The Vietnamese and Philippines-based Waray-Waray Wikipedias have crossed the one million article rubicon—the tenth and eleventh to do so. Just like the Swedish Wikipedia, the sites have attained this symbolic milestone with the help of bots, a process that has divided opinions among Wikimedians from several languages. For example, for a previous Signpost article on the topic, German Wikipedian Achim Raschka pointed us to an entry Denis Diderot wrote for the Encyclopédie, titled "Aguaxima". Diderot lamented that all they knew about the Aguaxima was that it was a plant in Brazil, yet he still had to describe it: "If all the same I mention this plant here, along with several others that are described just as poorly, then it is out of consideration for certain readers who prefer to find nothing in a dictionary article or even to find something stupid than to find no article at all."

In an email to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, Vietnamese Wikipedian Minh Nguyen wrote that some editors on the site shared similar concerns and were "alarmed" at the sharp uptick in bot-created articles. Yet at the same time, crossing the one million article mark with a high proportion of auto-articles led the community to look at its small size—its roughly 1250 active editors is less than the Catalan Wikipedia, a language with almost 60 million less speakers—and they are taking steps to ease the learning curves of new editors.

The question of active users is even more pertinent for fellow millionaire Waray-Waray, which has just 71 active users. The related Cebuano Wikipedia, which has also embraced bot-created articles and will soon join the million article club, has even fewer.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Wikipedia's article-creation bot has started editing again. The bot's operator told the Signpost that the source code has been rewritten to use the most recent references, though it is currently mostly operating on the Waray-Waray and Cebuano Wikipedias, which will soon also have one million articles. Other Wikipedias, such as Farsi (mostly spoken in Iran), have also expressed an interest in the bot's operation. Why have other Wikipedias not adopted similar processes, aside from those (like the English and German) that have philosophical objections? Lsj believes "it is mostly a matter of whether there is somebody who knows both bots and the target language well enough, and is prepared to devote the time required. Small language versions likely do not have such a person."

This article was updated after publication with information and comments from Minh Nguyen.

• Commons devolving into full-blown URAA conflict: Battle lines have formed over the past few months with a split in the Commons community over the American Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restored US copyrights on several works. While arguments over the Commons mission have gone on for years (in the Signpost in the past year alone—op-ed, reply, and forum), the URAA debate came to a head only recently with a large community request for comment. This was closed with a strong majority in favor of disallowing deletions based on URAA alone, but a subsequent discussion was rejected both on legal grounds and as being, in the words of several editors, "unclear". Recent discussions have taken place on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, but the current situation is muddled. A new proposal to break the deadlock has been started on Commons' administrators' noticeboard, but Wikimedia Foundation board member Samuel Klein has quickly suggested a major change that would modify Commons' policy to read "Keep something that is public domain in its country of origin, as long as there is reason to believe that rights-holders would want it to be used in the rest of the world."
• Wiknics: US and Dutch Wikimedians are organizing Wiknics for early July.
• Wikimania volunteers needed: The organizers of this year's London Wikimania have issued a call for volunteers to serve in a number of capacities during the conference week (8–10 August).
• Engineering goals: The Wikimedia Foundation's Engineering and Product Development department is currently formulating its goals for the 2014–15 fiscal year. Editors are invited to contribute their views on the draft plan's talk page.
• Quarterly reviews: Three quarterly reviews have been published on Meta: the editing team (formerly VisualEditor), Parsoid team, and Analytics team. Quarterly reviews aim to ensure accountability and allow senior Foundation staff to offer specific guidance to their proliferous and diverse initiatives.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/In focus Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Arbitration report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Humour