unsure of what the lawsuit means for Signpost journalistic freedom.

Thanks @Elli, Bri, Josve05a, Sawyer777, TrangaBellam, Horse Eye's Back, and Silver seren: for commenting on this issue. Please remain present. Let's all support free journalism, the WMF legal team, and Wikimedia community ethics and values. I am sure that none of these are in conflict, but sometimes it happens that legal teams are under pressure to make odd requests. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed with routine journalism Right now this is my recommendation. JPxG as editor-in-chief may share their views. The Signpost organizes Wikipedia volunteer editors to produce and publish journalism. Right now, please help to recruit more contributors to produce journalism in any of the suggested format types listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. If you need assistance, then please message here. It would be very helpful to have multiple diverse Wikimedia community perspectives, including journalism reporting facts, opinions and editorials, reviews of comparable situations, and statements of our values.

If anyone needs editorial support then you can message here, email me, or also connect with me to talk by voice or video to get you started. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I saw your very rough draft at from the editor (next issue) and I disagree with some of it. First we should realize that we are NOT a newsletter! The connotation of a newsletter is something planned by some boss to get out the organization's semi-official news out, organized by the boss's secretary who farms out the writing assignments to the officially trusted folks who will give the official story in a down-home folksy manner. That's not us, we're newspaper. We've been a newspaper since the 2nd paragraph of the 1st issue (right after Welcome!) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/From the editor

"The name, The Wikipedia Signpost, was chosen to be like the name of a newspaper, since a newspaper is what I would call this project. Though it will almost certainly never appear on newsprint paper, it will nevertheless take on this role for our community. It should have some resemblance to the other newspapers you may happen to read in the course of your life (which I venture to guess many of you read online anyway, rather than the paper copy)."

So let's call it what it is: a newspaper.

There's also the material about nobody ever trying to censor us. Unfortunately there used to be something of a minor tradition of admins or other bigwigs coming into the newsroom and telling us what we should or could or couldn't publish. I've even seen cases of pre-publication censorship (I won't be able to link to most of these but see Itm in late December 2020 for one). It's not the WMF who did this, though I've seen a mild suggestion or two and one expression telling me they thought I was flat out wrong (all fair enough). We're an independent newspaper so I think the E-i-C's job on this is to start out trying to smooth out ruffled feathers at first, while gently showing the intruders the door, but vigorously defending the journalists' right to publish what they and the E-i-C think is proper. It's not that we are above WP rules, just like any journalists we have to follow the law of the community we live in, but that we don't have to follow the whims of the bigwigs, nor meet special requirements made up just for us.

I think of The Signpost as being something like a small town newspaper, with say a target audience of about 3,000 people, all living near a major amusement park, where most of them work, located just off the exit of the main branch of the information superhighway. We may not know all the inhabitants, but we almost surely know somebody who knows somebody who knows anybody we can name. Our "police reporter" (if we had one) might have a brother or a couple of uncles on the force, so we can't be purely objective on every story, but bringing in outsiders who don't know the town wouldn't work too well either. We just do the best job we can, and call 'em as we see 'em..

What does this have to do with Indian courts? Well, sometimes strangers wander into town and don't know our small town customs, but we should make an effort to AGF. We don't have to follow what the state governor (initials W.M.F.) says we should do, but at least in the short term they may be in a better place to handle it. Moving our printing press out of town might not help much, and would probably just put us in the same position as those woeful people who tried that a decade ago. It's better IMHO that we stay in the community to try to serve it, rather than just hurl insults and try to tell the townfolks what to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the stuff I said at the VPWMF thread, plus this, basically, jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"we are NOT a newsletter"

We ARE a newsletter (i.e. a small publication focusing mainly on the activities of an organization and its members [5]). That doesn't mean we cannot also have journalistic aspects or that we don't deal in objective reporting, or that we should be censored or that we aren't editorially independent or whatever. The connotation Smallbones wants newsletters to have is his own projection. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough. On the one side I want to support independent discussion and the integrity of The Signpost. On the other hand, a lot of the discussion I see at VP could quickly become essentially bear-baiting. It feels like going around in the dark without knowing what the repercussions are of continuing to discuss the court when they have ordered us not to. And part of what's tough is I don't feel individually compelled to follow the Indian court, but there is potential blowback to the Wikimedia movement, which I am part of and care about. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Please edit. I was just drafting content, because we need a statement. I do not need that "from the editor" piece in my voice, but we do need such a piece. Now is the time to define this publication, so let's be a newspaper. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think my thoughts just above @Bluerasberry:'s should replace his, but it was good getting a few things off my chest. But the tone of my comments would not be good for the "from the editor" article he started. The point is that we can and should maintain "The Signpost's" independence, but we can wait if we want before taking a step that might upset the whole apple cart. Ultimately that decision will be made by Signpost staff, with JPxG having the final decision. There's no point doing something that could cutoff Wikipedia's 3rd largest national group of readers (Indian) from Wikipedia access. It's no secret right now what's going on. Patience can be a good strategy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say we publish as normal. If WMF Office blanks the page, we still have The Signpost mirror. This is very different from pages deleted/blanked by community consensus, or pieces formally retracted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

signpost.news is hosted on Wikimedia servers on wikitech:Portal:Toolforge, as the signpost.news domain just masks over signpost.toolforge.org. Svampesky (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true; that is just a testing server. The actual live application runs on my own webserver. jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from Primefac, probably relevant. SerialNumber54129 10:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the consideration, but the Signpost team and the functionaries are all grown adults, so if we all decide we feel like rolling around wrestling in the mud, I think we are capable of arranging the event on our own. jp×g🗯️ 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from Jimbo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, something reasonable that takes into account all perspectives -- I can see why people demand this guy be gone. jp×g🗯️ 17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_copy_of_WMF-office_protected_page

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is archived on e.g. archive.is Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one might be tempted to say that makes this application of OS policy make less sense. jp×g🗯️ 17:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, i just actually read the article which i hadn't done before for some reason. Probably a good reason to be able to see the content is to ask if it was following P&G and was really content for readers. fiveby(zero) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby, even empty it's gotten tens of thousands of clicks over the past couple weeks. I think readers are interested. I created the article, and when I write I typically do follow P&G as closely as I'm able; what are you questioning re: P&G? Valereee (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that editors might wish to look at the archived content. But we can't really discuss that content, can't see the history or talk page, can't quote any content here. Wouldn't you look skeptically at content generated about some other case if an editor was invested in the outcome? Believe i can say here on WP: the tone of the "Background: WMF" section seems a little off. I really just read citations in WP articles tho, so don't like #2-b, opinion piece cited for fact. Also #3, not sure that should be used at all. General distaste for news and how citations are used. Minor stuff but may appear strange to readers not familiar with WP style, like providing 5 citations for something you don't really need to cite at all. Minor stuff. But i do see how an outsider looking in might have a more critical opinion not really knowing the P&G's and how content is generated. fiveby(zero) 13:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are getting at with Wouldn't you look skeptically at content generated about some other case if an editor was invested in the outcome??

I agree it's hard to write about Wikipedia. So meta. Which is why I moved to article space within, IIRC, hours. So others could help tweak things like tone. Often when I'm first writing an article, citations get added to a sentence because the most recent citation includes a new bit of info but not all the info previously in the sentence. So, yeah, a work in progress.

Won't comment on notnews, as whether this qualifies is probably a matter of opinion. Valereee (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like i'm in any position to say it if i am getting at something. Didn't edit the article but added a link to a news article on the talk page about hostage taking laws because i happened to like the content. Perhaps "take a critical look" would have been better wording than "look skeptically". That critical look is the only way to say with confidence that there were no or just minor P&G issues with the article. fiveby(zero) 14:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I'm not invested in the outcome of the case. I don't think I'd ever heard of ANI before this brouhaha. Made my first edit there October 10. So I'm not one of the editors ANI is asking for PII on. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a Q&A style section of our writeup on this that would cover:

• What is the Delhi High Court
  • What is its jurisdiction
  • Can it be appealed
  • How do its judges gain office there
• Who is seeking Wikipedia content change (blanking/deletion) and to what end
  • Is the court an independent actor themselves, specificaly wrt contemptuous language about the court
    • If this applies, what kind of language is likely to trigger blanking/deletion demands
  • Exactly what pages (or suite of pages?) are subject to blanking/deletion
  • Also, in what language editions
  • What is the potential and likely duration of blanking/deletion
• Who is seeking Wikipedia editor information from WMF and to what end
  • What kind of editor information does WMF hold, and for how long
  • Editing what page or pages would put an editor in the class of editors whose information is demanded
• How does contempt of court differ in India from other countries with English law tradition
  • What would lead one to think a court order may extend to a non party to the WMF/ANI case, especially if the non party is not an India resident or corporation
• What is at stake for non compliance with this court
  • Does WMF have offices there
  • Does WMF derive significant revenue from Indian sources
  • Is a full WP ban likely or even possible, in case of non compliance

☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I have some draft answers at User:Bluerasberry/ANI FAQ. I did not answer some of your questions because they were hard, and because I thought that perhaps you had some answers in mind. Can you suggest a column type for a Q&A? There are lots of options. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest alignment I see at the Signpost content guidance page is In Focus: Usually a submission from a Wikipedia editor or group of editors that focuses on a current specific feature or process of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or concern of the editors that does not fit into Op-Ed, Special Report, or any other regular rubric. "Process or concern of interest" sounds about right to me... ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did a quick read of the In Focus, and I like it. One thing I'd recommend spending a little more effort on -- what is sub judice in non-US jurisdictions and how does it work, maybe contrast to the US protocol where the First Amendment pertains, most especially to the press and other third parties. Does this imply that court ordered speech restrictions come in two flavors a) one that is permanent as the result of the plaintiff's claims of harm b) one that is temporary for the duration of the lawsuit? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too late, can we somewhere describe the difference between the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court? It seems that the Delhi High Court is somewhat analagous to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the United States, this would be good to point out if it is true. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where I should note this, but the draft at [6] was just wrong. It's not the blanked page that the courts are asking for information on the editors. It's the ANI article. Those are two different articles. I wanted to at minimum make sure we weren't posting something that is completely incorrect. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thanks and yes. I have a more detailed story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. Are you available to check that? My intent was to tell a story for a general audience including non-Wikipedians and journalists, which they could understand and use for their own storytelling. That version distinguishes between the two articles and the differing challenges to each. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure this is a great idea, but I've edited. Valereee (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an editorial there, promoting the views of Wikipedia editors, to an audience of Wikipedia editors. Is there a separate news story? Oh i see it, right below. fiveby(zero) 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ANI v. WP", "in the usual way, brief". Lists threads and pages which may be of interest, and pulls out the statement. But it doesn't really attempt to summarize any of the information, to allow the reader to quickly get pertinent information with a "brief" reading.

"Wikipedia editors face defamation accusation", a section named "In focus" would imply to me more in depth-coverage, still mostly informational content with probably some "news analysis", but not editorializing. A "narrative for non-Wikipedians and journalists", it seems that most journalists outside India are not really interested. I would title the current item here "To Journalists in India: an appeal from Wikipedia Editors".

Wikipedians, non-Wikipedians, and journalists all need much of the same informational content. I don't think either of the current articles do a very good job at providing that information. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: thanks for the edits, thanks a lot, really. @Fiveby: I might not be able to do a good job, but I am trying to be satisfactory and either be the best in The Signpost, or attract anyone else to Signpost to do a better job. If you have constructive criticism or can make edits yourself then advise. Also, check out other drafts in the next issue and see if you can critique. Thanks a lot for the feedback, please keep it coming. I will write more tomorrow. Weekend deadline. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the headline needs to emphasize about WMF agreeing to provide user data to Indian Courts rather than something more generic like "More ANI vs WMF, this time as questions and answers". TrangaBellam (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposal for ways in which we report this story:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes - news coverage in the usual way, brief
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus - 1500 word narrative for non-Wikipedians and journalists Q&A
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editor - I think the important thing to emphasize here might be editorial independence. Confirm that The Signpost does not need or seek permission from the WMF/WMF legal/the WMF board, and that the WMF encourages The Signpost's editorial independence.
• [[7]] moved, 1500 word narrative
• Community view - an editor in India is drafting a submission about the state of the regional wiki community

other ideas:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Technology_report - could be about WP:BLACKLOCK, IP masking. This could be the place to report other blacklock usage from other languages
• (any format) - overview on the state of Wikipedia in India, including links to mailing list and feeds, something about grants and funding, list of Wikimedia community organizations, and notice of WikiConference India 2025

I am still interested in writing more. I greatly appreciate anyone's feedback and guidance. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

updated a bit Bluerasberry (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Garcetti, US Ambassador to India
  • https://www.ericgarcetti.com/contact-us
• Delhi High Court
  • https://newdelhi.dcourts.gov.in/contact-us/
• Embassy of India, Washington, D.C.
  • https://www.indianembassyusa.gov.in/pages/MjA
• Asian News International
  • https://www.aninews.in/contact-us/

I am not yet sure what I want to ask. Any ideas? Bluerasberry (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the involved Judges — or someone else from the High Court — will give you a byte? Also, the Embassy, huh?!

Barring ANI, nothing makes sense in this list. And even in the case of ANI, contacting them will only serve to provoke them. I appreciate Signpost but nobody outside WP has any interest in understanding (and appreciating) Signpost's journalism. I also fear that engaging in journalism like this will affect WMF's claims in Court about being a content aggregator, etc.

So, I suggest that contacting some good academic scholar of Indian free speech jurisprudence — Gautam Bhatia (lawyer) and the likes — might be a more productive axis to move along. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction: The diplomats will reply with 'no comments' in a diplomatic manner. The High Court would go something like 'are you serious now? sub judice, round 2? let's go'. ANI being a party to the case would also not comment, unless their legal team allows it. – robertsky (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: You make it sound like those responses would be a bad thing, and fruitless. I disagree. Even a non-comment on record is better than speculation about what each side is up to. I laid out the Q&A above because this thing is so baroque, I'm having trouble with it. And you never know. This might be a diplomat's opportunity to diplomatically tell Indian courts to go piss up a rope when it concerns regulation of U.S. people and entities. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitless, yes. A bad thing? Honestly I didn't think much when I wrote the above comment, in fact, nothing at all. A passing jib, if you may. If you want diplomats to stir the nest, I won't look at United States since the nation has to contend with the upcoming elections. The government and diplomatic corp wouldn't want to rock the boat too much on the international front when it is clear that there is going to be a transition in leadership at the top, be it either way. (Canada is another matter though, if at least one of the three editors turns out to be a Canadian.) – robertsky (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think including a satirical song about the ANI court case is a very bad idea. I understand the reasons for including it in News and Notes, but the Humour seems like it could easily be interpreted as mocking the court, which does not sound like a good idea. IANAL, but I don't think we should post that Humour page. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've already communicated similar concerns to JPxG for him to evaluate. It also might be a copyright violation [8]. Svampesky (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that this is a copyright issue, but at any rate it seems highly inadvisable. Firstly, as it includes stuff written in a language the author does not speak, aimed derisively towards people who do speak said language. Secondly, as it involves AI in some way, which means that it will cause people to mald -- nay, to norwood -- if it is published. Thirdly, because it seems to be a deliberate attempt at provocation that does not bring any useful benefit to us -- if this gets deleted, which it obviously will, and I am forced to come up with some convoluted way of hosting it offwiki (a thing which we have never actually done before), the person who gets nasty letters and an ANI thread over it is me, which I am willing to do for reporting that actually serves the public interest, and maybe even for a joke that is funny, but this is neither of those things. jp×g🗯️ 17:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is a very serious matter. It is contrary to Wikimedia positions on human rights, freedom of the press, and access to knowledge. The Indian courts are incorrectly treating censorship lightly in this matter. It may not be authoritarian or fascist in this case, but it is an error, an encroachment of community rights, contrary to Wikimedia values, and encouraging to any authoritarian, fascist, or ill-meaning others who now have an example which demonstrates success in censoring Wikipedia.

One correct reaction to this kind of oppression is humor. The correct kind of humor may not be the humor that I demonstrated from AI, but humor is an appropriate response.

The worst possible response is lack of reaction. @QuicoleJR and Svampesky: for the reasons you state, my attempt at humor missed the mark, but please support the use of humor and invite other kinds of responses to censorship. Please help by soliciting other kinds of responses as you can. If you can imagine any kind of humorous response which you could support, then describe it to the extent of your ability. I am doing what I can to recruit other contributors to this next issue, and I take the censorship very seriously. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I like the current content on the Humor page. I think it is an effective way to poke fun at the court order without causing any major problems, and it is also pretty funny. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• feedback about humor from editor in India: use humor that has the Wikimedia community poking fun at both the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Indian courts. This clarifies that Wikimedia community and Wikimedia Foundation are not the same. Also it raises light that the Wikimedia community in India has serious complaints about Wikimedia Foundation and has its own set of unanswered requests, which the Wikimedia community supports. Among the complaints: Wikimedians in India want the Wikimedia Foundation to not encroach in community growth in India, and to leave the community in India to speak for itself rather than relying on WMF for statements to media, etc. Having a humorous statement from someone outside of India can be ideal because people in India may not feel comfortable using humor, even if they want to do so, but people in India would give feedback and comments if asked. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Idea: That Ambox is humorous. Run that instead, and change the newsroom discussion link to take out the link to this section, making it general. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, that notice was quite funny. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the various issues that've been raised is for someone to contact the WMF directly to clarify what The Signpost can and can't/shouldn't publish on WMF servers (either by email or on a public forum), and if publishing off-site is allowed, as it will still be under the Signpost/Wikipedia/Wikimedia branding. Svampesky (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, we should operate as normal. Until and unless WMF Office takes an official Office action, it's both the simplest and most straightforward thing to do. And if it does take action, WMF has absolutely zero say on what happens off site, and we can just keep the story on the Signpost mirror. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that JPxG consult with the WMF and keep them updated on the next issue drafts before publication, especially if this could potentially escalate into a legal matter. I don't know how the WMF should be contacted for these kind of potential legal matters, but I assume JPxG is already familiar with the process. Who actually owns the Signpost branding, and would it count as an extension of Wikimedia to publish it off-site under this branding (in a legal context)? Svampesky (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend that JPxG go around and ask if anybody wants to censor us. If they have any recommendations they can come to us. I certainly wouldn't recommend that he submit stories for pre-publication approval/censorship. If they want or need to censor us - that's up to them. But submitting to it as if we are their employees or serfs would be way over the line. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns the Signpost branding, and the WMF has zero say in what the community does, both on and off wiki. The only time the WMF has "a say" in anything is when it is legally required by law/courts to do something, as described in WP:OFFICE. And, unless the Signpost engages in copyright violations, systematic harassment, other forms of unprotected speech (privacy violations, defamation, etc...), or dumb-ass trollery (like re-publishing the contents of the WMF-blanked page), the WMF will have no business interfering with anything we do, unless ordered by courts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no option to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation @Svampesky: It would be a huge help if you could author a submission which described how you imagine The Signpost could contact the Wikimedia Foundation, what sort of support you imagine they would consider offering, and how you imagine this relationship works.

In my view, a major reason why this censorship is happening at all is because the court in India - and much of the world - incorrectly assumes that the Wikimedia Foundation has editorial input and interaction with the content on Wikipedia. I would like to address this notion intensely and directly in the next issues of The Signpost. The reality that is see is that Wikimedia community members - including our on-wiki roles for administrators, stewards, checkusers, bureaucrats, Arbitration Committee members, and our off-wiki roles for Wikimedia chapters, outreach coordinators, grant recipients, and the rest - all completely lack any relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation which involves editorial oversight or advice.

Svampesky, you are not wrong for asking, but please sound any alarms you can find and call over anyone in authority whom you believe may see otherwise. Not only is there no editorial relationship between community journalism like The Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation, but also, it is fundamental to Wikimedia community values and journalistic ethics that there never be any such relationship.

A great line of discourse to explore is the extent of the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment to hosting community journalism. The Signpost advocates for the Wikimedia community of editors and the users, whereas the Wikimedia Foundation has another mission, other values, and other priorities. The two are not the same. I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation's values include a commitment to hosting The Signpost in the Wikipedia platform, but that could be explored and discussed.

Svampesky - to be clear - I am unaware of anyone in the Wikimedia community with whom the Wikimedia Foundation would be willing to discuss the topic you raise. I do not think any such person or role exists. I think it is a misunderstanding to imagine that the Wikimedia Foundation would agree to discuss the topic you raise with the Wikimedia community. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the single-sentence response to your comment, but my recommendation is that JPxG email the appropriate WMF staff member to ensure that anything published on its servers won't violate the court order. Svampesky (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky and Bluerasberry:. We're supposed to be covering these folks - reporting on what they do wrong as well as what they do right. This includes WMF employees such as folks in communications, legal, on the board, even the ceo. And it also applies to admins and arbs. Feel free to ask these folks about facts (try not to ask about things that you *know* that they can't answer or ask about very time consuming but trival matters - you'll have to sometimes ask about serious matters and they should be able to take you seriously). It's quite natural to communicate with them, but it's absolutely wrong to ask around to see if they want to censor you. @JPxG: seems to be handling this very well. Trust him. Ask him questions (usually in private if they are very serious) or ask your Signpost colleagues. But never ask around to see if somebody wants to censor you - on any important story somebody will - and then you put your self and The Signpost in a false position if you and the E-I-C decide it needs to be published. You'll have some input, but ultimately it is not your call. Your call is to find the facts, triple check them, find out the E-i-C's view on sensitive stories, and write it up to publish if they want it. We usually want all the factual stories we can get, but some stories can have unintended consequences if we publish. That is the E-i-C's call. And never ask anybody to censor you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just slightly surprised (!) but it looks like we have a "From the editors" article that I can support. Of course I made a few changes, but it doesn't change the meaning. @Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: and those who have contributed here before (all 579 or so), please sign on as authors. And it should be "From the editors" not "From the editor". And @Blue Rasberry: could you change the illustration to read "Editing Wikipedia (line break) should not be a crime"? Perhaps one point where people might disagree with me - I've just avoided using the word "right" as in "God-given right" or "Natural right". I do believe in "natural rights" in a very simple way - if I got to do something to protect my life (or things needed to protect my life like communicating freely), I'm going to do it and everybody who disagrees better step back. The same as I reserve my ability to do this, I should respect others who do the same. Sometimes people who throw around the word "rights" tend to get away from the basics. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good "from the..." piece, and I signed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, @Smallbones, @Bri: Now that revisions of the Technology report have been suppressed and the image removed by an Oversighter, the line We have been an independent newspaper for almost two decades should probably be slightly amended to something like We have been an independent newspaper for almost two decades; but we are limited to English Wikipedia policies while we are hosted on the site. This will explain to the reader why The Signpost isn't allowed to report on some things, so we don't get accused of censorship. Svampesky (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since many of us are U.S. based, I think it would be a really Good Thing to finish publication before the 2024 United States elections happening on Tuesday. There's going to be plenty of distraction then, and potentially a push to include more timely content that would end up delaying publication. @JPxG: what do you say? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am keen on publishing this weekend before the US elections. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not JPxG, but I concur heartily with Bri. If we have 4 or more articles in a fairly complete state by Friday, we should publish what we have by Sunday night. There's always some excuse not to publish on deadline, but let's make an absolute commitment to publish by noon Monday, come hell or high water. It looks like we'll have more than 3 articles ready, but if not - we just don't publish until the next Sunday. Dragging it out never works. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night shift has got my clock cycles confused, and I was going to copyedit everything today, but my landlord showed up with a guy to install a new dryer vent with no warning directly the fuck in the middle of me sleeping a few hours ago, so I am running on about three hours of sleep tonight and I need to leave in a couple hours to go stack damn boxes until 8am again. There is no possible situation where I hit publish in the next three hours, Sunday is the absolute earliest that this can happen -- I am going to try to go back to bed. jp×g🗯️ 00:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be able to provide much in the way of usefulness today. I cannot go into further detail. I will try to look over and give feedback during my shift. jp×g🗯️ 17:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am approximately done with my submissions but not in a rush to get this published, although sooner is better. I prefer to wait until we have reasonable editorial process complete. I take responsibility for my own submissions, but take some time to sleep and be a biological creature. Publishing in a few days would not be a tragedy or untimely, even if that US presidential election is going to be a major distraction. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined not to include in this issue a community ban of a 10+ year editor, that resulted from bad behavior at RfAs. It doesn't seem to be related to the new elections process, just everyday bad behavior. Bringing it up here in case it merits more discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this, I would oppose reporting on editors who have been community banned. Since they won't have the opportunity to respond, and reaching out to them for comment and publishing that comment could be seen as The Signpost undermining the community's decision. If they have been blocked for a week, then I wouldn't oppose as long as it's published after their block has ended. These are my initial thoughts, and would participate in a wider discussion about how The Signpost should handle this in the future. Svampesky (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were several "#19"s in the TOP25 report which obviously goes to 10 in our slimmed-down edition. I've done my best rewording it, not wanting to give either candidate undue attention or criticism but I'm stuck on the last one. I would have said "if the former President is returned to office" instead of in the case of #19 winning the election – but this undermines the author's thesis that a new era of American fascism would result were he elected next week, which kind of makes it look like we don't know that he was already president for four years. Anyway. Go for it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here, the writing deadline has passed for this issue, and major new content should not be coming in at this point, in order to stay on schedule. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Bri, Blue Rasberry, and HaeB: This issue is a mess so far. I will have about 4 items to put in In the media which will be done by midnight tonight. The rest of the issue has a split personality problem. There's no consensus among Signpost staffers what to do about the Indian situation, BR is ploughing straight ahead with a no holds barred condemnation, JPxG seems to agree that Jimbo has the right idea and we should be non-confrontational (but still mention the problem briefly on our own initiative). I'm going to recheck my understanding by rereading the above discussions and getting back. But without hearing any guidance from the E-I-C, I'll be tempted to remove at least half of the more confrontational material tomorrow morning to make sure that we have some issue that could be published without contradicting ourselves, and replace at least some of the removed material with new stuff. Let's get our act together here! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reread all the discussion above (since the last issue) and my understanding of our individual POVs remains. They are essentially contradictory. I do think @JPxG: does need to clearly state how he intends us to put out a non-self-contradictory issue. Key issue: confrontational or non-confrontational. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I will finish my editing by end of day today. My approach is no negativity and no attacks, but yes, I am making the case that Wikipedia editors are not to be attacked by corporations and yes Wikipedia is not to be censored. If I say "do not attack Wikipedia", then no one should take that as personal condemnation. I will check the text and yes please, I would greatly appreciate you double-checking it for tone in the way you describe tomorrow morning. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/From_the_editor ready for copyedit and sanity check

I need more time for the rest, will be on it Sat 2 Nov morning till done. I know it is urgent. I am up to date on the story and just want to close out what I started. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Technology_report ready for copyedit Bluerasberry (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I wasn't planning to be involved in this issue (apart from doing the socials after publication, as always). However, if we need to fall back to the kind of EiC absence procedures that were already used a couple of times in the last few years in order to get a delayed issue over the finish line (with e.g. Bri taking on the responsibility again to enact the final button press and run the publication script, as he already did several times over the last two years), I could conceivably chip in a bit by reviewing and approving locum tenens some of the sections without original India-related reporting, namely ITM, Gallery and Traffic report. (Generally, in such cases that should IMO be done by longtime Signpost team members who were ideally not involved with the story in question or are at least not on the byline.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, I plan to provide more detailed feedback later since I didn't contribute any writing to this issue. My initial concern is with the From the editor column, which includes an image that says, "Editing Wikipedia is not a crime." This misrepresents the current situation. While editing Wikipedia isn't illegal, the case is about allegations of defamation; which would be a crime. I want to clarify that I'm not expressing an opinion on whether defamation occurred because I'm not fully familiar with the details of the case, the Indian legal system, or Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Svampesky (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: Great feedback. Would you be more comfortable if this moved from "from the editor" to an op-ed from me, or some other kind of section heading?

I interpret the Wikipedia community discussion as consensus that there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the Wikipedia editing which happened in that article. It is maximally examined, and that examination produced no outstanding complaints about the Wikipedia editorial process or its outputs. I am reading the room, and if there is defamation in this article, then my interpretation is that the accusation is that Wikipedia's process of summarizing and citing third-party reliable journalism is fundamentally defamation. I am calling that out as an error, and in that context, "Editing Wikipedia is not a crime". There is such a thing as shared objective truth and it is okay for us to interpret that. I see no complexity in this evaluation. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rephrasing it to something like, referencing independent sources is not a crime, without using the word reliable. The reliability of sources used on Wikipedia is determined internally by its contributors, which means that just because Wikipedia considers a source reliable, it doesn't mean it's objectively reliable outside of Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my comment, as repeating a defamatory statement is considered a crime (even if done accidentally) in some places, and I'm not sure about the specifics of the ongoing case. Svampesky (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: I am quite ignorant. I do not know what legal consequences there may be to my journalism. I take responsibility for this; this is not on you. Whether you read the text in this link or not, do you have any comment on me attempting to post the defamatory statements here, which I did?

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_focus

There is a specific question and answer there about "what is the defamatory text". Bluerasberry (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in legal matters—and this shouldn't be read as scaremongering—but my advice is to proceed with absolute caution. From what I understand, the court in India ordered the takedown of a page published on the website ‘Wikipedia’ which discussed the case File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf, and the Wikimedia Foundation complied. In my non-expert opinion, this appears to function like a cease-and-desist order against discussing the case on Wikimedia servers. If you were to republish details about the case, on Wikimedia servers, it might constitute a violation of this 'cease-and-desist' and could result in you becoming a party to the case. Svampesky (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: I do not have access to a lawyer and my role here is as volunteer Wikipedia journalist. I certainly do not want to harm the Wikipedia community, The Signpost, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Speaking for myself, I am a white United States male who researches Wikipedia professionally at a university. I am exactly the kind of person who is ideal to take the risk of being a target for a lawsuit. It has become apparent to me in talking with editors in India that they are highly fearful to comment on this case or express themselves openly. My fellow editors in the United States also wish to avoid being targeted in a lawsuit. I do not have personal finances to address a lawsuit, but I am better positioned than most people to receive wiki criticism because I already routinely experience insane Wikipedia stalking as an organizer for WikiConference North America, LGBTQ and Wikipedia and Wikimedia community outreach through Wikimedia New York City and similar. I do not want harassment but I am simply better positioned than a lot of other people to speak for Wikimedia community interests in The Signpost. Among other protections, I have a mental health counselor whom I meet regularly and with whom I discuss only Wikimedia harassment. Counseling is a necessary expense of being a Wikipedian in residence. I can carry journalism and messages to publication as an editor for other Wikipedians who cannot take such risks. I appreciate and accept your concern.

I welcome and invite the Wikimedia Foundation to delete any of this journalism if it is inappropriate. As I said in the editorial I wrote, neither I nor anyone I know has a communication channel to ask if our host might need to censor this story. I mean well in writing it and am not trying to be provocative or confrontational. This is just journalism that needs to happen. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does I am a white United States male who researches Wikipedia professionally at a university. I am exactly the kind of person who is ideal to take the risk of being a target for a lawsuit have any relevance to this discussion? Nonetheless, as this involves active litigation, my advice is to exercise extreme caution. There is no deadline, and The Signpost can always report about it—on Wikimedia servers—after the case has concluded. Svampesky (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that I hope my pre-publication feedback helps to avoid any Wikimedia harassment, as the concerns I've mentioned might've been widely discussed in the comment sections once they're published. Svampesky (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: Yes, right, if this case were the target of a lawsuit, the subject of newspaper journalism, or some student's thesis in anthropology, then our dialogue would be studied and considered as representative of the usual Wikipedia editorial diligence.

Ah, women are super harassed and stalked for being public figures in Wikipedia. Non-white people in the United States who are public spokespeople for Wikipedia get extra criticism. As an American, I am in a World Bank high-income economy so I am surrounded by social and technical infrastructure which makes countless positive things happen to me without me trying get them. In contrast many Indian people are in a LMIC, so for example, they typically do not have random stranger professionals familiar with technology conflict who come to them with solutions. Those people spontaneously contact me. There are 1000 things that can go wrong with posting journalism here and a major part of success which resolves 100s of those problems is simply my demographic. My dharma is to play this role into which I was born.

For example, a woman could do this of course, but she absolutely would face sexual and gender based harassment for publishing the same content which I am submitting. A person in India could have done it, but they would be much more likely to be a lawsuit target. I do not exactly want to be the center of all this but I am looking around, wondering who can do this, and just feeling like "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world". Bluerasberry (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I wasn't talking about cyber-stalking or harassment, I'm talking about the court order. If the court ordered a takedown of a page published on the website ‘Wikipedia’ that discussed the case—and the WMF complied—my advice is to not have a new page published on the website ‘Wikipedia’ that discusses the case. I'm saying that if the court becomes aware of this page, I doubt they would check your race, nationality, or gender before considering it a violation of the court order. Svampesky (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: At the behest of Wikipedia editors and Wikimedia community consensus, The Signpost is prepared to leave the Wikimedia platform to publish at https://signpost.news/ which is active right now. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/From_the_editor has details on this. It would change a lot to move The Signpost outside of the Wikimedia platform, and to separate it from Wikimedia content and the Wikimedia community. The option to do so and that working prototype is there to support people in having the conversation about whether to ask The Signpost to leave. It is there to demonstrate that the option to leave is in consideration, and that The Signpost remains here welcome with support from the Wikimedia community. There is no misunderstanding about The Signpost's scope of journalism coverage having an invitation to exist here. There is no standing volunteer community editorial request for The Signpost to leave, or change its scope of journalism. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, it should be made clear that signpost.news is a mirror site set up to pull and display content from Wikipedia URLs with a different web theme. It doesn't host any content itself. I had a look into how signpost.news works and found that it is hosted on Wikimedia servers on wikitech:Portal:Toolforge, as the signpost.news domain just masks over signpost.toolforge.org. Svampesky (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF lawyers are adept in their craft. If they felt any restrictions were necessary, they would let the community know. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the WMF, and its legal department, have shown that they care about the well-being and legal-safety of editors? Svampesky (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes, given that it has a legal defense fund for editors. But it's also a separate issue from your expressed concern, which was regarding a court order to the WMF on taking down certain content. The WMF is responsible for this, and so its lawyers will do what's necessary to protect the WMF's interest, including communicating to the community about any restrictions they feel are necessary. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? The WMF will remove pages due to the court order, but have made it clear that it is not involved in the editorial content on Wikipedia. This means that the WMF won't stop pages that violate the court order from being published on the website ‘Wikipedia’, but they will take them down if requested. As a result, the editors who created the page would become parties to the case for violating the court order. My advice for the past day-or-so has been to contact the WMF for advice to protect editors from this happening. Svampesky (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party can't violate a court order issued to someone else. You have to be issued a court order in order to violate it. Apart from the court order, it's true that a Signpost editor might make an edit in violation of Indian law, and thus become at risk to be identified and served with a court order or prosecuted. I agree editors should take this into consideration when they decide what edits they are willing to make. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt strongly about this issue and I routinely report on Wikimedia issues in India. I am done with major content contributions to this issue. My submissions are marked ready for copyedit. I am at hand for revisions, critiques, and changes. I welcome anyone to edit anything I submitted, including substantially, to get out whatever has Signpost editorial consensus or support as a community view. Here are my submissions-

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus, the Q&A
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report, the prose narrative
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report, review of specific Wikipedia tech which plays into this story
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes, regular column, links to Wikipedia community discussions and WMF statements
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editor, essay on editorial independence and answer to calls that we seek permission from WMF to publish

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed we have another new, unreviewed, review of The Editors at the submissions page. I will format it up, link it from the Article status list, and leave it standing. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is posted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an idiot. This text was included in issue 14. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve mentioned this briefly above, but I recommend amending all text about reliable sources as a factual statement in the upcoming issue, unless it's clear that these sources are only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia is determined by its contributors, so just because the community decides a source is 'reliable', it doesn't mean it's objectively reliable outside of Wikipedia.
The Special report currently reads, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in reliable sources., and should be changed to something like, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in sources the Wikipedia community deems reliable. Svampesky (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: Perhaps, I am open to change, but I am generally resistant to the idea that Wikipedia's editorial process is fringe or that it needs explanation or justification. My belief is that there is a shared objective truth on what constitutes reliability. While there are exceptions and edge cases to anything, Wikipedia's process is not the underdog and there is no need to defend what we do. When the Wikipedia community deems something reliable, that is a reflection of normal global human consensus. BBC is among the challenged sources here, and the other sources seem aligned with BBC reporting. If someone wants to challenge whether BBC is reliable or legitimate journalism, then they are the ones that need to speak up. Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism.

These are not sources "only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community". These sources are the best the world has to offer in terms of journalism, and they are aligned with third party journalism reviews like Poynter Institute evaluation. Right? Am I addressing you entirely and directly? Please tell me more. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism is a stance which I respectfully oppose. From a Google search of 'BBC bias' there are reports being published today—from other sources Wikipedia deems reliable—reporting on accusations of it having a pro-Israel bias. No source is absolutely reliable, and should not be labelled as 'reliable' as a fact. Svampesky (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: I am comfortable with anyone saying that BBC is biased, and that BBC is a bad source. It is still objectively among the very best journalism sources that humanity has produced, and for that reason, it is reliable. Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". No one should expect the term to indicate Platonic ideal or divine transcendence. Yes, BBC is absolutely reliable. It is reliable even if other, similarly reputable reliable sources publish contrary or conflicting claims. Journalism is among the humanities and as such, is achievable. No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement. BBC is objectively reliable journalism because it goes through all the processes and culture of journalism, regardless of any bias it has or its relative quality to any other journalism. Similarly, The Signpost is free to do journalism at the level that Wikipedia volunteers can achieve, because journalism's definition is a social construct designed to be achievable by typical humans doing things. The Signpost has a right to exist as reliable journalism without being a billion-dollar media house like BBC, because journalism is a thing that people do.

Your concerns are valid and I respect you answering the question, but life is for humans to do human activities. The words we use describe human levels of quality and human expectations. I think that you are missing the mark to expect more than more than the human culture of collaboration. I am not willing to take a defensive stand from low-effort, fringe actors saying that the BBC is not legitimate journalism. Without a thorough explanation from the underdog, dismissing BBC and similar is insincere trolling. I commend you for probing this but I think I am solidly aligned with other Wikipedia editors when I say that we are comfortable identifying, summarizing, and citing reliable sources, and there is a shared understanding of what this means that goes beyond only Wikipedia editorial culture. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that a source is reliable, in a factual tone, does suggest it is absolutely reliable. I agree with No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement, which is why The Signpost shouldn't state that sources are 'reliable' in a definitive tone.
If The Signpost is to have a broad reach, it shouldn't write in a tone that would only be understood by Wikipedians, and Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". needs to be clarified in the report to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am persuaded. Let me ponder and revise. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: The article is getting long but I added more at special:diff/1255019412/1255027861. Good journalism is short and concise journalism. I am not achieving that, but there is discussion of reliability in Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but The odd part from a Wikipedia editor perspective is that Asian News International seems more interested in challenging Wikipedia's way of summarizing and citing information from other sources, than it is in challenging the original journalists and news agencies misinterprets how damages would work in a legal setting. There would be more damage from alleged defamatory statements being permanently (re-)published on one of the most-visited websites—as a Wikipedia article serves as a go-to document for the general public about an organization—and less damage from it being published in a news report that people would likely forget by the next day. There is nothing odd about this, and to label it odd is entirely subjective for a news report, and misses this vital context. Svampesky (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: thanks and revised special:diff/1254207882/1254999540 yes, that wording was a poor choice. I also tried to incorporation your reasoning on why this is happening Bluerasberry (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider removing Wikipedia editors do not do original research, but instead they summarize reliable sources while citing those sources, as this is a false statement? Wikipedia editors have, on many occasions, done original research. Svampesky (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y I revised special:diff/1255014430/1255019412 I could go further. I linked to WP:NOR and made the statement less absolute, which is more correct as you say. Speak up if you want me to try to soften more. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: a correction is required on this paragraph: The Signpost made requests to see the deleted text with permission from Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Oversighters, who are moderators with specific and different user permission. Neither of those groups have access because of the black lock. No one in the Wikimedia community has access to the deleted text through the Wikimedia platform.

Oversighters have access to the deleted text. It is just that they are bounded by NDA not to reveal the deleted revisions as communicated in response to your request for a copy of the protected page. As such, there are only 41 Oversighters within the English Wikipedia project have access to the deleted page. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y special:diff/1254963586/1254992526 revised Bluerasberry (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have suppressed the link to the archived copy of the article at archive.today from the signpost report as a precaution - we do not know the exact terms of the legal injunction so it is possible these would breach it. I've asked WMF legal whether the links are OK, and I (or another oversighter) will leave a note here when we get a response, unsuppressing if they say the links are fine. Based on previous interactions a response is likely to take at least a couple of days. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, JPxG, Blue Rasberry, and Bri: I can't speak on this for The Signpost, only JPxG can. We've had some disagreement among Signposters on this and related topics, but I'm happy to say we've made great progress in agreeing to disagree while still getting out an important issue covering a divisive topic. Special thanks to Blue Rasberry on this. You might have seen me flailing about on that article yesterday, not really knowing what to do with the link. I do think it best that I finally just removed the link, and I personally do not object to you oversighting it (on your own initiative), but I hope you withdraw your request to the WMF for input. Just let them do what they think best on their own. I did what I think best. You've done what you think best. After withdrawing your request to the WMF, I suggest that we let things stand as they are now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG is currently busy with off-wiki commitments, but I believe he has been in contact with WMF legal—as this involves active litigation—about what is okay to be published on the website ‘Wikipedia’. This is not about censorship, it's about hosting content on its servers that could damage the case. Svampesky (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After withdrawing your request to the WMF... that makes a rather large assumption that Thryduulf is the only one who is in contact with the WMF about this matter. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I would withdraw the question to WMF legal? Why would we not want to know whether they are happy with such links? Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: if you are happy with how the article stands now, and The Signpost is happy with it, what's to gain by getting WMF legal involved? If for some odd reason, you want to reinstate the link or the history, you should see what @JPxG: thinks. After all, he is the E-i-C and has to approve everything before it is published. If for other reasons, you just want to find out what the WMF thinks about the question, that's up to you - but it doesn't have anything to do with The Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is hosted on WMF servers and it recently took down a page from its servers because of active litigation. Svampesky (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF may say that the link is acceptable, or it might corroborate that removal was appropriate. In the latter case it gives us a precedent for the next time someone (not necessarily a Signpost editor) might post that link. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the former case it means that if someone else posts the link it means we won't need to oversight it. It will also act as a guide if some other article is taken down for legal reasons - while uncommon this is at least the second I know of (the first was years ago and related to something to do with Texas Instruments and trade secrets or something like that, I only remember vaguely). Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had a opportunity more than a week ago. Your comment immediately below mine containing the link included: My comment was primarily because of past issues that the Signpost has had regarding deleted/suppressed information. 08:33, 22 October 2024 11:36, 23 October 2024 Why is oversight appropriate based on who posts the material? fiveby(zero) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the implications of my alter ego, I am human; on the OS thread I saw you were referencing the content but missed the archive-url, and I never looked at the AN thread any further than seeing SN's ping and noticing it was related content. I have now corrected my (lowercase o) oversight. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry and JPxG:

BR: The pic on From the editors was pretty good, but I think the text needs to change to "Editing Wikipedia (line break) Should Not Be a Crime" I really can't make that change myself. My 2nd best choice would be the photo on the right.

JPxG: I'm really with those folks who think that the issue has to come out today. I'll do my best to put everything into publishable form within three hours. Please publish or take charge then. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I called out of work today due to still being sick which means that after I sleep I can publish. Thanks to everyone for working on this issue. jp×g🗯️ 09:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: it looks to me like

• From the editors - is ready to go after a bit of copy editing, replace pic (see above)
• Gallery - is ready to go after a small bit of copy editing
• Humour - just don't publish it, anything else would get very complicated
• In the media - just a bit of CE needed
• News and notes - a key article. Do you want a lede? Milestones needed (or just leave them out)
• Technology report - another key article. Copy editing needed
• Traffic report - CE done, ready to go IMHO
• In focus - copy editing
• Special report - copy editing If and Sr are definitely good articles and I'd hate to remove the hard work of other editors. It is getting a bit repetitive however.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is one of the things I was afraid of, if we missed deadline, and even missed the weekend for publishing. As of about 30 minutes before noon Pacific time Monday, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Results has been posted, and I don't have time during the workweek to do proper analysis at News and notes. I'll just add a quick update to list the new administrators. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: The Signpost newsroom standardizes its timezone to UTC.
When editors post comments saying I'll do x in the morning, it leaves it to others to work out when this morning is. If we standardize to UTC, it would mean that only the person posting would need to check the timezones once, rather than leaving it up to each and every reader of the comment to figure out when things will be done. This can be done either by changing language of the morning task to, for example I'll do x in the evening, or saying I'll do x in the morning (15:00 UTC). Svampesky (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as proposer. Svampesky (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered doing a timezone thing in the template before to show what time it is in various zones, so this would not be hard to do if people wanted it. jp×g🗯️ 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost timezone is UTC+0, like every else on Wikipedia. If someone says "I'll do it in the morning", expect it to be done within more or less 24h, like everywhere else on Wikipedia. We're an international volunteer collaboration, we don't need this level of bureaucracy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I attach a day to a statement I usually specify Pacific time – is the conversion back to UTC onerous? In other words, is conversion from my local time zone an imposition on the reader? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking with an editor over email before posting this because I don't want to waste time with non-issues. I'm raising a concern that using the term Musky as a play on the name of a living person in a disparaging/negative way—I've read as childish-namecalling synonymous with smelly or fishy—might violate the WP:BLP, which applies to all Wikipedia pages. I know I might come across as overly cautious, but this will be an important Signpost issue, especially since the one covers the case in India. I would advise reviewing this. Consider opting for Musk's priorities, as it's more neutral because these BLP and namecalling concerns. Svampesky (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some actual copy editing. JPxG can decide on this as he wishes. But we have an issue to get out. At this point I don't think raising fairly theoretical issues helps toward reaching that goal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: In the section 'What are the demographic details of the journalists writing for The Signpost?', do you know what actual statistics are? We shouldn't sugarcoat it, no matter how negatively it affects our image, and simply state, The Signpost is mainly written by men. We should stick to the facts and have the negative parts about The Signpost, such as disparities, published in The Signpost. As demographic details of editors would fall under WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:PRIVACY, I'm sure you'll err on the side of caution before demographic details published in the report. Svampesky (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the relevance of the section 'What are the demographic details of the journalists writing for The Signpost?' is to the article. Adding more to it would likely subtract from the value of the article as a whole. @Svampesky:, we don't ask for demographic details when somebody submits an article to The Signpost and I think most contributors would consider it intrusive. That said I think I can tell you that my impression is that the demographics of Signpost staffers is similar to English-language Wikipedians as a group. You can try to get those numbers as well as anybody in the newsroom can, but I'll guess: there's a self-selected, self-reported survey of the percent women that's at least 3 years old that was approx. 20% women, 80% men, with the percentage women having increased slightly from 5 years before. The geographic mix, just estimate who you run into while working. It's likely 30-40% North American, 20-25% Brits, 15-20% other Europeans, 5-10% other countries with English as their mother tongue, then a mix of everybody else. But that's just my guess. The Signpost may be geographically more diverse, except for more North Americans. Now is there something you think would "negatively ... affect our image" in that? and how is it related to the article? You should learn to do your own research. We're here to answer people's questions, not just ask provocative questions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn to do your own research. We're here to answer people's questions, not just ask provocative questions. The absurdity is ridiculous. What provocative questions have I asked? The question was asked by Bluerasberry—not by me—and I'm giving him advice, in good faith, on how to answer it for his report. Me and him have been discussing this off-wiki and has asked me to post my concerns for others to see, as he might be too busy before publication to attend to it. And yes, The Signpost being ran by 80% men and only 20% women is objectively a negative thing, as it's a disparity. Svampesky (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Signpost being ran by 80% men and only 20% women is objectively a negative thing"

That's an opinion, not a fact. I don't know what the gender breakdown is for signpost writers is, and I honestly don't care. It's probably around the same as general editorship, which is probably around where we should be. I wouldn't be surprised if some issues were entirely written by men. It would be extremely strange to have a 50-50 writer breakdown when Wikipedia itself is not 50-50. This shouldn't be the goal either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A hyperbole is an exaggerated statement that shouldn't be interpreted literally. Svampesky (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend deleting the demographic section if there is no consensus at this time. The important demographic information which came up for the Asian News International story is that I am not Indian, and we do not have an editor from India on this story. In asking questions about this story, multiple people asked me what I have to do with India, including my nationality. So far I have been unable to recruit a Wikimedian in India to put their name on comments about this case, and my attempts to solicit a story or submission from a Wikimedian in India have been unsuccessful.

My other demographics are only relevant in the context of disclosing more, assuming that I /we need to report the lack of Indian community representation in this story.

In another time, with more preparation, I would be happy to help organize a demographic survey of The Signpost contributors which is a bit more robust and less speculative. There is nothing to hide here, but we do not have verified facts to report, and it would be misleading to report facts anyway without situating them in an appropriate social context to assist readers in interpreting the information.

Some social context for now: the Wikimedia Foundation has historically asked Wikimedia community organizations to do demographic surveys. In my opinion, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been successful in developing tools or processes which community volunteers can do this with satisfactory accuracy or meaning, or to have enough utility for creating standardized data multiple groups could combine to detect broader trends. This is identified as a valid topic of conversation, and it is also difficult even for well-funded researchers to interpret. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Deleted. Any journalist who wants to do an investigation is welcome to organize that and publish in a future issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Times of India
• The Indian Express "Centre issues notice to Wikipedia, asks why it should be treated as intermediary and not publisher"

These are to me the most understandable articles about a new action by "the Centre", but they still don't make a lot of sense. As I understand it a) the government (aka The Centre) believes that the Wikipedia model of individual editors is "dangerous", but that a powerful group (admins?) control what's on Wikipedia, so the WMF is in control of article content, so they lose claims to being just an intermediary, and are open to claims of libel. No that doesn't make any sense to me, but ...

@JPxG, Blue Rasberry, HaeB, and Bri:, I'll put a series of links below for anybody who wants to make sense of it. They are now 10-12 hours old. What to do? Maybe? Just pull all our India related stories - they just don't make sense anymore.

Then publish the 5 or so articles we do have immediately. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several judges in the Delhi court has commented on WP, one of them said "dangerous". Now the government has also commented on WP, but that is a separate (well) issue from what the court says. That's my understanding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think waiting on the India news is the right decision, unless our coverage is hopelessly garbled – and I don't believe that is the case. Better to get what we have in front of the community, to get discussion and awareness going. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this a little harder, are these all based on ANI claiming to have inside information on the matter, without any reference to the supposed government warning letter?? I haven't seen any copy of the letter, and this source does say that it's ANI claiming to have sources. This might all be rehashing a single X post by ANI. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NDTV - standard story, next hearing Wednesday
• M9 news
• Economic Times not much here.
• Business Standard, starting to look like it's all from the same press release. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Hindu a bit different, cites article about [YouTube summary]

@JPxG, Blue Raspberry, HaeB, and Bri:

JPxG I think it is imperative that you make and implement a decision ASAP. I don't disagree with Bri above. I do disagree with doing nothing. One option:Get a 3-4 line notice to put on all India related Signpost articles in this issue, and then publish immediately. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - I looked but couldn't find anybody on Wiki that is discussing the new articles. Maybe it would help to refer to them if they exist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that what we have now is basically defensible, so I am going to publish, although I think next time I am sick and also working I am just going to ask someone else to run it!!! jp×g🗯️ 08:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. Don't know what else to say here. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, great job to everyone who contributed, writing, copyediting, editing, publishing -- everything you do matters, and I think what we put in this issue is something to be proud of, even if as always we think we could do better with more time.

I created my usual feedback link here and noticed that the early feedback is on the "non-core" columns (Humour, Gallery, In focus, Technology report), not sure what that means. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily second @Bri:'s "great job" (above), and I'd like to especially mention @Blue Rasberry:. Quite often the most difficult stories to cover are the most important stories to cover. Congrats to all! Now there is an exploding whale story that's breaking and I'm looking for the right Wikipedia angle for it. But that's really not important. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mention that because you knew it was a Signpost WikiWorld in 2007? Of course, congrats to Lane, who not just put together a lot of really important content from online sources, but did some interviews and made contacts that maybe he'll tell us more about. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I third Bri's "great job". This was a really important issue, and the friction in the newsroom leading up to publication was because of how important it was that The Signpost got this one right. I share the sentiment of Risker's comment, which is why I took a step back. Svampesky (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We might need an Arbitration report in the upcoming issue. Here is the opening statement in a new case request.

There is ongoing coordination of off-wiki editors for the purpose of promoting a pro-Palestinian POV, utilizing a discord group, as well as an EEML-style mailing list (Private Evidence A).

A significant participant in the discord group, as well as the founder of the mailing list (Private Evidence B), is a community banned editor (Private Evidence C), who since being banned has engaged in the harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors (Private Evidence D). This individual has substantial reach (Private Evidence E), and their list appears to have been joined by a substantial number of editors, although I am only confident of the identify of three.

The Discord group was previously public, but has now transitioned to a private form in order to better hide their activities (Private Evidence F). It is not compliant with policy, being used to organize non-ECP editors to make edits within the topic area, some of whom have now become extended-confirmed through these violations. In addition, it is used by the community-banned editor to make edit requests, edit requests that are acted upon (Private Evidence G).

If the arbs accept the case, this means the private evidence was compelling. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly (probably) related: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative this may be about the off-wiki coordination that the case opener refers to. Pirate Wires says In dozens of cases, the group's edits [on ARBPIA articles] account for upwards of 90% of the content on an article, giving them complete control of the topics. I don't think The Signpost has covered this at In the media and it seems newsworthy to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, one of our Signpost pieces is listed in a "to-do list" screenshot included in Pirate Wires. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Please send me a link or the screenshot. You might have noticed that I don't do Israel-Palestine stories. The whole topic is just beyond me, as in I empathize with and disagree with everything all three sides do in the matter. In fact I haven't even figured out who or what the 3 sides are. You're on your own on this! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: See Special:Diff/1253862786 which helps explain the odd namespaces/article histories involved. It's easy to mistake an investigator for part of the TfP group if you don't see this. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ITM item, see also a discussion in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group with some possibly useful context and links (in particular, regarding the paywall, someone noted there that I think you can circumvent the paywall by just using incognito mode and visiting via the Twitter link, but in any case there's a free copy here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BeneiYisraelNews/comments/1gbrqr5/soft_paywall_how_wikipedias_prohamas_editors/ - although the former doesn't seem to work for me).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: there are 5 votes to decline the case and zero to accept. This will certainly get dumped. Still, it might be worth a brief note somewhere that the request happened, and there was a lot of community pushback against a case with so much off-wiki private evidence. Opinions on covering this at News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agrees, seems worth covering with a brief explanation that helps readers understand why it was filed and was (or will likely be) declined. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An open letter has been created regarding the ongoing case in India. It might be worth mentioning in News and Notes if it gets a lot of signatures. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support having this published—either by moving the page to The Signpost or transcluding the page into the report, to avoid having multiple places where people can sign—in 'Community view' with no commentary; just the letter and the signatures, nothing else. Svampesky (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with moving a community page to be part of the Signpost. The letter is not a Signpost initiative. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion with link to sign it is a more appropriate option. Svampesky (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've got 9 days until the next deadline, so we can wait on this to see what happens. The stress of putting out a quality paper every 2-3 weeks is enough for me. At best somebody should just note on a Signpost article talk page that the page exists and link it. I've thought about putting out one "Daily update" page as part of the overall Signpost, but it would be very difficult to do properly and to staff it. Otherwise, wait 9 days! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most signed petition in Wikimedia history is meta:Community_open_letter_on_renaming, barring the Wikimedia Foundation from renaming itself to "Wikipedia". That one has 1015 signatures and ran for months. This petition currently has 930 signatures and has been up a week. It is shaping up to be the strongest community consensus statement yet. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've borrowed the text here by QuicoleJR and Bluerasberry to start an item at News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would I submit an Wikipedia signpost issue, which is specifically a crossword puzzle?I already put my submission on the page. Spongebob796 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2024 (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 fourteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a golden opportunity to include "spinach and llamas" in the blurb. Maybe?? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: Not to be super nit picky, but was "Oh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!" Teri Garr's line in Young Frankenstein, or Madeline Kahn's? Or both? My memory fails me. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan says it first, Garr says it later. igordebraga ≠ 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes, at first I thought it was just Khan, but then a fuzzy memory of the repetition came to mind. Thanks! I need to see that again (and again and again). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: Please consider: regarding this edit, should "the Muslim community" be the only descriptive term for certain voters, used in the most edited articles? Arab Americans are majority Christian. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: For your awareness, this passage has not been changed. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I typically copyedit the traffic report with kevlar gloves on anyway, so this will be addressed. jp×g🗯️ 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted! I really don't want to be the only editor on this. Especially for the "genocide RfC" item, it's hard for me to present some of these issues neutrally. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.factsandlogic.org/wikipedias-anti-israel-bias-undermines-objectivity-and-credibility/ (Facts and Logic About the Middle East, syndicated by Jewish News Syndicate)
• https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ (Aish HaTorah)
• https://www.palestinechronicle.com/after-months-of-debate-wikipedia-describes-israels-war-on-gaza-as-genocide/ (Palestine Chronicle)
• https://www.saba.ye/en/news3393979.htm (Yemen News Agency aka SABA)
• "Wikipedia officially adds 'Gaza Genocide' to list of genocide page" The Siasat Daily

I'm dumping some links here for people to consider whether they belong in the upcoming issue. These came up in a Google News search. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved. Unreserved. Svampesky (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: Thanks for contributing. Please be advised the writing deadline is less than 30 hours from now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy with IRL commitments, but I had reserved the column for someone else, who has since withdrawn their submission. Svampesky (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing deadline is in about 30 minutes. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little thin for this issue, although publishable. I have some dust bunnies I can put into an Opinion or Humour, which gives us what, five or six? jp×g🗯️ 07:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a submission. jp×g🗯️ 07:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back in a few hours and able to run. jp×g🗯️ 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, there is a big goofy thing about the joke column. I think it is condign that, if stuff is submitted after the writing deadline and tehre is disagreement about it in the newsroom, the issue cannot be held up on its account, and we can sort it out afterwards. jp×g🗯️ 23:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this should be enough content to publish already. However, ITM and N&N still need quite a bit of polishing and fleshing out (or removal) some of some placeholders (Soni just added a few to N&N). As mentioned above, I'm also working on RR and should have it in publishable form by the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've had very little progress since on ITM and N&N - I would encourage anyone interested to just jump in and spend a bit of times to resolve some of the open items (most are clearly marked). My ETA re RR is now in about 4 hours from now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took some lunch hour to close out the sections best I could. Possibly ready to publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re [9] another reporter pinged WMF but I'll assume there was no reply. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that HaeB declared RR ready "if need be", and I made a copyedit pass. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, or perhaps be made into an opinion page with a ton of additional work. There is no humor in this, not one line that I could see. It's about a real article and real criticisms of the article. If I could make any sense of this, it might be simply the author's misunderstanding of how science works, but in any case it's not humor. @HaeB, Bri, and Svampesky: can anybody find 1 line here that is funny? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it shouldn't be submitted as an opinion piece since it's not my opinion. Secondly, it's not a critique of the article itself; it's directed at those who voted to delete it, in a non-offensive manner. In any case, I'm really busy, so there's my submission, and it's up to @JPxG whether he wants to publish it or not. The attempted humor is that its written as a tabloid-style exposé screed. Svampesky (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a real article, yes—it's submitted to be published to a newspaper, a publication which covers current events. The humor column of a newspaper should cover news events in a humorous way. Svampesky (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to take some time to look at this. It was confusing to get to the point where I realized that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity is not a joke. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a workday so I can't spend too much time on this. But I think Smallbones has a point. Either it should be a humorous article about a fictional situation, or an opinion article about a real situation. This straddles the fence and it leaves this reader uncomfortable. It also opens questions about what our editorial stance should be vis-a-vis US politics and "anti truth" matters, but that's probably another discussion.

Final edit on this (I hope): Just to make my position clear, I think this could be a publishable Opinion article, but it needs to be clear that the AfD and PRODs really happened. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, but this should not be published as an opinion piece. Let me clarify that the content doesn't reflect my position—I don't think it's worrying that scientific consensus dominates Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still puzzling over how to present this. Especially since the POV in the article it is explicitly not Svampesky's opinion. Would it help to have an obviously fictional author name in the byline, linked to User:Svampesky? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind having my name in the byline, as long as it's published in the humor column. When someone tells a joke, it doesn't mean it reflects their POV. Svampesky (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't write about a real world situation with 2 groups of people who seem to be acting in good faith and just make stuff up about them. For one, at least one of the groups will say that you are just making stuff up about them. You can't just lie about your fellow editors. And your response will be "It's just humor"? They'll likely respond "where's the humor?" So I'll repeat my question now so you don't have to answer it again. "Can anybody show me 1 line in there that's funny?" You are right about one thing, @JPxG: can decide whether to publish it. There's no reason to discuss it further. If he does clear it for publication, both of you will be facing a "mob with pitchforks". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humor plus inferred connections to U.S. politics. What could possibly go wrong? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of connecting it to American politics. I only wrote it because the issue seemed thin on the ground. I'm still struggling to see any connection, but if that's the case, publishing a humor column from the POV of those who are angry that scientific consensus dominates Wikipedia might be a current thing to joke about. Svampesky (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Svampesky, Smallbones, and Bri: As this was submitted past the deadline, publishing it would require resolving disagreements between multiple people and iterating over copyedits, and we are currently looking at a potentially historic actual on-time release of a Signpost issue, I am going to postpone this. jp×g🗯️ 23:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 published, on time somehow. It is a bit thin, and I am chafed that I did not have time to throw my epic musings in the mix, but it is what it is. The price of freedom, or whatever.

Single talk page for all the issues at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-11-18. Should make a watchlist notice request tomorrow.

Posts. jp×g🗯️ 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job again, team, especially on our compressed schedule (which I'm glad we stuck to): here's -> a handwritten robot letter for you to add to your brag file. I have already responded to a reader's comments on two articles about stuff that I feel could have been handled with more active staff. Not sure what to do about it but maybe it's time again to say "help wanted". Have seen some similar replies at various SP talkpages as well recently. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

The Wikimedia Foundation is not going to talk about anything related to Wikimedia in India at this time, even if it is unrelated to this court case. Many people in Wikimedia community of volunteers in India are - in my view - afraid to talk about either routine Wikimedia organizing in India or comment on the ANI court case.

What to do with this information

The Wikimedia community repeatedly directs The Signpost editors to get support and comment from the Wikimedia Foundation. The information here is the complete answer to that community request. I consider WMF communication on India-related issues closed now. If any community volunteer wishes to insist that the WMF say more, then such people can contact the WMF themselves while linking to this update, and try to convince the WMF of whatever they like.

There is interest in getting journalism from community members. Here is some documentation about the challenges in doing that.

All this information establishes journalistic diligence in trying to reach out, and justifies The Signpost continuing its r reporting in the absence of comment from some key stakeholders.

Wikimedia volunteer community

First, I wrote to the Wikimediaindia-l closed, subscription only mailing list with this message. I am copying here even though the email is archived, because the mailing list is closed. https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/HJSMT5QSDR3VTPJJMJAT4QGFMB5VLH3M/

I have some responses to this. No one volunteered to talk publicly by their name. All respondents were private and cautious.

Wikimedia Foundation

I wrote to meta:User:RASharma (WMF), who is "Senior Global Movement Communications Specialist, South Asia, Wikimedia Foundation". This is a Wikimedia Foundation staff person who coordinates lots of Wikimedia Foundation projects in India. I got no reply from him, but a got a reply from the Wikimedia Foundation saying that they would not reply to the following email because of active legal issues.

I think there are no reports to share about Wikimedia's activities in India. Like, of all the projects there over years and of all the money invested, there are no public facing reports. What I was hoping for was something like for every US$1 million spent or for every year that passed, then someone would take an hour to write a one-page outcome summary. Nothing of that sort exists of which I am aware, and I should be aware with the effort I have made to find it.

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I'm getting this last part right. The WMF official responsible for foundation-community communications for the region, who has "Communications Specialist" in their title, won't say a word about their activities in any respect, including simple questions like what's a good overview of your work that I can review, because of the ANI-vs-WMF case? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, that is the stated reason, and that is the key insight and interesting takeaway from the response.

I can only guess, but here are some more plausible reasons for not answering:

1. That WMF staff person is not a Wikimedia community member, so does not speak for the community. I am not sure what they do, but perhaps they organized a WMF/Google partnership, and perhaps they hired Instagram influencers in India to talk about the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising campaign. What they do may be more about talking with people outside of Wikipedia than anything about the wiki community itself.
2. The WMF truly does not have summary documentation or a communication strategy on its investments in India. If such information existed, then it would already be published, and either I or the Indian community would know about it. Also, I know the state of United States WMF programs, and they are not reported for my home region, so I am not surprised that they are not documented for India either.
3. The Wikimedia community in India is very anxious about Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and has the belief that the WMF is non-compliant with this regulation. The popular interpretation of this law that I hear from volunteers is that people in India are not supposed to accept nonprofit funding except through an FCRA-compliant organization registered in India, and that organization should be a Wikimedia India organization but that does not exist. I set up meta:WikiProject Bribery to document some stories I have heard that people who receive money from the WMF get government official visits asking for bribes due to not being appropriately registered. I have no idea what to think of this except that whatever the situation, FCRA makes people anxious.
4. Volunteers in India who do outreach or community organization wish to be invisible at this time, regardless of what they are doing. If WMF produced a report of basic community activities, then due to political and media attention right now, typical random volunteers whose projects were the subject of discussion could get hyper attention. For example, if a volunteer hosted a casual meetup one time for 20 people, then due to media frenzy, it is possible that media sources treat that as an official Wikimedia Foundation program in India, dox the organizers, and generally misunderstand what it means for wiki volunteers to meet, i.e., for a photo walk or library book scanning event.

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've a first version of my new contribution to the Signpost : User:PAC2/Signpost Opinion1. Your feedback is welcome. PAC2 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]