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
	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 2026-03-05 11:21:59 ( v t e ) Writing: 7 March 01:00 (2 days left; 11%) Publishing: 8 March 01:00 (3 days left; 15%) There is 1 day, 13 hours, 38 minutes and 1 second until deadline. (refresh)

Thought provoking item at Times of Israel blogs [1] which contains this passage

At this point, there is nothing meaningful left to do within Wikipedia. The platform is designed to be unresponsive once narratives harden, and engagement drains energy without changing outcomes. The appearance of neutrality masks a system that rewards coordination and persistence, not accuracy.

I found this interesting because it mirrors something we posted recently but from a writer who would probably be described as supporting the opposite side of the IPA issue. Their exposition (expanded from what we printed before) is strikingly similar.

[Admin-imposed restrictions are] presented as neutral conflict management, but they function asymmetrically. They privilege editors already embedded in the system, fluent in policy, and disciplined in the rhetorical norms of "neutrality," while disadvantaging [outsiders] ... Crucially, these mechanisms do not decide who is right. They decide what can safely be said. ... Wikipedia often treats stability as if it were consensus. Stability reflects the moment at which procedural tools have halted further change...

However, this being a blog from a name I don't recognize, I'm hesitant to include. Any thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No replies. Maybe an op-ed by me on why PIA is such a PITA. Bri.public (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ToI blogs are a very mixed bag and really no better than Substack or any other kind of blog. In this specific case, the writer is simply making things up – his assertion that nobody was speaking of "Palestinians" back around the time of King Abdullah's assassination can be shown to be false in five minutes via a Google Books search restricted to pre-1960 results. Examples: [2] [3]. It's not worth covering. Andreas JN466 09:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• AV Club
• Boing Boing
• Engadget
• Ground News
• Hacker News
• Let's Data Science
• Stuff (SA)

A bunch of media coverage has appeared about a "Wikipedia doomscrolling app"? I can't figure out what our angle will be. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+ Gizmodo

I'm the creator of Xikipedia - it's meant to be art/commentary on modern social media algorithms. Though, I'm working on turning it into an actual app (pwa) now. Not a very serious project, but also not a joke. Rebane2001 (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I had 2 or 3 reactions to the story.
  • Why use the Simple English wiki version instead of enWiki?
  • See The 1st In brief mention in this ITM story about Wiki Toc. What's different about this one. We're not here to advertise, but if there were a comparison in the media about the two, it would be worth including.
  • Why did the current sources ignore the old story?
• @Bri, Rebane2001, JPxG, and Bluerasberry: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I used Simple English wiki because it's way smaller - this means the entire dataset can be downloaded and the algorithm run locally, so that privacy can be preserved and the website/app can be used fully offline.

  The main difference from WikiTok is that Xikipedia is algorithmic, that is, the feed adjusts based on which "posts" you like and which you don't. It is not just calling the Wikipedia api to show you random articles. The algorithm is described in the GitHub readme.

  Obviously there are many visual and feature differences as well, but I'm not sure how important they would be to the story. Rebane2001 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebane2001: Is the Progressive web app working now? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that and fully offline support through service workers. Rebane2001 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know if you covered that already in December, but the WikiFlix project has gained some traction in the last few months, first courtesy of TechCrunch, and then on some specialized Italian portals. Is this worth a mention? --Oltrepier (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, looks like a good item for News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something is here but it's behind a PR Week paywall. I wonder what the answer is to "should PR agencies edit Wikipedia"? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted to tell Newsroom folks I will be "mostly" offline this weekend (Valentine's Day), and not available for publishing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword grid and clues are posted if anybody wants to give it a try. I'm not sure if I made the clues hard, or easy. It's hard to tell when you are the creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted most of my Disinfo report, but there is a section left to complete.

• There won't be a CEO interview this issue, but the wait should probably be worth it.
• In the media looks very good, but I may change the top story some. The Times (UK) article would have been ok 6 years ago, but really doesn't depend on the new release of info!
• I love Serendipity
• Crossword has some extra lines in my browser
• Why don't we get rid of that In focus stuff - it can only cause further problems.
• I'm pretty sure I'll be around for copyediting work.
• Enjoy Valentines day @Bri and JPxG: et al.

I'm off for a box of chocolates. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The crossword has been rendering weird for me on some platforms. See my problem report WT:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical#Crossword puzzles are mis-rendering. Even Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-24/Crossword included, the first one that uses new templates. I don't think it's a problem with the code that I used for construction. I mean, it might be a problem with the templates, but not specific to the way that I used them in this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something happened to the sitewide CSS a few months ago that made all the crosswords look weird and misaligned. I tried for a few hours to sort it out at some point, but was unable to make any headway. jp×g🗯️ 19:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones @Bri Just so you know, I've somehow managed to bring News and notes to a state where it should actually be reviewable and publishable. I guess that's the "gifted kid syndrome" kicking in at night... Oltrepier (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones You are right. I've added a reference to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-12-01/Disinformation_report where you covered this already – and in far more detail than The Times – last December. Feel free to make further edits! Andreas JN466 10:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to get RR done yesterday, but it didn't work out in time. I'm still optimistic I can have it publishable within a couple of hours, but feel free to launch this issue without it already (just don't include the current draft in that case, as it would be too meager). Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• done copyediting for Feb 16 I cleaned in a few pieces, and would do more if not published tomorrow, but I am done for today. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, HaeB, and Oltrepier: and all other copy editors. I'm done with all but the last couple of paragraphs on the Disinfo report. It's an important and sensitive article, so it's important not to add anything or change the meaning of the text while copy editing. Anything that makes me feel uncomfortable, I'll have to revert (seriously). JPxG, could you let me know when it's been approved for publication. I'd like to take one last look and then let you know. Any idea on the actual publication date and time? In any case, the last section will be completed in an hour. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slim enough issue it can just be today. I'm working on it presently; will be back to office in a short bit. jp×g🗯️ 01:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes out in this issue, it should of course be linked in the ITM Epstein piece as well. Andreas JN466 01:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The link is already there and I just now changed it to the right date
• Oltrepier's copy edits look fine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the link from ITM to your new piece. Now added (also as a redlink with today's date). Andreas JN466 09:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones: edit special:diff/1338592821/1338671457, still checking Bluerasberry (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: In the second half of the article you quote some emails. It is possible to direct link to these emails in Jmail. Is it your editorial choice that this article not provide jmail direct links to those messages? I found them in jmail by searching for text strings, and I think you captured enough information. I see reasons for linking and not linking. Can you confirm that you thought about this, and decided to not link? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Yes, this was my editorial choice to leave out some links, but it was a difficult one. I simple don't want some people's names or email addresses to be exposed if I don't think that they have a (major or minor) role in the scandal, that the link would expose them to public humiliation that might happen if thousands of readers without thought just viewed the link. So why include the quote? It is hugely important that Wikipedians know what Epstein was doing on Wikipedia. There is a tradeoff here and I think I've complied with the policy of not linking to material that defames or outs blps or wiki editors. So how can I include any links? No defamation or outing in the link. I know it looks odd at times. And if folks like you can use the quotes to track down the email... well that's a whole lot less than if I put in the link, and what you do to research in a public database is just not in the policy. Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I went through the same thought process. I know we try to show sources, but this topic is already overwhelmed with a tangle of database links, and for the messages you quoted there the insight that readers have to gain from clicking through is probably only seeing the evidence that there is no insight to be gained by looking more.

Thanks for talking this through, I support the omission. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report

If it is better to give other editors time to review this, then this article could be delayed no problem. I have a report here which is text and link heavy, but I did write it in first person. I have a conflict of interest here as it is about meta:WikiCite which I do as Wikimedian in Residence at University of Virginia School of Data Science. If there is any question that this needs review, then delay, but I think I made this clearly from me.

If publishing does not happen tonight then I will work other content at the submission desk tomorrow. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it copyedit complete but thought a little feedback might be in order. My head was swimming by the end with the various moving parts - database engines, citation initiatives, and all that. Maybe a little more up-front orientation for ther reader would help. I think you said at one point that wikidata was effectively frozen – explaining how and why might motivate more attentive reading of the remanider of the report. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: Again, the delay in publishing detracts from the value of the articles. With a couple of exceptions that are clearly noted, we're ready to publish. Let's do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to publish now. There is some strange script error that's not letting me run it, will try to figure out what is wrong. jp×g🗯️ 07:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to compose an issue with only one article: Comix is fine by itself, so it must be an error caused by formatting in one of the articles. jp×g🗯️ 07:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one until I get the error: Comix fine, ITM fine, N&N fine, Opinion fine, Crossword fine, TR fine, disinfo triggers it. God damn it, if it was the crossword or something I could just postpone it but this one actually matters. I guess I will go find out what is going on. jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

looking through the source and there was an email address in an email transcript with angle brackets around them, changed them to HTML entities for first debug attempt and it composes fine now. HOLE IN ONE BAYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE OHH YEAH jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Published, feader reedback at normal link, etc. jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list posts done. Andreas JN466 14:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't think we've ever had a CWE 94 event during publishing before. LOL. Good job JPxG! I'll probably be more present for the next issue. Bri.public (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted an essay for publication in the Signpost. User Bluerasberry was kind to let me know that I needed to add a relevant template and format it for the post. However, it is my first time posting, so could someone please assist me with the process? Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for contributing "The pursuit of a button click". It would probably be suitable for an ad-hoc essay type contribution, I think; looking at the content guidance, perhaps In Focus, Usually a submission from a Wikipedia editor or group of editors that focuses on a current specific feature or process of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or concern of the editors that does not fit into Op-Ed, Special Report, or any other regular rubric. What do other Signposters think? If it's accepted, I can take care of Signpost formatting, don't worry about that part. Bri.public (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, I started a draft for an article about the community deciding to deprecate archive.today, here. Mitchsavl (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good for a Discussion report, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on the article (which still will need extensive copyediting), would you be able to provide feedback on it so far, and if you think that it should be included in the next issue, move it to a relevant subpage?

Because of the significant impact of this change, and the amount of attention it has drawn (from the media, and various editors, with the RFC page having over 30 thousand views and 200 participants,^[1] that it may be good as a short standalone report, separated from the other discussions. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Mitchsavl (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not hearing from other Signpost regulars, I'm going to do this move to our draft space for upcoming issue. I.e. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Bluerasberry has moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Czarking0, thanks for working on a piece about annual planning! We’re grateful for the coverage and chance to further invite enwp contributors into this work. I wanted to make a few quick clarifications before you publish:

The talk page discussion where you link to is an important part of how WMF hears from editors to shape our annual plan, but it’s far from the only way. The questions Sandister posted are on behalf of a number of staff/teams across the Foundation department, and are a means of kicking off discussions that will help us shape our plan objectives.

If you want a better place to check how much WMF is listening/incorporating feedback overall, I recommend checking out the Collaboration page for last year, which we publish every year. It’s got a list of where editors talked with us about our annual plan, statistics about who engaged where and in what languages, and an (albeit high level) feedback summary of core themes we heard. We have staff members constantly attending calls, reading and/or joining talkpage discussions, and chatting with editors on community specific channels. You can see here on this year's collaboration page some of what is planned (more is being added weekly) between now and 30th May 2026.

As a corollary, looking at the word count on that specific talk page is not a great metric for understanding how much WMF takes editors’ input seriously. As you can see from the above, discussions happen across many regions and channels - and we are only just starting the process. Your example of AI and editing are illustrative here; the teams supporting this work spend a lot of time reading and joining editor-created discussions on the Village Pump, like this one that’s currently active about AI bots and Newcomer Tasks. Same teams, same decisions/annual planning, different threads.

If you're open to including a call to action in your piece, one place where more community input would be extremely impactful right now is around the question about how people's relationship to AI has changed in the past year. There’s discussions happening about that on the annual plan talk page, and on the Village Pump thread I shared above (see in particular the recent ask by Sonja Perry).

Finally, I’ve also updated my title on my userpage if that makes it easier for you or your readers to understand who is saying what.

Thanks again, and I’m happy to chat further if you have questions! kstinerowe{{@}}wikimedia.org. KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Czarking0 now pinging directly. KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someone pointed out that I've been mentioned in this section regarding my public notices to bring awareness to the Etherpad deletion issue. Exciting! First, a request: Can I not be referred to as a "Wikimedia dude"? I know it's part of my username, but I'd prefer to drop that wording. Maybe "Wikimedia technical editor and volunteer...."? I suppose I could make this non-controversial change myself.

My next suggestion is a bit meatier. I think the paragraph that starts "While Wikimedia Foundation system administrators tend to start conversations as technical issues..." contains a lot of editorializing and conjecture. It postures two separate us v them type mentalities, volunteers v WMF, and technical editors versus content editors. I read the Signpost requirements and they specifically mention that the News and Notes section needs to be "ruthlessly objective".

Also, although I'm aware of the fact that my personal opinion on this issue (even, and perhaps in particular, as someone mentioned in the note!) is not particularly important, I want to bring to the editor's attention my updated comment at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T415237#11628351. In summary, WMF Etherpad is a trove of anonymous UGC from the open internet, devoid of any auditing or moderation for 15 years. It is possible that it contains many of the awful things mentioned here (which further explains the risk to both the foundation and the movement). As conjectured in the note in its current form, why does the Ehterpad contain 233GB? What is potentially in there?? And the true, terrifying answer is "no one knows" (though one analysis concluded that a high percentage of them simply ironically contain the initial notice, which includes "This etherpad could be deleted at any time").

I'm happy to collaborate on potential improvements to this note, and I do appreciate more visibility being given to the issue. audiodude (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Audiodude: Thanks for editing and feel free to edit more. Publication is in about a week. The conversation is going and I made myself a party to it on Phabricator, so now I have more conflict in reporting this story. I am a heavy etherpad user myself and I transfer notes from etherpad to meta-wiki, but I do not know anyone else in the entire wiki movement who also does this routinely.

I am not attached to any of this text and you seem to have ideas about it - I encourage you to edit as much as you like. Before publication other Signpost editors will review it more. If I could, I would like to step away from this piece know due to my involvement in advocating to extract and keep the notes. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my interview with Bernadette Meehan, the WMF's new CEO, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Interview. It needs formatting, links, etc. but other than that is complete. I'll look around ItM (which is fairly complete) and most other articles, doing copy editing and similar, but otherwise I have no other article to contribute for this issue. I was kinda expecting a disinfo report to pop up, but nothing truly new about Epstein appeared. I was thinking there was something simple about an executive order, but it turned out to be more complicated than I thought. So I'll finish what's on my plate and start anew for the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something did just pop up for the disinfo report. AI Translations Are Adding ‘Hallucinations’ to Wikipedia Articles from 404 Media, could be in ItM or disinfo report or both. There's lots of commentary on-Wiki as well. What makes it interesting to me is that, at first glance, OKA seems to take into account everything that needs to be taken into account, and then flunks out on each issue. Well, I'll have to see. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Regarding OKA, we have a submission proposal from them and I invited them to submit something describing their projects. This was before the 404 story was in development. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#OKA_Translation_Initiative

I cannot say whether they will finish a submission but they have the invitation. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Bluerasberry. You're doing good work trying to sort out all the Submissions. We do need to do a better job responding to all of these, including the "expressions of interest", i.e. the submissions that don't have a proposed article that are attached. @7804j: I'll assume that you don't have a proposed article yet and can't get one before Saturday. So we'll need to at least note the 404 Media article in this issue's In the media column. I may still do a Disinformation report in this issue, which will at least give you a starting point for responding to your critics. There are a great many interesting topics wound up in all of this, and some history to check out. So in about 3 weeks, will you have something solid for that issue? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could prepare a draft by end of day Saturday if this is still within delays? 7804j (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@7804j: the writing deadline is Saturday, March 7, for publication the next day (giving us time to format and copyedit it). I'll suggest you respond to the 404 Media story and to your on-Wiki critics. But first I suggest you give us the basics about yourself and the organization, why translating articles into English is your focus, etc. There will be something short in In the media about the 404 Media article, which should feed you some extra readers. Let us know if this works for you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'll share it by Saturday end of day latest then 7804j (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]