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

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

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2026-07-13 13:35:13 ( v t e ) Writing: 11 July 01:00 (-2 days left; 100%) Publishing: 12 July 01:00 (-1 day left; 100%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-07-13 13:35:13.
June 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03 04 05	July 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	August 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06

I have decided to get this section started early, the Tech Team layoffs will likely be the biggest story this issue. I invite other Signpost editors and uninvolved to contribute, but seeing the levels of contention that has already arisen, I think it would be best if involved editors, such as those significantly engaged in resulting discussions, those connected to the union, or WMF staff sit this one out. I welcome comments and suggestions from involved editors, especially since their engagement will help us find newsworthy items. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this started: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. I'd like to help but haven't contributed to a Signpost article before. I might share some ideas on the talkpage. I will ping you if i do. - Wil540 art (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I just saw Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Data_on_Wishlist_work, where you mention your intent to write a Signpost article. This data is a central point to this argument, so if you would like to include it in this Technology Report, that would be great. Mitchsavl-on-public-wifi (main|talk) 04:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody else please pick up this article? Every time I've tried to look at the discussion, I have found it completeley overwhelming. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom Datta has since done a lot of work on the story, I also just went through it - first for copyedits, then I ended up adding various context information, clarifications and source links. More of the latter would still be good (especially whenever we write that so-and-so stated such-and-such) but I think it looks broadly good to go already; save for some open questions and one to-do item someone had marked earlier. Some more copyediting wouldn't hurt either.

I also added this which I want to flag here in case anyone has second thoughts about it (see edit summary).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl, @Bluerasberry, @Bri I recommend trying to make the Community Tech team disbanding article accessible to both experienced Wikimedians and a more general public who aren't very Wiki-literate. This could be a great introduction to the history of wishlists/wishtlisting on Wikipedia for those who are not informed.

I think it would be informative to explain simply:

• Brief history of the process of taking in wishes and responding to Wikipedia editor community needs on Wikipedia/Wikimedia
• What is/was Community Tech? What came before it?
• What is the Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC)? What came before it?

I see you are already beginning to cover the WMF responses and the editor responses. I also think it would be worthwhile to share ideas for the future of the wishlist that have came about because of the discussion surrounding this re-structuring. The path forward. I'd be interested to help collect the wishlist ideas shared. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wil540 art: Thanks for the comment and welcome to exploring The Signpost. I moved your comment from the draft to here - editorial conversations go here and that original space is for readers after publication.

We have very little labor for journalism or requests for articles. Your ideas are good, but in practice, if any article will be written, then it takes recruiting a volunteer journalist to create it. If someone actually writes a draft then Signpost editors can review it.

This does not need to be one story. It could be several smaller stories with different writers who do not coordinate. For example, the "wishlist" story goes back 10+ years with multiple developments, and anyone could tell that story without the recent news, and either or both with numbers or with human narratives. Community Tech is its own newer story, as is PTAC.

Signpost tends to attract reports of recent events by Wikimedians who already are following day to day updates, but contextual journalism for the more general public is very welcome because it brings new users into important social and ethical conversations, and also cools conflicts and makes way for progress. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and the insight. I'm not 100% clear on how things work here, so thanks for the patience. I will start by trying to write a short about the history of Wishlists of Wikipedia. If that already exists elsewhere, I couldn't find it and please point me to it. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wil540 art: Here are some events in the story of the wishlist. Thousands of Wikipedia editors went through all of this together.

VisualEditor - 2013

• VisualEditor#Opposition
• User_revolt#VisualEditor
• Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC (closed by user:Fram / WP:FRAM

Wikimedia Deutschland makes a wishlist - 2013

• https://www.wikimedia.de/2019/en/themen/technical-wishes/
• "user:raymond - Why did you start the Technical Wishes project? - When the Visual Editor was introduced a few years ago – basically a Word-like what-you-see-is-what-you-get interface – a lot of criticism was coming from the community. In order to start a constructive discussion, I set up a page called “Technical Wish List”..."
• meta:WMDE Technical Wishes
• File:White Paper Technical Wishes 2018.pdf

Wikimedia Foundation makes a global wishlist - 2015

• successful, so WMF copied it - meta:Community Wishlist Survey
• meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2015 ... meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023
• routine Signpost report - Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-02-27/Technology_report
• File:Wikimania 2023 - Room 310 - 19 August - The Future of the Wishlist Survey.webm

Proposed end of the wishlist to redesign it as "Wikimedia Opportunities registry" - 2024

• https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/01/04/shaping-the-future-of-the-community-wishlist-survey/
• meta:Community Wishlist Survey/Future Of The Wishlist/Redesigning the Wishlist
• meta:Community Wishlist Survey/Future Of The Wishlist/Renaming
• meta:Community Wishlist Survey/Future Of The Wishlist/Renaming/Voting
• meta:Community Wishlist

This brings the story to summer 2024. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this timeline. Are there any particularly impactful examples where the wishlist worked well? Where a wish was made, granted, then well implemented and with positive effects? - Wil540 art (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: That's a great timeline. We should add it to the News and notes feature that I have just started. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wil540 art: There are a lot of good wishes that were implemented. I'm probably gonna barrage you with a SEAOFBLUE, but here goes. IABot (started as a community-WMF collaboration), PageViews tool, XTools, CopyPatrol, WhoWroteThat, Global Preferences, LoginNotify, user-right expiration, Editor syntax Highlighting, Pinging users from edit summaries, Watchlist expiry, Template Wizard, SVG Translate, improvements to NPP workflows, Wikimedia OCR, VideoJS integration (the video interface on Wikimedia sites), Edit recovery, Live Preview, the ability to share QR codes, Multiblocks and probably some more that I've missed. Heck the Wishlist even provided early impetus for the DiscussionTools project. Sohom (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are attempts of analysing the wishlist, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Data_on_Wishlist_work and m:Talk:Community Wishlist#Statistics about the implementation of wishes. Do note that MikeZ (WMF) had just commented as well. Further assessments may be required. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editors by request Bluerasberry (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked me how they can contribute to The Signpost. Here are some ideas.

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something we can add to the next Signpost issue, possibly, with blessings from the editor, in the "From the editor" section. – robertsky (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Sure, I formatted this as "from the editors". This column requires support from other editors to proceed though. It is posted to help discussion over the next few weeks. I invite anyone to revise. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I have added some stuff there. Honestly, I had been asked to by others on contributing. Hopefully, this would make a quick primer. – robertsky (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if there's anything I can add from the Signpost contributor Quick start I created some time ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are three of us on the byline, should it be moved to "From the editors"? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to write up some text on the "long-term roles" but decided to back off and start here instead. I think that the Publication manager, Outreach manager, and Designer roles outlined at the Quick start really would work better if the person got consensus to do them from other editors, versus simply putting on the hat and starting – which I think is fine for everything else now listed in the From the editors report. Any ideas on how to put this forward, assuming I'm right about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I'm thinking we could do: Experienced users and Signpost editors can volunteer to fill the roles of Publication manager, Outreach manager, and Designer. The Signpost team will review the users contribution and ask questions in a similar format to administrator elections, and may be asked to demonstrate the technical knowledge to autonomously perform tasks similar to what is required of their role. Signpost contributors and other Wikipedians can seek consensus on who (which may include multiple editors) will fill those roles, and with these placements requiring EiC approval. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, nothing against inviting new contributors of course, and many suggestion in this draft are fine. But that "Quick Start" document (largely written in 2018 by User:Zarasophos) should have been updated/corrected a long time ago; while it contains some useful advice and purports to provide a "quick" summary of our processes, several parts are not in sync with our actual (non-quick) documentation of those processes at "Coordination", "Content guidance" and "About".

To give just one concrete example, regarding the "roles" descriptions, since it affects me personally:

Since over four years ago I have been doing the "Outreach manager" work of posting the social media announcements for each issue (and Andreas is taking care of the mailing list part). So I'm very surprised to read in this draft story and above that Bri apparently wants to replace me in this long-term role[]. I'm going to AGF and assume that Bri isn't actually unhappy with my work there, but simply wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About#The Signpost team (and the aforementioned other documentation pages). But this should hopefully help to substantiate the assertion that some parts of this article do not reflect actual practice and consensus at the Signpost.

I also disagree with parts of what Bluerasberry says about the Signpost in the video (which should not come as a surprise if you watched it and read some comments by me or others above). And given that we had several discussions on this page about Bluerasberry's longtime unhealthy tendency to speak for the Signpost as a whole when expressing his personal views, including less than two months prior about the wisdom of him starting "From the editor" pieces containing his own opinions and policy proposals for how the rest of us at the Signpost should work, I'm quite disappointed that he again used that misleading title (also, whose "request" was it?). Bluerasberry is not "the editor" of the Signpost and the three folks who are on the byline are not "the editors" of the Signpost either. I still would not have minded title that so much if the piece only reiterated consensus of the Signpost team. But as it is, fair warning that I may leave some comments after publication to alert readers to the above and other issues that I don't have the time to write up now that we are nearing publication.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with your work HaeB. Saw this comment right after publication. Is it OK if we leave the text Outreach managers: Editors delegated to assist the editor(s)-in-chief with managing The Signpost's tip lines, handling the occasional Signpost reader surveys, and maintaining The Signpost's social media accounts without disparaging you? The plural in the "managers" title and the plurality of work to be done leaves us options to take extra hands for the work. I've noticed that our suggestions (broadly "tip lines") often go unheeded, and could use some help there, at least.

As for the terminology about who "Editors" are ... I'm going by the book, and Bluerasberry, Bri, Headbomb, Oltrepier, Red-tailed hawk, Smallbones, Svampesky are listed on our "about" page. As far as I'm concerned any regular contributor here can call themselves an editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are we going to keep the essay staged, or are we going to unstage it, after the author had a 1 week block for violating their topic ban over the article? Mitchsavl (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a contentious discussion among the arbs. And I need to re-read it to see what they think, as a group, the violation was. It is possible that only the final paragraph of the essay, the part that I removed as bear baiting (presciently, maybe), triggered the tban.

I'm pretty sure there was no consensus to restrain any individual from speaking about the fact that they are under a tban, nor from speaking about the wisdom of tbans generally, amd the impact they have on groups of editors.

Maybe it is a chance to revive the Arbitration report for an analysis… ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@.nhals8: You commented about this draft at the submissions board. Can you please here join this editorial discussion about what to do next? Do what feels right, but perhaps talk through pros and cons of publishing this piece. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I processed this submission and staged it for editorial review. I did not solicit or invite this publication, but I definitely tell people to publish here. This submission also overlaps with my interests in demographic analysis in Wikimedia projects and anti-harassment procedures by demographic, and I said this at the ArbCom trial which resulted in them getting a one-week block as punishment for violating their ban on discussing transgender topics. For a variety of reasons, I do not want to touch this particular article further. I would like to say that I was not expecting this Signpost submission to be an issue where ArbCom would intervene and I do not think the author imagined that either. I do not want to cross ArbCom and publish content which they have prohibited. It seems that Wikipedia:Contentious populations stands, so as best as I understand, the author bias disclosure was the arbcom-restricted content. The uncertainty here makes me uncomfortable. One view could be that this piece could inappropriate to publish due to being prohibited content from a restricted editor. Another view could be that the problem was my behavior and the user's behavior on that disclosure, and not the editorial views in the essay / article / Signpost submission itself. I apologize to my fellow editors for inviting a contributor into a restricted situation. This is not something that I have previously put thought into. I feel like if I had been more careful in how I welcome submissions then could have gone through without the user getting an ArbCom review and block on their record. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • BR, hate to contradict you but this is more complex than content that they [Arbcom] have prohibited. Two facts: One: Any prohibition is on the author, not on us, and the cat was out of the bag when they started their userspace essay. Two: Arbs said, and I quote, editors have leeway to write constructive critiques of Wikipedia, and particularly, critiques of ArbCom (Arb 1); [an essay a particular arb disagrees with is] not sanctionable, and I think that a topic banned editor talking about how topic bans could be better and clearly doing her utmost to avoid directly discussing her own topic is, if nothing else, something I'm more (but not always) willing to IAR on. (Arb 2). At the least, I think we can say that the content itself is not prohibited. Perhaps the behavior resulting in its generation, or more narrowly, the generation of the final "bear baiting" paragraph was prohibited.

Whether we exercise the option to nuke the essay I think is in our court now, and depends more on how we see its disruption by violating a tban outweighing the informational and reform-oriented content utility for the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Bluerasberry

I'd say there was general consensus among the arbs that the positionality statement was too cheeky by half, but the essay as a whole was not (and many arbs agreed with parts of it). The positionality statement was removed in both the original and the signpost version (before they dropped the block on me but c'est la vie).

I know that when publishing essays, the Signpost often precedes it with an editorial note giving context if there was any contention or wider discussion. Which is to say, it would be within your remit and usual practice to note the block and the bit they found too cheeky.

I'm about to have 2 weeks off work starting next week so will have time to help out if you need anything from me. I'm unsure if you were thinking Arbitration report for this piece, the block, or the original case - in any case I'd be happy to be interviewed but unsure how BANEX applies to that: as long as it's above board I'm down to give 2c. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought this was a clear indication that our editor-in-chief considered the case closed. In any case it is highly unfortunate to reopen it without any reference to the discussion here about the same submission from the last issue. I don't think the concerns there have been resolved, and I would support moving on to focus our energies on publishing submissions by other authors who have not been repeatedly sanctioned for violating our community's policies on collegial collaboration. HaeB (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I don't myself want to run it, and I don't think that we as a paper should run it. jp×g🗯️ 22:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiConference report

Thanks Wil540 art for making a first Signpost submission to create this summary of the last meta:Volunteer Supporters Network annual meeting.

I helped Wil to format this, but if anyone has editorial suggestions or can review the content, then can you please send feedback to Wil? Thanks all. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Bluerasberry and @Bri for the pre-copy edits. I'm here if there are any other changes I should make. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus

This story on the Wikimedia community wishlist relates also to Wikimedia union organizing.

I staged and formatted this following user submission. Could I now ask anyone else to volunteer to give this editorial review, and ping Barkeep49 with any feedback? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's more appropriate as an OpEd, as it makes editorial commentary throughout. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: Can you help further?

Currently this is submitted as op-ed - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed

Some open column labels are "community view", "special report", "concept", and "in-focus". Is community view a fit? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance doesn't provide any guidance regarding the content of the Community view section. My personal feeling from a quick skim of this year's content is that it isn't quite as editorial as the submission in question. Perhaps "Opinion" is a suitable spot, or the existing Op-ed piece can be moved to Opinion to make space. isaacl (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: I can arrange the moves if you can suggest some order to things. "Opinion", so far as I understand, usually refers to the opinions of known, regular contributors. Of all these authors we are considering, Shushugah has the most with 3 articles by Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Statistics/Authors

• opinion - Wikimedia and unions - Shushugah
• op-ed - AI - Sadads
• community view - wishlist - Barkeep49
• Essay - contentious populations - Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

I moved wishlist out of "in-focus" to put this there

• in focus - NPOV - Risker

I can move any of these at your suggestion, but it is not clear what changes are an improvement. We have "discussion report", "special report", and "concept" open. Our publishing system does not allow two of a type to run in the same issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the same view of the "Opinion" section as you (and the search link for the Opinion section on the Content Guidance page shows a variety of authors). Let's see what other people think. (Note there is no need to send me a notification for discussions in which I am participating.) isaacl (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, Mitchsavl, and Jayen466: The above is an invite for Wikimedia Café sessions in June. Would one of you please add a note about this in the upcoming News and Notes? Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 03:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Thanks for the tip! Mitchsavl (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why https://wikipediocracy.com/ has gone 404 today? All of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but confirmed at https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikipediocracy.com.html ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to check the goss and saw it was down too. Who knows. There have been a few times before that it went down for a day or two. Such is life for a small website run by a couple people. jp×g🗯️ 16:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to throw the party? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: You may be interested in this article, covering a research study. It Is Trivially Easy to Use Reddit to Manipulate AI Search, Research Suggests. It looks at how user generated sites, such as Wikipedia, reddit etc. can be used to manipulate LLM based searches. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: We're about a day from writing deadline and I don't see anything started for this section. Will it be missing in this issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we just updated the usual to-do list Etherpad (as usual, contributions are welcome, as described there), and I have started the draft. As always, I'll take responsibility for having it in a publishable shape by the publication deadline (if not, feel free to publish the issue without it).

Appreciate the nudge, but also, we've used this same process for RR for over a decade now, and you've been around for many or even most of these issues, so I'd assume you are acquainted with parts of the process (like that Etherpad, and that I generally always post a note like this here).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be publishable now if need be, except for the missing piccy (will try to find one myself if no one beats me to it).

Bri: I saw that you postponed your own contribution that you had started, so I left that at "next next" (but also put you down as reviewer for that paper on the aforementioned Etherpad).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bri chose to publish it with the piccy still missing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Left out due to an oversight. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added one to the empty template still in the article, but it will need to be ported over manually now since the script already ran. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should be manually patched now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome another pair of eyes on this: [1] Google Books appears to have started displaying AI slop when it can't display the actual text of a book. Even worse, it "finds" its own slop when you do a Google Books search.

This could be worth mentioning somewhere in the upcoming issue. People might need to adjust their workflows. Have you come across this before in your reading, HaeB? Andreas JN466 12:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Google AI explanation seems unlikely. The book seems to be an AI-written fake entered into the Google Books Partner Program, using the author name, book title and the actual title page of the US edition. If so, rather sloppy of Google. Andreas JN466 09:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: By the way, straying off from the topic for a bit, theres an urgent situation needing your attention which you've familiar of and I've sent you many emails a while back that I've since found that it's the work of a global ban evader. Tqsm.~2026-35518-19 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find. No, I hadn't read about this before (except in the Kurier when you posted about it there ;). I agree that it sounds quite unlikely that this a hallucinations by Google's own AI systems.

A general warning apropos your linked post: "Don’t trust AI to talk accurately about itself" (Simon Willison) - meaning that aside from any general reliability considerations about AI (and these free AI features integrated into Google Search can be assumed to be of vastly lower quality than e.g. current paid versions of Claude or ChatGPT), a particular chatbot or LLM naturally doesn't have any special knowledge about itself in its training data (and whatever it can retrieve via a web search at inference time will likely also be available to the public directly). We had a syndicated Signpost article a few months ago whose author unfortunately fell into that trap, causing substantial parts of his story to consist of reproducing LLM hallucinations. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This AI futures article was submitted right before last issue and did not match with a review.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-ed

Max263, Ijon, Bri, Smallbones, and I have all done some amount of review and copyediting. Is anyone willing to sign off on shipping this? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it for about the third time. It starts to grow on you the more you read it. It is rather long, in-depth and contrary to the usual consensus view. More-or-less the type of thing we claim to be looking for (except for the length). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length @Smallbones this one has been stewing for a while, glad it grows on you -- I have a few more followup ideas I want to tease out, will try to make them shorter! Sadads (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(see above for the previous discussion about this submission, where Bluerasberry had already conveyed several green checkmarks to it - I guess by did not match with a review he means that it wasn't signed off by the EiC or substitute)

To Bluerasberry's question: Yes, if we are invoking the (recently officialized) EICAWOL for this issue, then I would be happy to sign off on it.

I will say in advance (because I might post about some of that in the comment section after publication) that there are a few aspects where I personally disagree with this op-ed as a matter of opinion, and also various statements that seem maybe not entirely factually correct to me, or at least not fully supported by the cited sources. But I likely won't have time to do more thorough fact-checking myself before the publication deadline, and don't think this needs to be a blocker. (Apropos, generally speaking I can recommend trying a paid version of Claude or ChatGPT for this btw, I used the latter successfully when reviewing various sections for publication in last month's issue [2][3].)

And overall this is of high enough quality, citing lots of relevant sources - more than most of our op-eds and opinion articles - and making a very interesting contribution. Again speaking personally, I am very grateful to Sadads for questioning some widespread assumptions and claims which I agree do need to be questioned.

Some of the main theses could even be strengthened further by pointing to relevant examples of other communities. E.g. OpenStreetMap seems to be quite healthy despite getting most of its impact from reuses away from its own website, and thus never had the opportunity to do as much fundraising via on-site banners and editor recruitment via "edit" buttons as we had. (Consequently, the OpenStreetMap Foundation has vastly fewer paid employees than WMF. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing - maybe Google Maps would be less dominant today if they OSF had had more funding. But at least this example indicates that even a massive loss in direct traffic and WMF revenue might be survivable for the Wikipedia community.)

Editorially speaking though, the biggest problem has already been mentioned: The piece is quite long, and likely to lose quite a few readers before getting to its main points. Maybe consider summarizing them briefly at the very start in a WP:LEDE / BLUF style, before going into personal background (also keep in mind that TOCs are deactivated in Signpost articles).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me a lede summary (already added to Op-Ed edit there directly) would be something like:

This op-ed challenges the way we recruit and retain long-term Wikipedia editors. As direct traffic declines, the strategy of converting readers into editors is threatened. The op-ed questions whether that was ever truly an issue. Future long term retention and recruiting of new editors could include drawing from sister wikis, such as Wikidata, Wikisource, and Commons, as well as investing more in GLAM partnerships, Wiki Education.

My question to @Sadads, suppose I agree, I am unsure how this would work financially. You hint at this by pointing OSM has a much smaller staff team, but what other ways would there be to cover either declining donations, and or...the increased public investments in the different institutional partnerships you proposed? Or at least acknowledge that this is a tough part of the puzzle. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Sadads' op-ed doesn't mention OSM (at this point); it was me who brought it up as a possible example. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I prophesize an extremely busy publication day and it is very likely I will not be around then. jp×g🗯️ 16:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should be available to stand in as publisher. Is it possible to get EinC approval on important bits like In focus, Op-ed a d Opinion, though they may not all be fully copyedited yet? Also, haven't seen your opinion yet at #22:8 Essay ☆ Bri (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to invoke WP:EICAWOL (the heads-up this time is appreciated). Re 2. there, I understand Bri is willing to carry out publication, so per 3., Signpost regulars should start approving sections for publication in lieu of the EiC (preferably not those they have been involved with themselves in a major way). As mentioned above the other day, I can do that for the Op-ed, and I'll try to do some others as well. Of course there is still quite a bit of writing and copyediting to do before all sections can be approved, see also below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently about six hours until writing deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the writing deadline. I'm going to postpone my own work on Recent research till next issue. Anyone else still working? How's Disinformation report coming, Smallbones? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slower than expected, but a final draft should be ready in 10 hours. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 07:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl and Bri: still writing - please don't copy edit yet. I'll let you know here when it's ready. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, most of it is ready to copy edit! That's every section except the Ogilvy section (I'm getting sick of it and want to clear my head) and the last section (something like a conclusion - which I haven't written yet!) Feel free to change the title and/or piccy. Min(d/e) clearing for maybe an hour. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out the conclusion. so another quick CE should do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion is ready for copy-editing/any other improvements. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

/Opinion has been CE'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ): Mitchsavl (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "On the Bright Side" is ready for copyediting. I asked HouseBlaster and Clovermoss to read through the entire article before publication. ↠Pine (✉) 03:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and copyeditors listed at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/About: @Bluerasberry, Headbomb, Oltrepier, Red-tailed hawk, Smallbones, Svampesky, Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, and Adam Cuerden: – your assistance copyediting this issue is requested. Help, please! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of Newsroom consensus up at #22:8 Essay I do not plan to include it in this issue. Here is a tentative table of contents.

1. From the editors
2. News and notes
3. Disinformation report
4. In the media
5. Community view
6. In focus
7. On the bright side
8. Op-ed
9. Opinion
10. Technology report
11. Traffic report
12. WikiConference report
13. Comix
14. Humour

Publication can be held until tomorrow if we expect to have further discussion over any of this. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected TOC; I said I would not include it, then accidentally listed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From the editors, News and notes, and In the media need copyediting. My name is on the byline and it's best practice to have someone else copyedit. I'll wait a bit to publish to see if that gets done. Will probably kick it off around 2000 Pacific/0300 UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for From the editors, News and notes, and In the media copyedit. If you like replacing "Subtitle" with a snappy take, here's your chance. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do this at 0310. Please avoid editing until I post here again, so we don't have script errors. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Yes, adding the new Recent research column. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Publication complete. Looks good at first glance except we forgot to put the thumbnail image up for Recent research. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a glitch. The single-page edition of 22:8 doesn't expand, and in the editor it says Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. The workaround is just to click the Wikilink, but it's kinda unfortunate. Especially for subscribers. Also, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2026-06-21 doesn't seem to be populating. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single works fine. Weird. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I have temporarily redirected it for now.

I also noted that Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2026-06-21 is empty because the script to populate Module:Signpost/index/2026 has not completed ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For internal editing, we reference these as 22:8 (Volume 22, Issue 8) but we do not mention the volume/issue in either the url, or more problematically, on individual archives, e.g nowhere inside it referenced. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2026-06-21.

Because the exact publish date sometimes changes last minute, I understand why we use Volume/Issue, but would suggest making it easier to understand what volume/issue can be referencing then without having to go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives to manually verify, and automatically display Volumes/Edition on all archive pieces, similar to how it is displayed in the current issue. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually one place that Volume 22 issue 8 appears again in the archive: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2026#June. But I see your point, that is not reiterated in what I like to call the cover page, the page with the grid of pictures for each article. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read some arbcom proceedings that focusing on the content is not enough. I have not dug into this too far, but I think this could be a good arb com report. Has Signpost already covered it in someway? I do not see it in the previous issue. Czarking0 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has never been an examiner of content; in their words from WP:Guide to arbitration#Content rulings, ArbCom avoids taking positions in content disputes. Are you saying there's something new here? - Bri.public (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the full principle. It's a civility thing. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New piece from The Verge about unionization efforts in the UK: [4]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New contributor User:NabuKudurru would appreciate feedback on their submission, which is about Wikimedia Movement finance decisions.

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

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NabuKudurru: You could improve the impact of the writing by following inverted pyramid (journalism). Take your tl;dr section at the end and move it closer to the top, maybe right at the top. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bri,

Thanks for the feedback, i am trying to shorten it some now. also I put the tldr at the top so thanks

Best,

Brett NabuKudurru (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadestar474: Yes thank you for offering to copyedit. NabuKudurru here is a first-time Signpost contributor. If you have ideas while reviewing this text, then can you please also offer developmental editing suggestions to fit the text to the Wikipedia community's needs? Bri here has recommending getting to the point sooner, and maybe while reading this you will have another suggestion. But straightforward copyediting is also welcome. Review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Formatting for guidance on the images. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also a first-time contributor to the Signpost, so I doubt I’ll have much additional value to add to the text itself, but if I have any thoughts, I’ll make sure to share them! And thanks so much for letting me copyedit it :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) In solidarity. 19:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ve copyedited it; I changed some wording to make it more accurate and flow better, but definitely feel free to correct me if in any rephrasing I accidentally got a fact wrong or something. (I also deleted the extra TLDR section at the bottom of the page.)

I really don’t see any problems with it journalistically, except that it’s rather unclear who ‘we’ is. we suggest that a simple, straightforward strategy would be […] Could you state that a bit more clearly somewhere near the top of the article? Otherwise, it seems perfect. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) In solidarity. 19:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you, sorry for rechanging :D I am still editing it some - some edits got lost probably i left the edit screen open too long. I will have it finally soon. Best, Brett NabuKudurru (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, that’s cool :) No worries about changing the phrasing, by the way; you made some really excellent changes that I didn’t even think of! Just let me know when you’re finished and I’ll get to copyediting it as soon as I can. Cheers! 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 08:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NabuKudurru: I saw you added some content; would you mind if I copyedited it further for additional grammar/punctuation things? (In addition, if I see phrasing I want to change, should I just go ahead and do that like I did previously or discuss that with you? Asking since I saw you changed back some of the rephrasing) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (any/all) In solidarity. 03:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for edits - it looks good. the end is a bit hasty but the longer it is the longer it takes.

I think its ok for publication from my end.

Best,

Brett NabuKudurru (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By ‘ready for publication,’ do you mean I should copyedit it? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 09:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m looking to start working for the Signpost as a copyeditor, and I saw that the op-ed is ready for copyediting. Would it be okay if I copyedited it? Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) In solidarity. 23:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y @Shadestar474: Thank you and yes! I have suggestions in the op-ed thread. Solidarity! Bluerasberry (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This community focused article is a good match for News from Diff: How to host Wikicurious in your own community -Wil540 art (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghost of Larry Sanger.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copied a reply I made on WP:JIMBOTALK:

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

•••

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

Some more coverage, we've seen worse:[5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Absolutely agree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↠Pine (✉) 04:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I find both of those essays interesting. Is there only room for one? Could the first article fit into News from the WMF and the second into Special Report? - Wil540 art (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its sixteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to disentangle some things:

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

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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