Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

Very brief YouTube interview with Jimmy Wales, seen in German Wikipedia's Kurier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswRbWyt_pg&t=31s

The walk-out was covered by Berliner Zeitung:

• „Dümmste Frage der Welt“: Co-Gründer von Wikipedia verlässt Interview mit Tilo Jung nach Sekunden

Kind of old. (His user page has said "co-founded" for the past five years, ever since this edit by a long-blocked user: [1]) Andreas JN466 18:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Green has sat down with The Atlantic for the inaugural episode of Charlie Watzel's Galaxy Brain podcast − transcripted here. They discussed the current state of the Internet... and of course, Green once again praised Wikipedia as "one of the greatest creations of humanity". This looks good enough to be covered! Oltrepier (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hank also published a personal video that seems to be triggered by that podcast incident. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ Thanks, I'll definitely give it a shot! Oltrepier (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of on the fence about this one:

• "The hostile takeover of Wikipedia", Ashley Rindsberg, Spiked (magazine)

On the one hand I think contrarian views are good for In the media. On the other hand, I can't remember the last month we didn't have something critical from this same author talking about "state-aligned messaging" and "cabals working on behalf of foreign terror organisations". Views? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say cover it. Given that he makes much the same argument repeatedly, we can note that fact for our readers and keep the item brief. Andreas JN466 23:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As discussed before not too long ago (and documented here), ITM is to inform readers about how we get covered out there, rather than providing reading recommendations about what we consider to be the highest quality reporting. (That said, it's also valuable for ITM to provide context, and if appropriate point out flaws as well). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: or anyone else – this looks a little loony from the abstract that claims to have found "a generative framework in which physical reality emerges from a deterministic computational process on a topological substrate". "Physics, Solved: Rethinking Wikipedia's "List of Unsolved Problems in Physics". It's getting late, but aybe we can have some fun with it? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we try to be pretty inclusive with RR (i.e. not confine it to only peer-reviewed publications or high-quality journals), this really is a bit far out... That said, no objection to covering it for entertainment as long as we make it clear that, umm, physics still isn't solved yet despite the author's suggestions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Hello! I've managed to add some more material to the column, and now it should be at least in a decent state.

I do not have enough time to write on the new edition of the Wiki Science Competition, which should be the last notable bit missing: can somebody knock the blurb out, please? Oltrepier (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shoot! I forgot about the results of the latest Board of Trustees elections... I mean, for what they're worth, given the double-exclusion situation we covered.

I've got kind of a COI issue preventing me from writing about that, though. Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the N&N column is 75% complete at this point. If somebody else could jump on the two missing blurbs and check the rest, I think we can get it over the line! Oltrepier (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: In my view, this was not ready for publication when it went out. Now, that's largely on me, and since the publication deadline had passed, I wouldn't have begrudged you for simply leaving it out of this issue. But as you chose to include it with just the draft of this single story basically as-is (which wasn't even yet marked as ready to be copyedited), it should be noted that its author had explicitly asked for feedback on this draft (not a bad idea, given the somewhat sensitive topic - scrutinizing the flows of significant amounts of money and criticizing the failures of various grantees); I do hope you gave it a thorough review before publishing.

As we didn't get to cover any research publications in this issue, I'm repurposing this talk page section and the above linked to-do list pad for the upcoming issue.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point - while the author has responded there already, JPxG, since you vetted and published this piece, you may want to take a look at that feedback too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist