This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals for a feature, see Submissions. For general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

	Archives: 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, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-02-05 04:15:51 ( v t e ) Writing: 4 February 12:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Publishing: 5 February 12:00 (1 day left; 4%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-02-05 04:15:51.
January 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	February 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02	March 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06

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

Just so you know, I've started a very rough draft for the "On the bright side" article I suggested a few days ago (see this and this for context), since I will be on vacation (kind of) for a couple of days.

Keeping in mind what @Smallbones suggested, the main goals for each of us who decide to write something for this article should be:

- Reflect on a positive change, a happy story or a personal achievement on-wiki we've been particularly proud of in 2024;

- Highlight our favorite contributions to the Signpost (if we had to choose), also in 2024;

- Explain (briefly) what we expect to happen in 2025, both for this newspaper and Wikipedia as a whole... or maybe even in the real world!

Let me know what you think about this idea, and start dropping your thoughts in there already, if you'd like to!

P.S. My draft (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/On the bright side) can't be seen from the Newsroom's table right now, so if anybody is able to fix that, I would hugely appreciate it... Oltrepier (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "a favorite contribution", do you mean a favorite contribution that I have made myself, or a favorite that anyone has made? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be moved to the 'From the editors' column? Svampesky (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide it should be From the editors, I can take care of text merging and renaming. Don't particularly have a preference, myself; it seemed fine as On the bright side to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Svampesky Sorry if I'm picking up your questions so late: I've just come back home after a few days away...

I actually thought about including our own favorite contributions, but maybe picking from the whole catalogue of articles works even better, so do what you want! : )

To be honest, I feel like this subject and the overall tone of the article fit better in the "On the bright side" section, but FTE looked like a solid choice, as well! Oltrepier (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Smallbones, Clovermoss, Igordebraga, Jayen466, HaeB, Josve05a, Soni, Red-tailed hawk, and Adam Cuerden: Calling everyone who might be interested in submitting their thoughts about 2024 and hopes for 2025 on the article's draft! Oltrepier (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started my own Wikipedia edition of New Year's Resolutions: User:Clovermoss/Reach for the stars. I also hope to be the one to submit the seven millionth article but that's not on the official goal list. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss I wish I had your work ethic and boldness... : D

You can add a quick reference to your resolutions on the article's draft, if you'd like to! Oltrepier (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss I've been very, very bold with your "Reach for the stars" page. Feel free to revert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If more people write, I'll add in a section of mine. In the meantime, am waiting for write-ups in the 2024 Annual Report to use that as next edition's Traffic Report. igordebraga ≠ 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you all know, I've moved my draft from "On the bright side" to the "Serendipity" column, since the Newsroom's bot seemingly couldn't acknowledge its existence... It should still be an appropriate space for this article! Oltrepier (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Jayen466, HaeB, Josve05a, Soni, Red-tailed hawk, and Adam Cuerden: Consider this as a last call to add your own thoughts to the draft, should you wish to do so, before it enters the final copy-editing phase! Oltrepier (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write this up as a specific note about the following:

• User talk:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks
• WP:VPP several interesting (to me) discussions about re-acquisition of admin tools and use of AI for text creation

But maybe it's better posed as a broader topic in two parts: 1) should we try to revive the Discussion report and 2) what is a good mechanism to gather information that is pertinent to the report? I'm not really sure how this was done in the past; the column seems to have gone quiescent around 3Q2023. There was just one Discussion report published in 2023, two in 2024, and there is no regular contributor for the feature listed at The Signpost team page. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Sorry for the late reply...

Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with this column, but if you're planning to revamp it, go for it! Those discussions at Village Pump seem quite interesting, given the recent developments in both the topics you mentioned. Oltrepier (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go again for a few days, I just wanted to note that an article for Public Domain Day 2025 could be quite an interesting addition to this upcoming issue, given that @SnowFire already wrote an excellent article for last year's edition.

Aside of a short blurb on Diff and a very lengthy and insightful piece by Duke Law School, I've managed to find some more more articles on the matter, should you find them useful: brought to you by NPR, Mashable and Il Post!

Also, should it be a full "Special report" again, or should we stick to a lead story on either N&N or ITM? Oltrepier (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I might try write a lead story on this subject myself as soon as I get home. Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've finally started working on News and Notes today, so I just wanted to give you some updates on that front. Aside of the short blurbs, which should all be sorted out (@Clovermoss: I eventually managed to include your suggestion, as well!), I was planning to host three different lead stories:

• One is about the Spanish Wikipedia hitting 2,000,000 articles, and it's already done;

• @SnowFire: I'm going to write a concise blurb about Public Domain Day 2025, similarly to your great article from last year, even though this time around I'd rather focus on the material that has entered PD territory, and then just add a link to your article so that people can learn how to use them properly. If you do feel like writing something yourself, though, go for it!

• @Svampesky: As much as I'd like to write a WikiProject report about the massive milestone recently hit by Women in Red, I'm afraid we won't be able to do that on time for this issue... So, what I'm going to do is writing a (deserved) lead story about this feat for N&N, and then we might prepare a full report and/or an interview for the next edition of the Signpost. Is that OK?

Please let me know how do you feel about this column! Oltrepier (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues from my end. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words on the 2024 article. Linking the old article and noting to add +1 to all the years is fine by me. Just be sure to link the on-wiki 2025 in public domain! You might also want to link The Atlantic's article here: https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2025/01/how-sherlock-holmes-broke-copyright-law/681223/ . It's paywalled, but I'm sure you can find (cough, cough) perfectly legitimate means of reading it if you'd rather not subscribe, on how the Doyle estate helped set the example of an aggressive copyright holder with Sherlock Holmes, long after Doyle himself was dead. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire Ooh, that's interesting! I'll make sure I'll add a reference to that story, too, and I'll let you know when I'm done with the article, so you can take a look at it. Oltrepier (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire Done! Let me know what do you think about my blurb, and feel free to add/tweak anything! Oltrepier (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost logo should be temporarily updated to commemorate the 20th anniversary, similar to Wikipedia logo#Anniversaries, then restored to its original when the following issue is published. I would prefer something subtle, such as:

Svampesky (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: I was thinking about this, as well, so thank you for addressing it!

To be honest, I don't mind keeping the new logo for the rest of the year, since I doubt that we'll have enough time to come up with an idea for the upcoming issue, anyway...

What about hosting a contest for the anniversary logo, instead? It would be a nice occasion to get the community involved directly! @JPxG, Bri, and Smallbones: I wonder if you would be open to host such an initiative: maybe we could mention it in the "From the editors" piece... Oltrepier (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: So, is it OK if I put a teaser for this contest in the comment section for the "From the editors" column? (see also this discussion).

The main page now includes the number of active editors alongside the number of articles. This is an incredibly new development so maybe we should mention it in the next Signpost issue? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss Yes, I'll address it briefly in the "News and Notes" column (which I'm going to work on today)! Oltrepier (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great mention. The active editors link took me to the lone transwiki importer, which sounds like a Star Trek: The Next Generation plot device on par with Heisenberg compensator. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I'm afraid that SDZeroBot isn't working properly, because it didn't transclude the discussions I've opened for the News and notes and Serendipity on the Newsroom master list...

I guess there's a bug in the code, because when you try to open a new discussion from there, the issue number that is automatically added is "20:19", instead of "21:01". Could you take a look at it, please? Oltrepier (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: If the humour column is still a thing, I'd be honoured if User:Clovermoss/Signpost was included in it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss I'm not the EiC, but the "Humour" column is definitely a thing. If you'd like to transclude your essay in a draft for the upcoming issue, I would say, go for it! Oltrepier (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I suppose my concern is whether or not this is actually funny. It was hilarious to sleep deprived me but now I'm uncertain if it actually is much of anything at all. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss Well... it did make me laugh, so I guess it's got some potential? : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: It's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: The first point about The Signpost is fantastic. The last paragraph needs work. Overall, 8 on a scale of 1-10, based on other Signpost Humour articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Well I was trying to keep it short and simple, but you're free to make suggestions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So ... getting on my kevlar jacket ... I'll just jump into it: should the Traffic report be as nakedly partisan as this? According to the report, the R party "somehow", incomprehensibly won (despite having won the popular vote, according to the same report), and "seized complete power over the executive branch", with one of the elected members writing a "shameless" book prior to the election. Their opponent on the other hand is described as "silver finalist" rather than loser, and lauded with a numbered list of amazing accomplishments. Also falsely claims that polling favored D party; if you don't remember it first-hand, see post-election coverage like The New York Times "Anyone in the polling world knew heading into Election Day that a Trump victory was entirely plausible." All of this doesn't look good for The Signpost, to me. I know that TR is a venue for some commentary but this seems over the top. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure where "the polls narrowly leaned toward Harris" is coming from either. The polling varied over the race and Harris was mildly favored in September, but the polls indicated a statistical tie at the end where even a minor error either direction would swing things. The obvious third-party advocacy and playing up all the also-rans also seems undue - like, even if we say for a moment that US third-party's lack of relevance (or inverse relevance as far as hurting their ideological "allies" in first-past-the-post systems) is "bad", that doesn't change the fact they aren't relevant. Third party candidates in US politics don't matter, regardless of what "should" be true. There's so much to talk about in a summary of the 2024 election, and Cornel West's half-hearted "campaign" is like #3482 on the list in terms of importance. SnowFire (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my personal political ideas aside, I agree that some of the blurbs on this report have evident issues. As much as we usually let the Traffic Report comments slide, because they're supposed to be light-hearted and not to be taken too seriously, in this case it would be a bit contradicting to publish this report as it is, while publishing a literal lead story about Elon's last accuses against Wikipedia.

Here's my own view on some of the most sensible blurbs:

- #2 I think it's fine to report on the main candidates at the start, although Trump and Harris should go at the top, as reflected by the official ballot papers. The last comment on third-party Reps is quite confusing, especially because the paragraph about Wallace's 1968 campaign is missing several key sources. Maybe we could just leave a quick-fire reference to La Follette and call it a day?

- #3 Yes, those subtle comments about third-party candidates are definitely not needed. That list should be trimmed down to the main accomplishments, and followed with a comment about Harris' actual presidential campaign, which goes almost unmentioned.

- #4 The overall tone of this blurb looks fine to me, including the comments on Trump's rhetoric, which you just can't escape from... However, I agree that the claim about polls is wrong, as they've essentially been a toss-up for most of the campaign (see this other NYT article by Nate Silver for additional context), and so it needs to be either corrected or deleted.

- #6 Again, you just can't escape from Trump and Vance's rhetoric, but I admit those first words are not ideal...

- #8 Not sure about the "no topic held such significance in people's minds" phrase, but this blurb looks fine overall!

- #10 Well, as written above, we're also going to publish a whole story about Elon, so... he's right! : D

- #13 This looks fine: maybe I would just split it up in two paragraphs.

- #17 I don't get that joke about polls... But apart from that, that looks fine, too.

- #23 This is alright, too, I think.

- #31 Well, I'm not going to lie... this got me giggling!

- #45 Again, I don't really get the focus on third-parties, either, but the rest looks OK to me.

I'm still working on my own N&N articles, so apologies if these comments feel rushed, but here are my two cents! Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I copyedit an issue for publication, there is always some time spent smoothing down rough edges and touching up bare spots, which I am happy to do -- insofar as without submissions we wouldn't have a paper at all :) I have no problem with being controversial if it is in the public interest, or benefits the readers of the paper and editors of the site in some way, but I am wary of including stuff that is just rancor qua rancor (e.g. random snark that does not serve a journalistic purpose). Of all the sections we run, the traffic report does seem to consistently require a lot of copyediting in that regard, and for any given issue I typically allot myself an extra half-hour or so to clean it up... jp×g🗯️ 03:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://forward.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Heritage-Wikipedia-Oversight-Project-Forward.pdf jp×g🗯️ 23:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this is huge. We'll probably write it up in In the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Smallbones It should already be there, actually!

I don't think I'll have enough time to work on it, so feel free to go ahead. Oltrepier (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JPxG @Smallbones @Bri So, is anyone going to cover this story, or do you want me to develop it? The very basics should already be in place in In the media. Oltrepier (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to add any analysis to this and just laid out the bare facts. Anyone willing to do more is welcome to. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Ok ok, it's just that I'll likely have not enough time, nor the energy to work on the ITM column myself, as I've finished my own lead stories for N&N veeeeery late, and so I'll rather focus on the "In brief" entries and a few other drafts.

By the way, sorry if my first reply came across as too in-your-face... Oltrepier (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Jayen466, and Red-tailed hawk: Do you feel like giving this story a shot? I won't be able to work on it myself, but I've made sure you can find the very basic elements all in a single place on the ITM draft. Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From User:GorrillaWarfare see [1] She's given me permission to post it here. Actually, it's way too long and I told her I wanted to only publish the first 1939 words (the whole think is 4500+ word). License is cool. I'll go ahead and post it if nobody minds.

There's also a tech article sent to me by User:Doc James. I'll post that after GW's article and suggest that some techie's take a look at it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Go ahead!

So, James' article will feature in "Technology report", right? Oltrepier (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. The author is User:Bawolff. My contribution has only been to encourage Bawolff to include more examples, and I think I was successful at that. There is one example (second to last) of a pocket calculator. It didn't seem to work well, e.g. I tried to do a string of calculations (8/9)+ 5 =? The first step was correct = .888888, but adding 5 to that came out "infinity". If I wasn't the cause, we can easily afford just leaving that example out.

The other, more minor problem, is the piccy and text for out landing page. WE might use the piccy Might be a good piccy for the article or other pix from Category:Enigma at Commons. The text comes out on top of itself however. I don't know what to do about that. @Doc James, Bri, HaeB, and JPxG:. Other than that, it looks ok. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I fixed the bug in the calculator example (I should have tested better). Bawolff (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The calculator looks and works great now, thanks @Bawolff: I even copied it to my user page!. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps File:Mechanical-Calculator.png would work as a pic. Bawolff (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, let me know if there is anything else I should do here. I've never written anything for the signpost before, would love any feedback. Bawolff (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawolff: As a paid contractor of the WPM Foundation, could you clarify your relation to this project?

@Smallbones: You have a great track record of raising awareness about various forms of conflict of interest issues elsewhere on Wikipedia through the Signpost. When you line up such submissions for publication, it would be valuable if you could ensure they comply with the Signpost's own COI policy (The Signpost contributors must declare any conflict of interest in the text of any article or editorial that they write).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB i was compensated for some of my work on {{calculator}} and the gadget that powers it. Any of the work specificly for mdwiki was compensated. The examples that were wikipedia specific and less medical i was not compensated for. I was not compensated for writing this article but wikiproject med people were aware of it and looked it over (that said i don't speak for them so views expressed may not reflect their views), they also encouraged turning it into a signpost article (originally it was intended as a blog post on my personal blog).

I wasn't aware of the signpost COI policy (I do mention this CoI on my user page), i'll update the article text to more cleary specify this point. Bawolff (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being a bit behind on this issue. There are about 11 article. Almost all will need copy editing.

1. I agree with the comments above on Traffic report - it needs a lot of fact checking and some serious rewriting.
2. In the Op-ed I just need to put in Molly's references. It shouldn't be too hard to complete it. I don't think copy editing will be a problem at all.
3. I'm happy with the 3 articles from/about current and former contributors (Opinion, Serendipity, and In focus)
4. ITM, especially the Heritage Foundation story, needs a lot of work. There are a couple of new "In briefs" possible too.
5. Time to get to work!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over Traffic report - all the political and controversial articles in detail - and made some needed changes. It still needs normal copy editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri:. Other than copy editing needed on a lot of articles and some last minute cleanups, I think it's ready to go. The From the editor(s) is too short (and there is no "History of The Signpost" article). I don't think we're waiting on anything arriving, @HaeB:? We might as well publish with all deliberate speed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - not planning a "Recent research" for this issue, in case that was the question (otherwise I would have posted the customary note here beforehand as always). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hauve[sic] covid, although by a stroke of fortune it is past the stage where I have to lie in bed all damn day, and onto the stage where I just get to call into work and have mild congestion for a couple days, which kind of rules. I will be publishing. jp×g🗯️ 19:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just completed copyediting two of the reports. Svampesky (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the presses! (not really - but I always wanted to say that - I should be done in an hour or so at the top article on ITM)

Which illustration do you think would go best? File:MUTCD-PA W11-26.svg, maybe crop this one, or File:Big Duck 2018 05.jpg @JPxG, Bri, and Oltrepier: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiamiDolphins3/Archive Smallbones_(smalltalk) @Smallbones: I would have gone for the first pic, to be honest, but the big duck is just hilarious, and might serve as a much-needed cooler in contrast to the seriousness of the first lead story. Oltrepier (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may poke around a bit more with thos couple of paragraph later, but basically I'm done. Note that I included both the pix Oltrepier mentioned, the Big Duck, which is an NRHP "heritage site" up top, and the duck crossing warning sign next to the paragraphs. @JPxG: you can start the presses again.We have about 5 hours? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to sleep and then do it in the morning (my body has recovered but my faculties are a bit impaired, and it is quite late). I think what we have here is basically good. jp×g🗯️ 14:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think JPxG means they will be starting after 1800 UTC today. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri Sorry in advance for this last-gasp request, but how about announcing a contest for an anniversary logo on the "In the editors" piece, as suggested above? It might be a good opportunity to get the community engaged. Oltrepier (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, with a big "but". I took a look at the templates to see where the banner would actually be changed, and it was very challenging. We need a) to identify which banner / logo we want to temporarily (rest of 2025?) change, and b) find someone with the technical skill and knowledge of the Signpost templates to make the requisite change or changes. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Oh snap, I didn't think about it!

I hope we'll manage to sort it out by the time we announce the winning logo, then... : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article ([2]) requesting help from those capable of reading cursive. Could we add a link to this in the signpost here to help get the word out? We are an encyclopedia after all, seems the least we could do for the national archives (US). 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C5B3:D1F2:7875:3CEC (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this has to do with the Signpost's scope (see the "About" page in case you are unfamiliar with it). By that "least we could do" logic we could fill the Signpost with promoting (er, "help get[ting] the word out" for) off-topic things from thousands of organizations and businesses worldwide. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the material fits the scope of WP:Wikisource they could upload it there. I don't know what our backlog is on that project, I'm not very active there and most of what I've helped on has been digitised from printed material. But that would be the project for them to talk to about digitising source documents. ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay, but can you tweak that bit about all edits being visible? I'm sure I've seen that in some outreach stuff, but obviously there's a small proportion of edits that get revision deleted and an even smaller proportion that get oversighted. Almost all would be more accurate. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: What's all this about Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed? The article is supposed to be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed by Molly, which I believed you've already edited. Please just explain what you're trying to do and we'll see if we can do it, but we're not moving the Op-ed right on the deadline. If it gets more complicated than than that @JPxG: will have to sort it out Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes I was querying a line in the essay now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-ed I think it and my comments have been moved in different directions. I fixed a typo, but it is Molly's op ed, hence my query. We delete thousands of articles every week, so it isn't true to say that every edit is publicly logged. ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "And they’ve supported state-level laws requiring internet platforms to implement age restrictions that threaten privacy " bit really belongs in an Op Ed about Musk? Aside from the very US phrasing of "state-level laws" I'm not convinced that Musk is on board for such restrictions. In the UK he is arguing for discarding the Jay report and kicking the sex abuse issue into the long grass with another Enquiry, rather than implement the 20 recommendations of the Jay report. Recommendation 20 is that the UK government introduces legislation requiring providers of online services and social media platforms to implement more stringent age verification measures. Aside from the nebulous element of the word More in this context; Musk and the site formerly known as Twitter, as indeed our movement, is likely to be impacted by this. Given the ability of children to access and share parental credit card details, I'm not convinced that an effective age verification measure is currently possible on the internet. I'm pretty sure that one based on parental supervision wouldn't merit the word stringent any more than the tried and laughable "tick this box if you are over 18" approach. Anyway this one area would seem to be one where we and Musk are unlikely allies. ϢereSpielChequers 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above section. where are you trying to post what article? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again re the Op ed. At this stage I'd hope to at least see "state-level" removed. But if the Op Ed is about Musk, I'd suggest dropping the sentence about Age Verification as i don't see that as a Musk thing. ϢereSpielChequers 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3]https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ Tamzin and another editor get a lot of mention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung We were already on that bit of news, but thank you for flagging it, nevertheless.

You'll find it on the upcoming issue, over at the "In the media" column! Oltrepier (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: we really need to know what's up with the mythical Op-Ed article if we are going to do anything about it. (see 2 sections above) @Bri and HaeB: can you figure out what happened? In the meantime I'm going to try to restore the Op-ed to the right place in the newsroom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed is back in it's proper place on the Newsroom page. Now if anybody wants to explain what you were trying to do that replaced that real article with a non-existant Op-Ed, let us know and we'll see if it can be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was the move of the OP Ed. I don't think I moved anything on the signpost. ϢereSpielChequers 00:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you were trying to do. Look at the introduction at the top (in italics). This is Molly's article, but the original article was more than twice as big. So Molly and I agreed that The Signpost would only publish the first 1939 words. So I don't see changing any of the meaning, just a few copy edits. And she'd pretty much have to approve any content changes. So basically, I don't see any changes working now, on deadline. Sorry I got so freaked out about the whole article disappearing, but you know how it is. I think I figured out from your link what happened and who did it, but why is the big question. Probably just inexperience. Sorry for the freak out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, you created the page with the incorrect capitalization:

• 02:22, 9 January 2025 Smallbones (talk | contribs) created page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed (upload submission with permission of author, needs: check paragraph breaks, non-curly quote marks, 29+ references inserted + wikilinks +)

I fixed your error by moving the page to the correct capitalization:

• 20:08, 12 January 2025 Svampesky (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed (Change to sentence case (MOS:AT))

Svampesky (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough weirdness and confusion has resulted from the /Next issue/ having an "Op-Ed" and "Op-ed" that I have decided to salt one. From the archives, it seems we have 27 "Op-Ed"s and 97 "Op-ed"s, so I salted the former, which shall now be impossible to create. Yare yare. jp×g🗯️ 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to begin by acknowledging and appreciating Smallbones' contributions to The Signpost. However, I find his behavior, at times, to be disruptive and uncivil.

• He falsely accused me of adding a line, which he interpreted as accusing him of paid editing, that was actually added by JPxG.
• He falsely accused me of asking a question, which was actually asked by Bluerasberry, and ended his comment with a rude remark, You should learn to do your own research. We're here to answer people's questions, not just ask provocative questions.
• He provided only WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no policy-based feedback on one of my submissions—this happened in two separate sections.
• He created a page with incorrect capitalization and, when I moved the page to correct his error, alleged inexperience for fixing the mistake he made.

Courtesy ping of other recently active Signpost contributors if they have anything to add @Bri, HaeB, JPxG, and Oltrepier:.

Smallbones, are you able to commit to being more civil when working on The Signpost? Svampesky (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed noticed that you and Smallbones tend to disagree on just about everything.

We are all contributing from different rooms, many of us from different countries and after growing up in different decades... people getting along on Wikipedia at all is enough of a nightmare, but doing so on an actual deadline is even more challenging. Obviously there are going to be times when we get annoyed or feel insulted by one another. Christ knows I have gotten annoyed by some of the stuff people have said here. Likewise, I know I have come off as (or indeed been) a bit of a dick every once in a while.

This is just the way it works, as far as I can tell, based on every workplace and collaborative project I have participated in. There are going to be times when people are a little curt, or maybe even a bit rude or passive-aggressive, and of course it's preferable to speak each word with the calm poise of a bodhisattva, but I do not think it's realistic to expect human beings to do this all the time. I don't think there is any malicious intent here: Smallbones is not a programmer, and diffs are notoriously a giant pain in the ass for non-programmers to read. I have seen people read diffs backwards, frontwards, upside-down and inside-out about a hundred times by now. At the absolute worst, I think it might warrant a note on his talk page or something, but I am fairly uncomfortable about the first step being a big callout post of this sort.

If it is bothersome and sticks in your craw to the point where it becomes an impediment to contributing, then I can certainly sympathize: if you have tried to talk to him about this and been unsuccessful, I would be happy to try to mediate some sort of conversation between you two, but I really do not think that we need to have a whole Arthur Miller play about it, and I am flatly opposed to the idea that he should be required to make some pledge. jp×g🗯️ 12:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto every word @JPxG wrote, especially because last week was very challenging for me in real life, and I might have behaved annoyingly myself (for which I apologize in advance).

I've got a feeling that this is going to be a really good issue, so let's not let the nerves get the best of us: we just need to enjoy the fruit of our labor! Oltrepier (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do anything that might delay publication. Can we just publish ASAP? As far as the complaint above, I suggest he just drop it, or we could handle it via email, or even here in public if he wants. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: IMHO it's a pretty good issue, but the news is going stale. If there is any way to publish, let's do it. I copyedited Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay and moved it to display in the Newsroom, but you might check it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Seems like we're ready now.

@JPxG By the way, sorry for not helping you with the "Traffic report", I didn't have enough time, nor energy to go through the entirety of it... Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rack 'em. jp×g🗯️ 07:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we did it eventually. Thank you so much for your hard work: I mean it when I say that I've never been prouder of contributing to a Signpost issue, because it's full of great articles, personal analyses and bits of information. Excellent job everyone! Oltrepier (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everybody! When's the next deadline? I've got a pretty good story or two and am anxious to get my timing down. I'll suggest Sunday night, February 2 (Groundhog Day), but I do have an aversion to Monday morning publication (Who gets up at 7am Monday to read The Signpost?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we put it just a couple of days later? I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute as much as I'd like, otherwise... Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about February 5 or 6?

Still, it's only right that @JPxG has the last say on this (when he'll fully recover from illness, obviously). Oltrepier (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Oltrepier: Actually, I have a strong preference for the weekend - when else do any of 3 people who participate here have the time to work together? So Feb 8 or 9? We should definitely ask JPxG to let us know asap when to expect him, or how to better deal with things if he's not around at the deadline. After all, he's said that he had covid and that's still a lot more serious than just getting the flu (flu's disruptive enough). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest availability will be on Sunday Feb 2 (Pacific Time) but I can work on The Signpost a for few hours during the week if it's later. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue here is that I do not have weekends off, and can only spend a day on this if it's Monday or Tuesday (that is to say, I am working from 11pm on Saturday through the morning of Sunday, and 11pm Sunday through the morning of Monday, which I have "off" despite working seven hours on that day, since I don't go to work on its night or the next night). I don't know if it is realistic to try and hit Sunday, since I will only be available for a few hours then. If we are okay with likely postponing it, I can schedule to then, but otherwise I think Monday is the way to go. jp×g🗯️ 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I guess it will be just another Manic Monday, then, won't it? : D

But anyway, Monday is fine to me, even though I don't understand if you meant February 3 or 10... Oltrepier (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a submission on protecting yourself online from an alum, so I'll tell him to submit it by Friday, Jan 31. Is that the plan?. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly reset the counter for publishing 0000 Feb 4 UTC – afternoon of Monday February 3 in my US time zone – in a manner I think/hope is consistent with the discussion above. Note this is nearly three weeks since the prior issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Newsweek piece, published today, says they "contacted Wikipedia" for a response. Anybody have any idea what or who the author thinks they contacted? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek has been a bit flakey for awhile. The "Wikipedia hits back" in the headline might be a bit of this and a bit of that, e.g. edited articles, Jimbo's response on x on the 21st (I first thought it was recycled from Dickipedia days), but any response from the WMF should have been mentioned. I take it as a non-response. IMHO WMF should not respond to questions about a non-response - they'd let Newsweek do that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I'm trying to submit a short and sweet blurb about John Green and AFC Wimbledon by the deadline (it will all make sense, I promise). If I'll have enough time, I'll also help you sort out the mess over at the first lead story... Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones Right, my John Green blurb is (belatedly) in!

I'll try to help you deal with the other lead stories and the short blurbs as much as I can in the next few days, although I've still got such a hectic study schedule in real-life... Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I think this story is fantastic. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I'd like to withdraw the "Roman salute" story and resubmit it as an Op-ed. I was just storing the most relevant sources and ideas in what I intended to be a short factual blurb, but the story just hasn't turned out that way. The world exploded over that story over the last 11 days. I should be able to get the Op-ed posted tonight. I'd think that putting a 2 paragraph blurb just before the In briefs with a link to the Op-ed would work well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones That's totally fine, let me know if you need some help reviewing it! Oltrepier (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited down the Musk part of the article, in an attempt to remove my part of the submission (as proposed above - sorry if I've made a mess of it). I just don't think I should both write an op-ed and cover what the news media said about it. I've removed much of what I recognized as my work (hopefully the irrelevant part), and didn't mean to remove others' parts. Please just rewrite as you wish, maybe cut it down a bit. Definitely there should be an answer to the title's question (See NY Times) or change the title and the pic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, Oltrepier, and Josve05a: I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands that I don't think I should participate in writing up the Musk part of Itm. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I've done a bit more editing and am happy with the way it stands now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll try to go through the stories and the short blurb one more time myself! Oltrepier (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Fathoms Below/RfA would be a good option for this issue's opinion piece. Courtesy ping to Fathoms Below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this debrief would be the best opinion piece, because I don't think I'm the best writer in general, but if people think it's a good essay, I'll allow it. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good essay. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss @Fathoms Below It looks good to me! Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss and Fathoms Below: Just so you know, I've boldly copied the debrief into a draft for the Opinion piece!

I don't guarantee I'll be able to go through and copy-edit the whole piece (including the very cheesy title I've chosen) soon, unfortunately... Oltrepier (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier I don't mind. I personally worry that the essay was too much, and that I put too much emotion into it. But it was also the most difficult time of my Wikipedia career and I felt like I needed to say something. Especially after my nominator made an essay of his own and I could tell how much bravery he had when he wrote it. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think in the intro, we should link to our prior coverage about admin elections, and position this as kind of a follow-up to that? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems appropriate. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In previous Signpost coverage, we noted the kick-off of Administrator elections trial. In the future, elections may run in parallel with "old fashioned" Requests for adminship, or they might eventually replace it altogether. We asked an editor to allow us to publish some reflections on their Requests for adminship experience here, which may provide insight for our readers as to why many candidates find it excruciating.

^^^ sample text above. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I strongly advise against making potentially libelous statements about a living person, especially if they are made on a website the person frequently criticizes. If discovered, what would prevent Musk from pursuing legal action against you, as part of his attacks against Wikipedia (as we've seen with Asian News International), given that your report links to an article that states Musk is considering suing someone else for making the same accusation? We've previously discussed BLP violations in The Signpost, and readers regularly raise these type of issues in the comments sections of reports. The page is clearly an WP:ATTACK page, and while I understand it's an op-ed with a disclosure at the top, that does not exempt the content from compliance with BLP policy—which applies to all pages on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, I'm just saying that some of the language needs to be revised to ensure compliance with both legal requirements and Wikipedia's policies.

My second point is: what relevance does this have to Wikipedia, for publication in Wikipedia's newspaper? It only briefly mentions Wikipedia at some parts. The Signpost is not WikiNews, nor a personal blog. Svampesky (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you restored the potentially libelous statements, and we frequently disagree on everything, I'll request additional input. Svampesky (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: If you want to stop me from publishing in The Signpost, here's what you should do. Email @JPxG: and tell him that he can't allow me to publish here anymore. You should stay as far away as possible from editing anything I've written. You just gutted the entire point of the article "tell it like it is" by putting in your "apparents" and removing "Nazi salutes". There is a difference between "hand gestures" and "Nazi salutes", and if you can't see it, go get yourself some new eyes. Musk is not going to sue Tim Walz for saying that he gave a Nazi salute - because he did make a Nazi salute, as at least a thousand sources have published.

If you can't see the relevance of the story to Wikipedia, it can only be because you haven't read the story. End of conversation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is a community-run newspaper with editorial independence, meaning it is not subject to the same policies that govern Wikipedia articles. Unlike mainspace articles, which must adhere strictly to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, The Signpost (just as any user talk page might) publishes opinion pieces (op-eds) that allow for analysis, critique, and subjective perspectives. This distinction is crucial - while Wikipedia aims for neutrality in articles, journalistic publications, including The Signpost, have the freedom to interpret and comment on current events. Disagreements should be handled editorially rather than through attempts to censor an opinion piece. I stand with Smallbones and their op-ed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Josve05a:. I do want to be clear on one thing. Signpost articles are subject to WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPTALK. I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE is quite important here as well. I've just reread the whole BLP policy and it's always good to do it before publishing an article. Just a minor example: everything about the BLP has to have an inline citation, presumably on the right line. So I'll be checking that out for awhile. I do think that the main application of BLP is in the top part of the article, where I say that he made a "Nazi salute." Now the discription of the salute is given there, with a link to the video (several times). Links to many reliable sources. A general definition of Nazi salute (from the holocaust museum). Slightly more in depth descriptions of what the NYT and Die Zeit wrote. I'll review that again, but wouldn't mind other people doing their own reviews and writing them up here.

The lower part of the article is not so much subject to BLP since it is about the editing on Wikipedia, not about Musk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why poke the enraged billionaire bear? As Shakespeare had Falstaff say, discretion is the better part of valor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start? The richest man in the world gives 2 Hitler salutes and then somehow attacks Wikipedia for mentioning it. Why is that worthy of inclusion in The Signpost? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what you are saying. I'll just say for now that I believe that the story as currently written is fully compliant with both libel law and WP:BLP, see especially WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPTALK. Meeting both these standards is of course stricter than just meeting either one of them.Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page exists primarily to make the highly-contentious definitive claim that a living person did give a Nazi salute, but the reliable sources on the page—and the mainspace Wikipedia article on the gesture—fall short of supporting such a definitive claim.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

• The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to give fascist-style salute after Trump inauguration
• Daily News: Elon Musk considers suing Gov. Tim Walz over Nazi salute accusation
• AP News: Musk’s straight-arm gesture embraced by right-wing extremists regardless of what he meant

Other sources (noting that I don't know how to search the reliability of some sources):

• France 24: Did Musk give a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration parade?
• The Jerusalem Post: Did Elon Musk Sieg Heil at Trump's inauguration?
• A tweet of a video of Nick Fuentes from Right Wing Watch, which is ran by an advocacy group.
• Die Zeit: A German Eye On Elon Musk's Hitler Salute (Yes, That's A Hitler Salute)
• Diario AS: ELON MUSK mimics NAZI SALUTE during TRUMP'S inauguration

The highly-contentious claim that Musk did give a Nazi salute is not widely supported by high-quality, reliable sources, so violates all three core policies of BLP: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia also has policies against using it as a soapbox, and the creation of pages primarily intended to disparage the subject; so I wouldn't be suprised if it ends up at MfD, but I won't nominate it myself. Svampesky (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we disagree. The proper way to address this on The Signpost is to submit your disagreement with me to @JPxG: and he'll decide. That's all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky I just wanted to note that Die Zeit should also be within the "green-light" sources, and France 24 is usually pretty reliable, too.

There's no consensus about the reliability of the JPost (and further discussions on it would likely be even more heated in the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war), while Diario AS is considered as reliable, but is mostly a sports media outlet, so it has minor importance in this case. Finally, I don't know anything about that Fuentes guy... and I don't think I want to know more, honestly. Oltrepier (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(coming from BLPN) there is likely a way to, uh, reference a famous man doing a salute that many (most) reliable sources interpret as alluding to an infamous regime, without triggering BLP.

IDK about libel, but BLP policy should be protected. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree with svampesky that flow also could use work... I don't see a direct connection between Elon Musk's salute and his attacks on wikipedia in the article, it just kinda skips to that. Attacks on wikipedia def are concerning, but needs a better way to introduce illiberal billionaire tendencies and connect to wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let me know where you see disconnects in the flow. Also, if anybody finds something where Musk actually denies making the Nazi salutes - an actual denial rather than a non-denial denial - I'd love to put it in the op-ed. As above, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. If you can quote a line from the op-ed and explain why you think it violates BLP, please do. I will likely just respond that the line is sourced from multiple reliable sources, but let me know if I'm wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, sources [4] have connected his salute with his comments about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may include it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done @SWinxy. Here are some suggestions:

• Adding Clay Shirkey's name to the into paragraph with Stephen Harrison's. You could argue Shirkey is equally, if not more notable, than Harrison.
• Mention Craig Newmark's appearance? I added his quote to WikiQuote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Craig_Newmark

Wil540 art (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Shirky can be added in the abstract. I had forgotten Newmark had sent a note; I'll have to watch the livestream for everything that happened. SWinxy (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes of potential topics to add:

• adding a mention of the Wikimedia NYC 400 project
• adding a mention of Ryan McGrady's lightning talk about community
• adding a mention of the orgs at the tables in the atrium? WikiTongues, Farming Concrete, BetaNYC, Cybernetics Library, others?
• 15 years after the first Wikipedia Day celebration in NYC

Wil540 art (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added NYC400, but the other three I don't know if I can speak to. @Wil540 art do you have anything to add yourself? I think that's it for me; the deadline is in a few hours. SWinxy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering 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) 05:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running late, sorry, but expecting have this up in publishable form by 2am UTC. I should then also have some time to help tying up loose ends in some of the other sections if needed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "the Sargodha airbase attack of Pakistan" is ambiguous and needs to be corrected. No criticism of the TOP25 folks who probably got the text from the lede of the film's article. Since the airbase is in Pakistan, and based on the plot summary, I think it was an Indian Air Force strike on the Pakistani airbase. Maybe someone who can figure out the actual history can help? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 pretty good articles

• Recent research (as always I'm sure HaeB will be high quality and on-time)
• Traffic report (ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Community view - this is the exemplar of Community views!(ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Opinion - needs some copyediting
• News and notes - a bit short, but not much newsy+noteworthy seemed to have happened, needs copy editing, better piccy
• Arbitration report - still needs copyediting checked off, but looks good to me
• In the media - needs blurb, copyediting. I like it.
• Op-ed needs copyediting, BLP review

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Almost ready to go?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased you like the community view! Wil540 and I worked hard on it. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]