As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its sixteenth 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) 17:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I do not believe that the results will be a surprise to most Wikimedians who have been curious about generative AI. It is however disheartening to see that the journalists and science communicators we may be trusting to provide high quality, verified information, do not seem to share our caution. This is not an opinion piece so authors should not express their beliefs and what disheartens them personally. Czarking0 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
RR has been inviting opinions in the form of paper reviews (a very standard format, cf. wikt:review#Noun #2) for fifteen years now, as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to. Happy to hear your arguments if you believe that this should change, but for now we'll stick with the existing format. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
"as you could also have gleaned from the comment you are replying to" do you really have to start with this insufferable attitude? Best regards you could ever have, Czarking0 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Czarking0, while you have made various good contributions to the Signpost in recent months, and I don't mind healthy disagreements and unvarnished feedback, I am starting to worry that you might have been getting a mistaken impression that insults (such as insufferable), passive-aggressive dismissal of feedback, or trying to shut othersup are effective means for getting your way here - despite our editor-in-chief having called you out for such things back in July already (This is a really pointlessly inflammatory comment and I'd prefer you not say stuff like that). We are having lively debates here in the Signpost team all the time, but I can't recall any other team members behaving like this in recent years. Since you were just partially blocked for several weeks for a similarly combative attitude in another area (including accusations and suspicions that other editors judged as unfounded), and seemed to be oblivious that this is not something that is acceptable on English Wikipedia, now might be a good moment for you to reflect and make some changes.
As for your edits to E_mln_e's review: Separate from whether opinions are allowed in reviews (I hope we could clear that up above), things should be attributable to the bylined author(s). That doesn't mean that the bylined author has carte blanche for offtopic rants or is granted the ultimate authority over what is being published in the end, or that others can't make some uncontroversial smaller factual additions sometimes if they can reasonably assume that the bylined author is OK with them. But there is no NPOV policy here.
While occasional expressions of frustration happen, and sometimes those expressions of frustration become focused on a specific person, I share HaeB's concerns here regarding a pattern of incivility in Signpost discussions, and I would ask Czarking0 to please become more of a team player. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine(✉)04:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, what's there is ready for copyediting (and I think the first piece has already been copyedited quite well). I'm adding some finishing touches as we speak. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I see plans just changed again (from EICAWOL and Bri publishing this evening Pacific time, to JPxG suddenly showing up for duty a few days after the deadline). Anyway, so this will have to be in the next issue, I have changed the heading accordingly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like we have a leftover draft that already has some good material but which was left out of last month's issue because nobody got around to editing and fleshing it out a bit more, and was just skipped again for today's issue. I think it covers some important topics and should work with just a little additional editing (e.g. the author of the piece about the "Journal Cited by Wikipedia" reports might want to add a disclosure of their own involvement in it; also, @Mitchsavl: does the Wishlist item need any updates?). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 13 October 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.
