← Newsroom

WP:POST/TIPS

Suggestions

The Signpost (talk  · chat)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content + resources Formatting (cheatsheet) Style Technical (talk)
Recent changes: main · talk
Newsletters
v t e

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Settings: Discussions are archived by Cluebot III when older than 60 days, or if marked with {{done}}

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 8.

"WP:POST/S" redirects here. For the Signpost submissions page, see WP:POST/SUBMIT.

This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. We are a newspaper that covers subjects of general interest for our audience of Wikipedia editors. If you'd like guidance on editing for new editors, please inquire at the Teahouse. More general questions may be addressed to the help page.

Email a private tip to the EiC(s)

For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please see our feedback page. You can also write a piece yourself! See the submissions desk for details. Or send a news tip by email to our tipmail.

Do not use one click archivers on this page, they don't work correctly. Mark entries with {{done}} instead.

The Signpost should write about WP:BIAS specifically with reference to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. Recently a page on an event which happened days before in the USA was !kept at AfD on the basis of IAR and an accident that killed more than 30 in Pakistan was !deleted on the basis of NOTNEWS and NEVENT. It is clear that "news events" are not being consistently !kept or !deleted at AfD and this leads to long-standing BIAS.

JMWt (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an op-ed that would be written by someone with strong interest in the topic. Are you interested in doing one? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well I'm heavily biased and invested in the issue, I'm not sure I can write a balanced dispassionate piece. I can tell people what I think and why, I'm not sure I can do anything more than that JMWt (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds don't have to be objective or dispassionate. It's in the title: opinion/editorial. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should write about... the sharp rise in identified AI-generated content in August 2025, much of which has been undetected since 2023-2024, and the increased attention to combating it.

• This has been in national news recently, e.g., the Washington Post, The Verge, Yahoo, et cetera.
• Much of this is spearheaded by the AI Cleanup WikiProject, which publishes an extensive list of common and less frequently remarked upon signs of AI text. WP:ANI has also had several related cases in the past week.
• The problem goes deeper than previously thought; around 600 instances of writing suspected to be LLM generated have been identified in around two weeks, on articles as high profile as Celebrity, Fashion, Foreign language, Culture of Mexico, History of Nigeria, Protest song, and Women's sports.
• A new speedy deletion criteria was just adopted for unambiguous AI generated content, which has also been reported by the media.
• English Wikipedia and the WMF have been somewhat at odds over this, as evidenced by the foundation's new AI strategy and its repercussions in things like the backlash against a project to show AI summaries to users. This also comes at the beginning of the new college semester, coinciding with new guidance to students in the WikiEdu program about responsible AI use.

Disclaimer: I am involved in this WikiProject and most of the efforts above. But given the mainstream media attention and the number of developments in the past two weeks alone, it feels important to cover. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing has some press-coverage, as can be seen in the press-template on the talkpage.

And then there is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Wikipedia_under_US_House_of_Reps_Oversight_Committee, but I'm fairly sure you guys noticed that one anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/717322/wikipedia-attacks-neutrality-history-jimmy-wales

--Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's long but worth reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in the Cory Doctorow piece I just suggested below. Funcrunch (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts (IP masking), that thing is supposed to deploy this month. Wikipedians might voice opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We covered this in the last issue and there's a mention of the new (October 21) deadline in the draft News and notes in the upcoming issue. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article just published by Cory Doctorow on "Why Wikipedia Works". Among other things, highlights the importance of "Verifiability, not truth". Funcrunch (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should write about the fact that the number of edits made by users blocked for inappropriate use of LLMs is doubling every 100 days.

Data source: Quarry. I suggest that this trend is not sustainable. TestUser345 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a soft spot for graphs to communicate numerical data, so – included in the draft for the upcoming News and notes. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic graphs are generally confusing; this graph especially so because it mixes linear and logarithmic scales. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. If you can suggest improvements I will try my best. TestUser345 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The doubling number is highly contingent on that 2022-05 datapoint. Remove it and you'd have double blocks/edits every much shorter periods of time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure tampering with data is a good solution. My suggestion would simply be to use a linear scale on both sides. If you want to show doubling time, use a curved line. Or don't, and just let the data speak for itself. -- Beland (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about data manipulation, I'm talking that doubling time is highly dependant on an outlier. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I interpreted "remove it" as a suggestion. -- Beland (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added 95% confidence intervals to the doubling times, which I feel still gets across the message that even though the number of accounts blocked doesn't seem to be increasing that quickly, the amount of edits they're making are. That was the original reason for mixing linear and semilog plots. Still interested in suggestions on how to make that main idea more obvious. TestUser345 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feels there's two phases to that graph. Prior to circa 2025 and post 2025. There's been a lot of policy refinements from 2023+ and editors are also much more aware of the AI issue, twinkle and tools like my own WP:UPDS have been adapted to deal with LLMs and AI editors. Prior to 2025, the block count is effectively flat, always on the order of ~2-3/month, and then within a few months, you've skyrocketed to 15+/month. I also feel there's missing data in that graph. While I'm willing to believe there's be zero blocks for AI editing for large periods of time, I highly doubt there's been under 10 AI edits in the entirety of 2022-05 to 2023-05, all happening in 2022-05.

All in all, linear/semilog regressions really don't seem to apply all that well to the data. Hence why you have such large confidence intervals (504 ± 348, 100 &\pm; 40) in the doubling rates. The data does clearly show an increase though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should write about... Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sent a letter to the nonprofit operator of Wikipedia alleging a pattern of liberal bias in articles on the collaborative encyclopedia. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We have a start on this and related matters in the draft In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am a bit late to notice this and to think of bringing this here, but The Signpost should write about the percentage of articles classified as WP:Good articles has reached 0.6%. Nice little good news story. I mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#0.6% of all articles are now Good articles where others provided a bit of further commentary. I would ask that any maths I attempted is redone however. CMD (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should write about Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_from_SFR_on_the_incident_at_WCNA and the resulting discussion etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost should take note about Wikipedian humor about Grokipedia This is different topic then my above/ previous suggestion.

Thanks to @User:Anne drew at WP:RSN, I came across (dif) following humorous statement.

".. I'm personally glad Elon has his own encyclopedia to treat as a sandbox without disrupting ours. .."

 :)

May be some one writing about Grokipedia in "the signpost" wish to take note of the above humorous reaction.

Bookku (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]