Checklist

Checklist

As previously discussed, I have finished (or at least made functional) the script that parses and entables noticeboard threads. Here is the top 50 or so noticeboard threads since the beginning of the year (47, to be precise, which is the number of discussions above the byte threshold that I set to 70,000).

Sort this by "length" to get them ranked. I think that this would make for a decent discussion report. This is a very large amount, of course -- since it is for five whole months, and not three weeks -- I think if we did this every issue we could go in a lot greater depth but unfortunately there is a lot to cover which means a lot to gloss over quickly. jp×g🗯️ 21:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on this, more or less, is that we ought to print something, even if it is not Pulitzer material, and that something is better than nothing.

It would be very nice if we could actually analyze these, as I did for AfDs at the deletion report a long while ago (in the days of having time for things) -- but if there is not sufficient time to actually go through and analyze them, we ought to summarize them, and if there is not sufficient time to summarize them, we ought to at least reprint what the closing statements were, and if there is not sufficient time to do that, I think the bare minimum would be to just publish them as a list.

As more time goes by, the job of catchup for these will only become more difficult (as with the quite lethargic arb report), so I would very much like someone to write something fleshing these out, but if this cannot be managed I will just put something in like a very bare-bones list. jp×g🗯️ 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A much bigger list is at User:JPxG/sandbox/10k notices 2025, for every thread above 10,000 bytes (broken out by month and sortable by field incl. length). jp×g🗯️ 21:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "entables" the leet speak for "tabulates"? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list should always skip all behavioural noticeboards at the very least. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of "tabulating" which threads had the most discussion, when the entire threads is about (say) one editor's misconduct or similar. They also feel ill fitting to compare in the same category as the other type of discussions, like "Village pump discussion on Xyz".

Imo the "behavioural" noticeboards in this list that should be skipped are - WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI, possibly WP:DRN. Perhaps a manual check can leave behind any AN/ANI discussions that are broader, like "What do we think of this part of admin accountability". I just prefer keeping them all out than keeping any "This editor's conduct was bad" discussions in the same vein as the rest.

I also see value in splitting the Village pumps from all other noticeboards, as separate categories/tables but that's not a big deal I guess. Soni (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hat btw, this was blowing up the newsroom. As for propriety on user behavior threads, I have given this some long thought, and ultimately I think it is of public interest. Traditionally, we have covered arbitration proceedings in great detail, virtually all of which are conduct issues (almost definitionally so, as the remit of the Committee doesn't include ruling on content or policy). The justification for this isn't the clicks, or the lulz, but that these proceedings and rulings involve issues of importance to all editors: they are usually on issues (political or cultural) that we consider important, they often involve people central to our community, and perhaps most importantly they involve the interpretation and definition (and sometimes reinterpretation and redefinition) of our norms and policies. A lot of the time, a big dramaboard thread will be about thousands of articles, or some big process thing, or be the impetus for some new policy to be added (or some old policy to be struck).

Of course some propriety is called for with these, as it is with the arbitration report -- particularly it would be tasteless to rank them in the fashion of a "Greatest Hits" reel -- but I do think it is something that warrants a solid and sober analysis.

(It is probably also worth mentioning that AN and ANI have kind of become the all-purpose "throw whatever shit here" zone for the project...) jp×g🗯️ 10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid, though I just disagree with your stance. I think if we're keeping them all, it would be best if the list was sectioned based off venue. AE/ANI/AN for "Editor stuff", VPs for "Village Pumps" and rest for "Noticeboards". Or another phrasal.

I think at least that reduces the ickiness I feel + will be a generally better use for the lists anyway (A 100K count RFC on VP occupies a much different space than NPOVN or ANI, in my opinion. So some segregation improves the utility of the lists, imo.) Soni (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

This news story seems guaranteed to raise major complaints from at least two groups. I don't have a particular expertise in the controversial areas. I was looking for somebody who has handled this topic well in The Signpost before. @Bluerasberry: do you know of somebody who could write this up or even just be an "expert source" in the area? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the author of 2020-06-28 In focus, "Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism", which touched on online harassment and discrimination, hasn't edited for a while. But perhaps we could include a link to it as backgrounder. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In addition to Ryan McGrady's article for Free Policy Press, which you already added and proposes the implementation of a "Wikipedia Liberty Index", there's also a recent post from D.F. Lovett's "Edit History" newsletter, where he suggests that a banner that emphasized the fact that Wikipedia is "an ever-evolving, volunteer-maintained project owned and operated by a nonprofit organization" would help the platform get less misunderstood and criticized...

Thoughts? Oltrepier (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Signposters. [Following a conversation with Smallbones and HaeB] I'd like to write something based on the TPP piece to pitch to the Signpost. Some combination of excerpts and a paragraph or two about possible next steps (I asked them to put a CC BY-SA 4.0 license on it to facilitate doing so). What would be a sensible deadline for me to get you a draft? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Sure! What did "TPP" refer to, though? At the moment, we set June 6 as the deadline for the writing process. Oltrepier (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Policy Press. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Oh, that's right! : D

Thank you very much for stepping in. Oltrepier (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Can someone please review, revise, and edit the subsection I posted in News and Notes regarding Musk and Tesla.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes

I am requesting this just because of the sensitivity of discussing anything in this area. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DOGE org isn't really "Musk's"; it existed as US Digital Service before his arrival and will probably exist after his departure last week (if I'm not mistaken, reported by USA Today and others). Other than that, I don't see anything wildly controversial. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks for reviewing, I updated it. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph on one of the files being deleted. – robertsky (talk) 17:39, 3 June 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) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist

Checklist

The Community view part 3 is ready for copyediting early. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist