Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

I saw these stories in Christian press and thought they were not appropriate for The Signpost. It really doesn't have anything to do with us IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I strongly agree, especially because Sanger's post doesn't appear to address his current view on Wikipedia in any meaningful way, aside of a few quick mentions here and there. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. This really has nothing to do with us, and we don't need to be reporting on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However you feel about whether we need to be reporting on it it does have cleary have something to do with us... We can't just memory hole Sanger. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Sanger is an important individual, but we don't need to report on every aspect of his personal life. We should only report on his actions if they directly relate to Wikipedia, and the same goes for anyone else. Just because he was part of the process of creating the site doesn't mean we need to report on him every single time he's in the news. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that we need to report on him every single time he's in the news, thats a red herring. However we do seem to more or less kneejerk Wales into the Signpost, but I will admit that the Wales coverage is also generally much more directly related to wikipedia. Maybe this is just my own perspective because I'm not an elder enough editor to remember the era in which Sanger was directly involved in the project, to me he's always seemed like more of a historical figure but one who was still immensely influential on the project. This doesn't seem like just anything, this seems significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why his religion would be significant to a project he is no longer involved in. It might contextualize his criticism a little, but even that's a stretch. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting, its the sort of thing I want to see in the Signpost... Which is generally pretty boring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are appropriate for the Signpost because Sanger matters a great deal to the community (even if just as a punching bag). The Signpost isn't a formal part of wikipedia, we should have leeway to cover this sort of thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back That's true, but my biggest point against reporting this is about Sanger's post not addressing his current stance on Wikipedia in any meaningful way... Oltrepier (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why it is relevant to Wikipedia at all. It just seems like being weirdly stalkerish about Sanger's life on our end. Or trying some sort of oblique "ha ha, we win" sort of mention. I don't think this should be included at all. And I say that as someone with strong negative opinions of the person in question. Silverseren^C 17:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @QuicoleJR @Silver seren @Horse Eye's Back In my opinion, the best we could do is just a quick mention in the short blurbs, as we usually do with the events Jimbo's involved in... Still, I stand on my previous comments. Oltrepier (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not throw a fit over a quick mention. However it still seems unrelated to our audience. Would we go out of our way to report on him experiencing other major life events, disconnected from Wikipedia, such as marrige or change of city of residence? I don't think so. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri You're right, and I've just noticed that Sanger already wrote about his reported conversion almost two years ago, so that's likely a closed case... Oltrepier (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, JPxG, and Smallbones: Just to clarify, are we going to cover the piece we discussed about over here, in the end? I feel like ITM would be the most fitting place, since Funcrunch themselves prefers not to re-post the full article. Oltrepier (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; even if I had permission, I wouldn't want to repost it in entirety on-wiki. Would be happy to see it in ITM though. Funcrunch (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks well suited for In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones Good, thank you! I'm afraid I won't be able to take care of it, though, since I'm already working on the other lead story about the 404 Media report...

Could you write something for it, please? Oltrepier (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this front? Oltrepier (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Maharashtra cyber police thing and the article Chhaava. I don't understand what's happening and reported it at AN. Here's what Malcolmxl5 said: Sambhaji has been seeing a lot of activity, prompted no doubt by the release of the film Chhaava. Basically, people are objecting to the depiction of Sambhaji in our article. Both the article and article talk page are currently protected. I'll try to work this into the item, somehow. It might have to get a big longer (i.e. moved out of "in brief"). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, see Talk:Sambhaji#Surge_of_requests_incoming!, perhaps it'll help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1], it seems people watched the biopic-ish film Chhaava, noted that the WP-article Sambhaji didn't match in all details, and started talking about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I just wanted to notice that I've moved this item at the start of the "In brief" section, due to various changes to the lead story line-up... I hope it's not a big deal. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri@Oltrepier Have you noticed that none of the press on this seems to be willing to go into what the problem is, as in quotes of WP-content and naming refs? Have they concluded they will be in trouble if they do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zee 24 TAAS, a Marathi news channel, has once again proven the power of fearless journalism, launching a high-impact campaign against Wikipedia for hosting derogatory content on the revered Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.". Good to know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I guess we should just ignore them... Oltrepier (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source [2] actually mentioned article-content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to follow up but India Today says that the cyber police are filing charges against 4 or 5 individuals [3]. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Safe to say that my previous statement is going to age like milk, then... Oltrepier (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...turn into a delicious cheese? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things are happening fast today. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"Legal_Issues" and the recent mega-edits at Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Bri Ok, so would you like to swap the last entry (about WikiTok) with this bit of news? Or should we wait until the next issue for further developments? Oltrepier (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on that, I'm thinking more on where should this go in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Do you mean a dedicated article? Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be adding something at Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials should be covered in this issue – gov't irked, police called, people charged, editor(s) appeared at ANI with some legal stuff, and admins are discussing "protective" blocks of the affected accounts. This all needs to get community attention before the train really leaves the station, which could essentially be the case by the next issue. The ordering of ITM stories isn't my first concern. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, Svampesky, and Jayen466: I've finally submitted my article on the 404 Media report about recent declarations by WMF executives and staffers on the development and extension of user protection tools.

As it's usually the case with my blurbs, there might be various passages that sound too clunky or verbose, so feel free to cut down or edit everything that needs to be fixed! Also, I've highlighted a couple of paragraphs towards the end that might need sources I wasn't able to find.

I'll now switch to copy-editing and other minor tasks, since I likely won't be able to write another full story on time... Oltrepier (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind the deadline. I've been known to mess up, but I think there is just 1 day to go for writing. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Svampesky There's one more day now! Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to Sennecaster about publishing their RfA debrief, but they haven't been online. Svampesky (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky No worries, there's always the next issue if that doesn't make the cut! Oltrepier (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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) 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist