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
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-10-08 04:32:54 ( v t e ) Writing: 15 October 20:00 (8 days left; 61%) Publishing: 16 October 20:00 (9 days left; 64%) There are 7 days, 15 hours, 27 minutes and 5 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

Seeing that the deadline template hadn't yet been updated, I have just tentatively set the next issue's publication date to August 24 (fourth Sunday of this month). @JPxG and Bri: let us know in case you expect to be unavailable that weekend and prefer a different time.

There will be a RR in this issue, and I should also be able to help with other parts (sadly I didn't have enough time in recent weeks to contribute to the last issue, except doing the socials).

PS: Ceterum censeo that updating the template with the default date for the upcoming issue should be part of the script (e.g., per the preference we had arrived at here for the 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month, setting it to whichever of these dates comes next, unless that would leave less than, say, two weeks between the issues, in which case it would become the Sunday after that). JPxG, please mention in case you were still going to work on something like that - otherwise I may throw together some test code for this soon.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am set to be some multiple dozens of miles from a usable Internet connection or computing device on the 24th, so I would recommend that either somebody else publish on that date or that it be postponed until the following week (e.g. the first or second). jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have moved it accordingly by slightly over a week to Sept 1 00:00 UTC (also considering that we don't have a lot of material yet, even for the sections that tend to materialize earlier). This way, the crunch time should still fall on a Sunday for most in the team. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, I have no internet access (and am posting from my friend's shit, thanks Cody) and do not expect to have any until the 3rd. jp×g🗯️ 03:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I see the deadline hasn't been updated yet accordingly, so I'm going to do that myself shortly unless Bri indicates that he is planning to take over publication by the current deadline tomorrow. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have internet access now, but there are also seven pending hours of driving and unknown pending hours of sleeping after that... I look forward to either reading the new issue or helping put it out, whichever I wake up to :^) jp×g🗯️ 17:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could publish today, though it looks a little thin as I look at the prepared material. @Adam Cuerden, Bluerasberry, Headbomb, Igordebraga, Smallbones, and Soni: Do you want to move ahead with what we have at this point or wait? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion really. If you want some extra content, it should be pretty easy to find an essay to publish via the signpost. I've suggested WP:1Q in the past, but it's a pretty light essay and I wrote it so I'll defer on the decision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on a Disinfo report. I'm "comfortable" with publishing on the 3rd, though I should be ready tonight. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, not publishing today. Headbomb, I took up your suggestion and created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think the Traffic Report is ready, specially as I would update the most edited part if the Signpost wasn't done yesterday, but the source didn't do so. What's left to get published? igordebraga ≠ 14:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually already gone ahead and changed the template to September 3 (as a haphazard, optimistic guess based on the until the 3rd above). But that clearly didn't happen.

So yes, time to consider invoking the usual EICAWOL protocol: Bri, would you still be available to carry out publication tomorrow, assuming other team members help out with tying up the remaining loose ends at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status (in particular marking sections as ready for copyedit or as copyedited, and approving individual sections for publication, standing in for the EiC)? I just tentatively updated the deadline again to 2025-09-08 00:00 UTC. I myself will have RR in a publishable form by then, and should also be able to help out with getting several other sections ready, starting with the Technology Report. I already went ahead and approved the Essay (as discussed before, such in absentia EiC approvals should preferably be done for sections that one wasn't significantly involved with oneself).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, since there had been no reaction here (and only three smaller edits on the issue itself), I have changed the template again. Again, we need 1) Signpost team members helping out with the still open tasks mentioned above, 2) Bri or JPxG to give note that they will be available to carry out publication, and when. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can publish in the early evening my time which would be around 0100 9 September UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran the publication script in dry-run mode. Something in the Technology report is upsetting the publication script. Can anybody see a problem? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard I found the error. Still on track for publishing in a bit more than one hour. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting in a few minutes. Please refrain from editing until I come back. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA about 3 hours, in order to give it some polish. Thanks @Bri: for copy editing, but I'll also change a few sentences along the way. @Jayen466: I'm looking for some Signpost articles on "dark arts" and Bell Pottinger. I'da thunk you wrote the one I'm looking for. There is a good Bell Pottinger Wiki-article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouf, I can't recall writing anything substantial about Bell Pottinger, Smallbones. Some past references to that story are: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-12/In the news, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/In_the_news, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media. Best, Andreas JN466 22:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1].

Generally speaking I can highly recommend bookmarking the Signpost's archive search form (or even better, add a search shortcut to your browser [2][3]). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you for reminding me. It took a few more steps than usual but I found something pretty good. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Bell Pottinger COI Investigations I was thinking about @Jayen466:'s Kazakhstan related articles, this one was related to Uzbekistan. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Kazakhstan article. I remember I was in Washington for the 2015 WikiConference North America when that issue was published ... good times. The world and America have changed a lot since then. :/ Andreas JN466 23:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones – the lead paragraph promises to go over these topics: how the Wikipedia community is organized, the limited role of the WMF, and how the English-language Wikipedia deals with disinformation. It's not immediately clear where to find those topics in the rest of the piece. Maybe different sub-headings would be helpful? And I'm not sure how DEI, which gets a paragraph or so, fits in with those subjects just mentioned. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: I've had some trouble logging in today. Have the servers been down? In any case I can log in now and the basic gist of Bri's requests are in there. There's some grammatical stuff, a few other things to check, But it could be copy edited now and be ready to go. It is too long.

BTW Verge has a story that should go in ITM. at [4] and on some archive. Long-as-hell and twice as boring! Nah. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Verge report is really good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too quickly. I still can't edit the Disinformation Report page. Here's what I'm trying to change. The word "start" is duplicated in one sentence. Is Trust & Safety still called Trust & Safety. In the bottom half several times the word "you" should be changed to "Congress" or similar. As far as the editing problem, I hope somebody else can edit it and I didn't break the whole page! Go ahead please. Smallbones_(smalltalk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble with system access for me, but I remain logged in more or less continuously because 2FA is a pain to reset. This diff covers your concerns, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing in a few minutes. Please refrain from editing until I come back. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is done, no drama; just doing some spot checks. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks good, spot check of local delivery is . Feel free to copyedit typos or whatever again. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the day!

I removed some leftover placeholders from N&N. Come to think of it: We may want to have the publication script throw a warning if any of the sections lined up for publication contains the string "TKTK". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for more sanity checking. I'd love to have it throw those warnings during the pre-publication "dry run". Also: here is a reader feedback link for the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I attempted to run Wegweiser to set up the database/tags, but it is throwing some new API error which I will have to figure out in the morning. jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done: link at the top of the page but also Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2025-09-09. jp×g🗯️ 18:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/WikiProject report seems to be in limbo. Should it be returned to userspace draft, or ...? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_45#21:8_WikiProject_report: Unless User:Valorrr still plans to work on it to make it a story in the usual format for this section (in particular, conducting interviews with the WikiProject's participants), this indeed seems like a case for userfying. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, JPxG, and HaeB: ITM has an usual pattern this issue, almost everything could legitimately be put in one article without sections. It may be too early for this, but I suggest a basic structure like:

Intro

list of articles about how bad Wikipedia is:

• bad to worse (2 articles, maybe "EVIL" and late term abortions)
• Even worse (Rindsberg 1?)
• Much worse (Rindsberg 2?)
• The worst

Counterpoint (Harrison and White) with others placed where they fit

possible titles Extraordinary eruption of “EVIL” explained

Or perhaps, The facts concerning the recent eruption of evil everywhere, following Mark Twain's The facts concerning the recent carnival of crime in Connecticut

Possible blurb: Oh, what a tangled web we weave

Anything not related to this can go in the Briefs.

I'll try slotting the articles in the right places, there's still a lot of fact-checking to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice this Rindsberg guy really loves us. jp×g🗯️ 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITM looks a little bumpy now but hopeful that it will fill in as we go. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to discuss this - there are things to discuss - and @HaeB: has gotten down to brass tacks in editing the editor's introduction (top of the article).

There are three things I want to do in that intro and 1st section.

1. Show how many critical articles there are putting down Wikipedia this month
2. Show how serious the accusations are, up to and including that WikiEditors are evil. In these times accusations like that are very serious. People (outside of Wikipedia) are being deported against legal rulings, fired from their jobs, sued for $billions, jailed on fake charges. This goes much beyond Musk saying that he'll give a $billion to change our name to "Dickypedia".
3. Show how flimsy or contradictory the evidence is for these articles

I believe that Wikipedia editors should be informed of these very real threats.

2 points that I've wanted to discuss from the start:

1. Is this the worst eruption that we've seen? I'm happy to make this personal ("... that this is the worst outbreak that this reporter has seen.") Or from The Signpost in general (would need some agreement here - has anybody seen a worse outbreak. Siegenthaler doesn't come close, maybe Israel-Palestine?) Or even from Wikipedia in general (people will understand that we are not speaking for Wikipedia as a whole, just making a considered judgement.
2. The "We're appalled by the assassination and by the spector of political violence" Should we express emotion here? I think it is justified to express that I (or we) are not directly criticizing a murder victim (and not just out of respect for his family). It would now almost seem if we were inviting attacks if we didn't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the essay "How Wikipedia Can Save the Internet With Advertising". Doesn't the argument rest on an unexamined premise that Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia community need more money? How does this relate to what has always been a volunteer-based activity? Another thought, presumably the advertising bucks would be collected and allocated by the very same foundation that already has substantial resources and presumably (according to the essayist) is not effectively spending the contributions nor the revenue the endowment throws off? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's fairly direct saying that we need money to fight against both the broligarchy and the government. I did put in the likely reaction from the community. My personal opinion? Theoretically his approach is needed and might work, but it would be extremely difficult to get the community to go along with it in practice. So we'll likely fight against the inevitable successfully, until it's no longer successful. So far only Jimmy Kimmel has survived a direct attack unscathed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding fact-checking for this: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk, I could find neither the term 'reprehensible' nor 'leftist' using WikiBlame. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page now. The Point quoted it and I had a terrible time trying to find where it came from originally. It the following quote about the Erika Kirk AfD discussion from Jesse ON FIRE. "You are reprehensible, disgusting, evil people who are trying to cancel her and get rid of her because you are leftist."

Do people really write like that (other than at AfD's and WP:ANI)? No it's on the video. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via Chartered Institute of Linguists, Wikipedia: Editing the narrative deserves a mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the link right now but apparently Larry Sanger was a guest on the yesterday's podcast.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered (briefly) as part of the larger Sanger story in N&N. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I didn't see that was in NaN. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody confirm that Sanger posted Nine theses to his blog in September? It's odd that he proposed some that are already confirmed to be in the works, like no more anon IP editing (on enwp, at least). We've covered this one in The Signpost as recently as February but starting much earlier. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very different things.

Sanger criticizes that Wikipedia "allow[s] people to edit without logging in", and proposes to require everyone using accounts, for added transparency (as e.g. the Portuguese Wikipedia has already done, and as the English Wikipedia has done for the specific task of creating new articles).

The upcoming (Oct 7) change by WMF is framed as introducing "temporary accounts", but it primarily consists of removing IP visibility for people who chose to edit without logging in, i.e. a marked decrease in transparency. Apropos, it's great that we seem to be nearing publication thanks to JPxG's tying of up loose ends right now, but I still feel we would be doing our readers a disservice if we didn't include at least a brief note about this, as it will be one of the biggest editor-facing changes in years.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it now. Giving HaeB co-authorship credit for the idea and for some of the phrasing copied from this convo. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: See my comment in the publication section below, let me know where you're at on it... jp×g🗯️ 02:12, 2 October 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) 22:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that our next issue is supposed to come out today/tomorrow.

• In the media is more or less done
• Traffic report is written, but not copy edited, not even the tourist view
• I always assume @HaeB: arrives in time, but it doesn't look like it's started
• Obituaries @Blue Rasberry: looks quite interesting but needs a long ton of work
• Comix - a nice 1 liner.
• A couple of ugly lists posing as articles
• News & notes - not started

I do have a disinfo report that I should finish before we publish. When might that be?

pinging @JPxG, Jayen466, and Anybody else?: with some frustration

@Bri: thanks for all the work you do

Any advice appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I will be home and able to write at the least, the discussion report prior to the deadline, and then look to finish whatever else is laying around (assuming the issue is still bare slabs by then). jp×g🗯️ 07:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITM and Disinfo both look very good, but the rest looks like it is still slabs (I am at fault for two of them, disc report and comm view :( ) jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will sleep now and set it forward a day -- since we are past it now. jp×g🗯️ 07:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to be offline for the rest of the day Sunday (US). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everybody know, I'm editing with an Alternate account! AltSmallbones (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everybody know - I'm baaak. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just started N&N to cover a timely topic; another one that we should at least mention briefly there is the temporary accounts rollout on Oct 7 (see also the suggestions page).

In any case I can have both N&N with the current stories and R&R publishable by the new deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where we're at right now:

I am ready to publish right now -- I was thinking I might be able to write something more on Sanger's theses, but I have to get on the highway, and do not have time.

@HaeB: @Svampesky: You've both mentioned that it may be worthwhile to delay publication a bit in order to get things in. I am fine with postponing it a few hours or whatever, but I need to know now; I can either publish right now (and then run the script to populate the database) or wait the four or five hours until I am done driving and do it later tonight. Alternately, if there is a very good reason to postpone, I can do it tomorrow, but I do not really want to do this.

Let me know... jp×g🗯️ 02:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear anything in the next ten minutes or so, I am going to have to make a snap decision between publishing and postponing a day, so if anyone has a preference one way or the other, now is the time to let me know. jp×g🗯️ 02:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - since Bri just added some brief coverage of the missing item, I don't see any remaining obstacles to publishing now. (Would still appreciate another heads-up once you are actually launching the script, as I would otherwise do some more additional incremental improvements.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus, the same minute. Well, everything is done -- the daylight is vanishing, and this means I have to go, but I will be back in about three or four hours and then I can run SPS and Wegweiser. jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Btw, it seems that Svampesky (sadly) hasn't been editing since July - did you mean to ping someone else above? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he'd sent me a message, but I reckon at this point if I wait any longer we are due to publish in February. I am back and rolling it now. jp×g🗯️ 06:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HaeB, that's very kind. I reached out to Giraffer about republishing of their guide to temporary accounts, and Mandruss about republishing their humor essay. It was at the very last minute, so hopefully both will be ready for the next issue. Svampesky (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Giraffer (talk) Giraffer (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like publication was successful, hoorah!

Here is a feedback link for reader comments. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section I started, titled "Did Arbcom lock in POV bias? And will Congress look into this?" was removed and suppressed. I could not find any discussion before or after, only the comment "section has problems" on the deletion. JPxG seems like it would be appropriate for the EinC to investigate. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#You_all_linked_a_page_outing_two_editors. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The impetus for this seems to have been linking to the Tablet and National Review articles. jp×g🗯️ 02:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: From what I gather, editors are not permitted to discuss OSed material on-wiki at all, so please check your email. jp×g🗯️ 03:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BoT section should be a separate section than a part of the next News & Notes.

Also, because of propriety and some of the arguments against him, it is extremely important that the BoT section does not have any input from @Bluerasberry. This should be obvious to everyone, but I'd like to explicitly say so here and in the section as a disclaimer as well.

Obviously, it might still be good to quote him and Ravan, but we might have to explicitly reach out to both to get their comments on this. Soni (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]