I have decided to get this section started early, the Tech Team layoffs will likely be the biggest story this issue. I invite other Signpost editors and uninvolved to contribute, but seeing the levels of contention that has already arisen, I think it would be best if involved editors, such as those significantly engaged in resulting discussions, those connected to the union, or WMF staff sit this one out. I welcome comments and suggestions from involved editors, especially since their engagement will help us find newsworthy items. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchsavl, @Bluerasberry, @Bri
I recommend trying to make the Community Tech team disbanding article accessible to both experienced Wikimedians and a more general public who aren't very Wiki-literate. This could be a great introduction to the history of wishlists/wishtlisting on Wikipedia for those who are not informed.
I think it would be informative to explain simply:
Brief history of the process of taking in wishes and responding to Wikipedia editor community needs on Wikipedia/Wikimedia
I see you are already beginning to cover the WMF responses and the editor responses. I also think it would be worthwhile to share ideas for the future of the wishlist that have came about because of the discussion surrounding this re-structuring. The path forward. I'd be interested to help collect the wishlist ideas shared. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wil540 art: Thanks for the comment and welcome to exploring The Signpost. I moved your comment from the draft to here - editorial conversations go here and that original space is for readers after publication.
We have very little labor for journalism or requests for articles. Your ideas are good, but in practice, if any article will be written, then it takes recruiting a volunteer journalist to create it. If someone actually writes a draft then Signpost editors can review it.
This does not need to be one story. It could be several smaller stories with different writers who do not coordinate. For example, the "wishlist" story goes back 10+ years with multiple developments, and anyone could tell that story without the recent news, and either or both with numbers or with human narratives. Community Tech is its own newer story, as is PTAC.
Signpost tends to attract reports of recent events by Wikimedians who already are following day to day updates, but contextual journalism for the more general public is very welcome because it brings new users into important social and ethical conversations, and also cools conflicts and makes way for progress. Bluerasberry (talk)16:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome and the insight. I'm not 100% clear on how things work here, so thanks for the patience. I will start by trying to write a short about the history of Wishlists of Wikipedia. If that already exists elsewhere, I couldn't find it and please point me to it. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wil540 art: Here are some events in the story of the wishlist. Thousands of Wikipedia editors went through all of this together.
"user:raymond - Why did you start the Technical Wishes project? - When the Visual Editor was introduced a few years ago – basically a Word-like what-you-see-is-what-you-get interface – a lot of criticism was coming from the community. In order to start a constructive discussion, I set up a page called “Technical Wish List”..."
Thank you for this timeline. Are there any particularly impactful examples where the wishlist worked well? Where a wish was made, granted, then well implemented and with positive effects? - Wil540 art (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
