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

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

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-07-28 20:24:01 ( v t e ) Writing: 2 August 00:00 (5 days left; 33%) Publishing: 3 August 00:00 (6 days left; 37%) There are 4 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes and 58 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

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

Awaiting Copy Edit and final check, but everything is done. Comment originally posted by Valorrr at 02:33, 13 May 2025.

Did someone forget to update the deadline? June's issue has already been released. Mox Eden (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes has not been started, and we don't publish without it, so this weekend looks unlikely. I set publication to next weekend instead. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG:I can contribute about 4 small stories right now when I get the time, but I don't think I can take another timing of the publication like the last two. I've given my reasons before and I can't imagine anybody enjoyed that part of the publication process. I'm sorry to say I can't participate again until we have this issue solved, so that we have at least an 80% chance of publishing as scheduled. One thing to do might be having any of the 3 of us have the ability to approve articles for publication if JPxG is not actively participating on the publication date. There might be other thing that would work, but I haven't figured them out. Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

m:Proposal for Closing Wikinews may be covered in Signpost. GZWDer (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

m:Talk:Public_consultation_about_Wikinews is better link. --ssr (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed an article published in the right-wing JNS by Aaron Bandler on the basis that it was unattributed to its author -- a prolific RW advocate (formerly employed by the Daily Wire among others). The Signpost published two briefs in the last issue which identified neither his participation nor his POV. The article I removed is an interesting case in point. Only after very strongly worded citations from various pro-Israel thinktanks and NGOs (unwatch.org, NGO monitor, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Foundation for Defense of Democracies) is it mentioned that the NGO EMHRM was actually downgraded in a recent RSN discussion. I think if this is published, at the very least, mention needs to be made of Bandler's energetic advocacy campaign. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this criticism directed at me for posting the link? I'm not sure what you mean "unattributed to its author"; none of the items I included in this edit did include the author, except one that I noticed was notable and written about himself. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Signpost should not become Aaron Bandler's in-house megaphone. I can see that you probably didn't realize that the author was on a mission. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this. I sense some fundamental misunderstandings here about the role of ITM. It's not the Signpost's journalism award section where we honor and recommend the best press coverage of Wikipedia (or even serve as their in-house megaphone), but much closer in function to a press review or media monitoring service for the community. Throughout the Signpost's two-decade existence, this section had featured countless news articles that got basic facts about Wikipedia wrong (unsurprisingly, cf. Gell-Mann amnesia effect), or were highly opinionated in ways that are not compatible with various Wikipedia's values or community consensuses, or made unfounded bias accusations. (Of course, under general Wikipedia policy there are limits to what sites can be linked at all. If you feel that the Jewish News Syndicate should never be linked on-wiki even outside mainspace, perhaps submit a request to put it on the URL blacklist and see if the community agrees with you?)

While context like the name of a journalist who wrote a linked piece, their political allegiances, their previous publications about Wikipedia or their former employers can be very useful for our readers (and I'll see to add something in this particular case based on your hints), it is by no means required. (Also BTW, I'm a bit confused by this edit summary - seems you actually said there that you had yourself added the kind of context to the last issue whose omission you are now criticizing?)

Lastly, it seems that you sidestepped Bri's question. I find your edit summary here problematic (Last month the same editor added two briefs Aaron Bandler was involved with) - insinuating that there might be a systematic effort by Bri to push this particular author, rather than just him having done the bulk of the usual ITM preparation work of adding items from Google News etc. (Not to speak of the fact that "involved with" seems to be doing a lot of work in case of that first "brief", an article in The Jewish Journal by someone else about a panel where Bandler was 1 of 12 participants.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the podcast was 2.5h long and Bandler was one of the most talkative that for me constitutes involved. All that I corrected last month was the claim that Bandler's article was by rather than in RealClearPolitics. In do doing I did warn in the ES that he was a former Daily Wire journalist (generally unreliable publication). I see he also had unattributed publications back in an January, February, and April Signposts as well. I guess I was indeed under the misapprehension that someone actually read the articles which were posted in ITM and so would notice recurring authors and axe-grinding tone. My apologies to Bri for misunderstanding the authorial responsibilities for the briefs. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen a Bandler-WP piece that's not focused on the "WP is unfair to Israel" view. Presumably it's an angle that has a market, and they are often published in mainstream (mostly Israeli-ish, I think) media. Afaict, he's written about 10-15 such articles in 2024-25, someone could make a Category:Wikipedia beat reporters page for him. So, with this output, I don't think it's strange he keeps turning up in the Signpost. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: I do not want to obligate you beyond your interest, but I invite you to make an editorial recommendation to The Signpost or write an opinion piece, however brief that is. I was unaware that this author is repeatedly publishing Wikipedia criticism of this sort. I would like wiki user opinions on how Signpost should evaluate what seems to be hate-based material, and how we should share it.

There is limited editorial organization available to read these pieces and note that the same author is publishing the same kinds of stories. It takes a little while for the insight to come, so thanks for making it. Thanks also for your apology to Bri, because yes, I confirm that the media reporting in the Signpost is just a round up and we depend on people like you to help evaluate things like this. I really appreciate your compliant, and I really appreciate that apology. Now that we know, what should we do? Keep linking, mark the stories with some kind of disclaimer, avoid linking like we do with blacklisted publications, or what? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been in favour of including comment from ideologically motivated critics in ITM, if they have a reasonably large audience. The community should know what is being written and read out there. A little contextualisation doesn't hurt, as long as it doesn't come across as polemical. Andreas JN466 17:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish Breitbart because it is on WP:BLACKLIST, but they have a lot bigger audience than Jewish Journal, and they publish a lot of articles attacking Wikipedia ht tps://www.breit bart.com/tag/wikipedia/ . So Andreas, that goes against your wish to cover news with large audience. This Bandler person seems to want Wikipedia extinguished and is rallying for anyone to attack it, as in the Tax-Exempt Status.

Breitbart is blacklisted for not doing minimal fact checking. I do not know anything about JJ's content, but it seems there is a new and recent protest by some who felt strongly enough to try to establish a competing Jewish journal.

Contextualization seems helpful from newspapers that have a strong agenda in mind. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we have never published Breitbart ... I seem to remember we did a few times way back when ... (checks old issues) ... See e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-10/In the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/Arbitration report, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/In the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media and so on.

I hadn't realised TDA was still so busy! At some point it becomes repetitive. At any rate, I'm really not in favour of listing three or four Breitbart pieces in each issue's ITM. I am also against a blanket ban though. If an article of theirs gets attention elsewhere I would mention it. Then again, Breitbart is not an issue over which I would lose sleep. Andreas JN466 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your text does exactly what you described: contextualizing without being polemical. Thanks! -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am inclined to agree with Andreas and HaeB. It's obvious (at least to me) that Breitbart is not a source of great repute or credibility, but neither are a bunch of the things we cover in ITM. The point of the column isn't to endorse everything being said in every source mentioned, but to allow readers to keep abreast of media coverage, and thereby roughly public opinion and image, of our projects. Of course it should not be front-page news every time a guy complains about something, but if it's something that a lot of people are reading, then it is something Wikipedians ought to know about (if in some cases only the fact that people are reading it, and not whatever accusation itself, which may be exaggerated or false). jp×g🗯️ 19:43, 15 July 2025 (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 fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit worried about reports of violence in Nairobi, the site of the August 6-9 (check) Wikimania. I asked WMF Communications about the violence, and got a submission. It's really important on a story like this not to overemphasize it and unnecessarily scare everybody away, nor underemphasize it and mislead our readers about possibly unsafe conditions. This submission comes close to the right balance, but I'll suggest adding one direct short sentence. It's a bit promotional, but I think this is normal for Wikimania organizers, and we know how to appropriately tone it down a bit. See

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_focus

I wanted to use the rubric "Wikimania", which we've used before, but that rubric has been removed from the standard selection, and my usual method of adding rubrics doesn't work any more (why not?). I'll give a quick copy edit soon, but help editing would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man is born free, but everywhere he is moving around goddamn boxes on a Sunday swing shift.

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It seems the tentative deadline for this issue set on the first of the month has just elapsed; a couple articles look decent (ITM is quite far along, but ITM is mostly stubs). In focus and Community view and Traffic report look mostly ready, but for the most part these are reprints, meaning we would basically only have one article of original reporting if I were to publish right now.

I have an extremely painful and gnarly injury on my left thumb, so I was really dreading getting on the computer, but as it turns out, I basically never use it to type on a keyboard anyway, so this is no barrier. Since I do use it to move around boxes, I am going to try to not go to work tomorrow, which means I may perhaps even able to do some writing. If this succeeds, I will be able to probably fix up the discussion report, although unfortunately my prophecy has come to pass and way too much time has gone by (e.g. I would have to run it a second time).

There is a very good Comix which got sent in, which we should use also. jp×g🗯️ 04:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in the morning, then attending a funeral in the afternoon. Good luck with everything. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrapped up a ton of N&N stuff, elaborated so in my section below. Please ping me if you need anything from, else I'm likely to be unavailable until publishing time for this issue. Soni (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded a ton of N&N, and think it's nearly complete, save for copyediting. There's multiple significant news stories for this cycle, so I've cut a couple to bunt them for the next issue or another future section, probably (GRDC, CENT discussions).

The overall N&N section seems to still be significantly longer than I prefer, so I currently prefer just cutting the WMF Bulletin section altogether, or some splitting off of N&N for this issue. I'd strongly prefer a delayed "Bulletin+rest of movement" summary than repeating the 14 May issue, which seemed to not actually cover anything (courtesy ping @JPxG:).

Overall, I think this issue's N&N seems to be mostly done. Soni (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise Signpost does have a policy of writing issues beforehand, so started Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/News and notes already. That should help cover everything that'll be skipped for this issue. Soni (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni, Bri, and JP&G: I've been worried all week about the proper balance for the possible violence issue at Wikimania, so I added a section in N&N.

Sorry for the last minute change, if you don't like it, just take it out. Sincerely, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: doesn't think that addition was actually news. If so just take it out. Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive on the topic. I'll likely be unavailable today. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are referring to the confusion I experienced while reading this story, and expressed here. After looking into the provided sources, I have just edited the story further with the aim to make the news angle that you apparently intended a bit clearer, also e.g. by adding a link to 2025 Kenyan protests. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted a section that seems to have a factual error. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media looks ready to me, except for final copy edit.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research, some last minute magic from @HaeB: is all that's needed!
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus an important article - it is NOT a reprint! I asked for info on the recent violence in Kenya (re:Wikimania), and we got this. Copy editing and good judgement is all that's needed. I'll likely add a bit more at News and notes to gently let people know the potential problem and refer them to In focus
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour Hey! It's funny. What else do we need? A bit of copy editing!
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes Needs some work. 5 TKTKs need filling in, and a piccy needed. Maybe one of the usual election piccies? But this is a remarkable turnaround. Thanks @Soni, Jayen466, and Md Mobashir Hossain:.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view says it still needs copy editing, otherwise OK
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Traffic report headline is ok imho, but I never fully trust my copy editing.

That's 7 articles. The rest aren't really close, unless I missed something. I think we can publish tonight even if we have to invoke our "we miss you, JPxG" procedure. I shouldn't approve In the media, Recent research, or In focus myself. @JPxG:

@Bri: will you be available to publish?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be Wednesday evening (Pacific time) before I can. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tentatively schedule it for Wednesday evening (PT) then. JPxG can do it earlier if able. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday night leaves me free after midnight. I have, at long last, finished the discussion report -- it needs only an image. jp×g🗯️ 21:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - I have updated the deadline template to Wedndesday evening midnight Pacific Time accordingly. I will have RR in publishable form, and should also be able to help tie up loose ends in ITM and N&N.

Note that several sections are still marked as needing copyediting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good right now with the exception of a few hems and haws over punctuation. It is 6:30 a.m., and every time I publish when sleep-deprived I mess a bunch of stuff up, so I plan to sleep and then run once alive again. I think this will be a good issue (and remotely on time, at that). It's morning again on Wikipedia! jp×g🗯️ 13:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boom goes the dynamite. There were also quite a few things in the suggestion/submission box which I cleared out and put in -- we have a pretty damn solid issue this time! Wegweiser is throwing a fit over some nonsense or other, but the actual publication process worked imo. jp×g🗯️ 07:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones I am ready to work with Wikipedia Signpost. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to doing this -- see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2025-04-09. I did the main work for this some years ago (e.g. writing scripts that would put the pictures on the archive pages and actually getting the subheds out from the main Signpost page's history which is the only place they ever existed). There are still some things I have to fix (e.g. it looks somewhat bad in old pre-piccy issues), but barring that I think this is good. Also note I got subheds on the main pages themselves, like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-04-09, which also means they will show on talk pages and subscription boxen, which I think will help with writing (e.g. no longer have to cram all pertinent information into the hed). jp×g🗯️ 07:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, note the redlinked image there -- this very often happens with traffic report images (i.e. of popular IPs and celebs etc)..... fixing this has to be done in like 4 different places... ugh... jp×g🗯️ 07:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

somewhat bad is an understatement. It looks like this or some other recent (within the last five weeks) change broke the archive issues for multiple years, which are now all full of repeated "TKTK Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem ..." text (example - compare this snapshot from June 16). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this fixed it, thanks! (The placeholder piccies still look somewhat bad indeed and the previous look was more compact and readable, but at least the displayed text is no longer affected.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a {{Signpost/snippet-nopic}} that can be used for this. Currently, the way it works is that {{Signpost/item}} passes through the archive display mode to {{Signpost/snippet}}, so it could be given a switch to pass it to -nopic if no piccy params were supplied (would need some testing). jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/2010-08-23. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]