This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals of Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing), 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/SuggestionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SubmissionsWikipedia 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, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2026-11-03 01:18:27 ( v t e ) Writing: 20 October 18:00 (-13 days left; 108%) Publishing: 21 October 18:00 (-12 days left; 109%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-11-03 01:18:27.
October 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 28 29 30 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	November 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 26 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 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06	December 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 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

I was a guest presenter in a podcast. Here a proposal for covering it in the "in brief" section. I feel reliable in reporting the contents of the one-hour podcast to save the effort of editors here listening to it, but anyone else here can make a call on what to do with this.

• Exploring Wikipedia starting with the penis Interviewer PJ Vogt of the Search Engine podcast talks about the illustration choice in the Wikipedia article for human penis with user:Bluerasberry. To arrive at understanding, other topics discussed include Wikipedia's editorial process, its coverage of sexuality, online age verification laws by country, and the incarceration of Wikipedia editor Osama Khalid.

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, wow, that caught me by surprise. What's this vandalism in our newsroom??? Oh, okay then... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you load up this article on mobile the Dolly Parton images make the next look terrible. I noticed this issue in an article from the last publication after release as well. I think the problem is the image template, but I am not sure what the right fix is. I think this is effecting all articles.Czarking0 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just fleshed out the agents story a bit.

I confess to be very confused by the current title Five shocking photos may be changed on Wikipedia, even after reading through the entire draft. Which five photos? May be changed to what?

Generally, while I'm not opposed to good jokes and witticisms, attempts at such feats risk falling flat or becoming obtuse. (To take the subheadings in the current draft as an example: "AI overruns German wiki site" is more helpful in orienting our readers than "We all wear a mask".)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am 100% just spoofing on Buzzfeed style headlines. I would like the signpost to grow its readership. The photo changing was Dollyx3, Delveyx2 but the count is not that important. I think We all wear a mask is good. Delvey is complaining about the anonymity of wikipedia editors.

I'd be much more receptive to your feedback if you proposed what you think things should be changed to rather than saying that my work is bad. Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Epilogue: After publication, several readers likewise criticized the obtuseness of this headline (even after it had been slightly edited). Let's keep this in mind in the future in cases where a contributor might become a little to enamored with their own witticisms. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just took a quick scan over the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report. It's very long. But it's in four sections. Maybe it should be carried as a multi-part thing over more than one issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this should in part be edited down. If I ctrl+p I see 32 pages. About half of that is prose. Given that this is essentially an opinion piece I think limiting to about 5 pages of prose would be reasonable. This is especially because it is clearly AI written. AI written tends to be longer in a way that is not beneficial to the reader. Czarking0 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Consider footnote 7. Currently 93 words. It could be

Analytics data are fuzzed for privacy or unavailable for many languages. Geolocation incorrectly shows U.S., France, or Singapore for some data.

I don't think meaningful content in the 93-word footnote are lost in this proposed 20-word rewrite. Radical streamlining of more content would benefit the piece. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

For many reasons (data consistency and quality, external trends, and a crabload of other things)

This could be a phrase that just doesn’t exist in my dialect of English, but I’ve never heard anyone say a ‘crabload’ before, and Wiktionary gives no result for it. Is this a phrase? If not, should it be changed? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 03:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I assume it's a spoonerism for crapload. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense; I’ll leave it as it is. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 06:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just made a copyedit pass but it didn't center on concision. At this time the piece is fundamentally problematic because it is a bunch of data science^[a] with some very useful observations about intervention to convert readership to editors sprinkled in, followed by what looks like a footnote about changes in governance and accelerating experiments to reverse bad trends. This isn't very readable. The data should support the central arguments, instead it looks like a research paper with some blushing personal observations. To the author: get out there more with your opinions and urgent call to action; I think this is by far the most important part of the writing. Make the research the footnotes, or links to completely different essay pages if that works better. Or as the English expression goes, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

If I can be so bold, I've re-outlined the piece this way.

Problems

• Readership is falling, masked by bot traffic
• Core medium-edit-count editors are falling, masked by a temporary reprieve due time on editors' hands and lack of alternatives to online activity during COVID lockdowns
• Growth only seen in high-edit-count editors (concentration risk)
• Community ossification and social cost of making mistakes discourages innovation

Solutions

• New governance model
• New relationship to readers as a resource of future editors
• Less glorification of high-edit-count contributors
• New relationship to AI providers as a straight-up "truth" provider, better exposure of source qualifications

I'm not so sure about the solutions, I may have mis-understood or mis-prioritized. That's actually a problem because already at this point my time reading and re-reading is probably much higher than the average Signpost reader, who you are trying to persuade.

My advice is to lay it out very clearly as a set of really severe problems that undermine sustainability. An introduction section could lay out the problems without any research, then there could be a section that just provides a gloss of the thorough research providing evidence that those problems exist. Then get into the solutions with gusto. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just noting here that this was not published in 22:13. Bri.public (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is from a new Signpost contributor user:1F616EMO who is an experienced Chinese language Wikipedia editor zh:user:1F616EMO~nya. I am sharing here to request early feedback. I have asked them to provide images over the placeholders in there now.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed

They confirmed that they wrote the piece with their own ideas but did use AI for copyediting. I do not think this needs further disclosure for AI but if anyone has another opinion then share. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Author might want to check the difference between idioms "go off track" and "run off the rails". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice, fixed in diff with AI assistance on understanding the idioms. 1F616EMO (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should pay attention to the reasonable readers, that is, those who agree to our vision and code of conduct, the five pillars, policies and guidelines, and applicable consensuses. I would suggest that the wording around this be revised, I don't think that disagreeing with some aspects of Wikipedia makes a reader unreasonable, which is heavily implied by this statement. I do think this is a good article overall, but I think the tone could be revised a bit to be less exclusionary to those with a different perspective of the encyclopedia but can nonetheless be valuable contributors to the project. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I used the wrong word. Almost all "unreasonable" should be "improper", as in WP:CONACHIEVE: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised", and the implied counterpart - such a decision does not take into account any improper concerns raised. I wrote the essay with both Chinese and English Wikipedia in mind, and that resulted in awkward, non-native wordings. I will revise the essay later today to reflect this.

And by writing the essay, I did not mean to exclude those who raised improper concerns as a person, but to exclude those specific concerns and, as a precaution, be extra careful to other opinions they give. Of course, they can still contribute to our movement, given that they do not insist when it is better to move on, or put something into action to prove the community wrong.

The tone is intentionally exclusionary due to my Chinese Wikipedia background. On my home wiki, there is a surprisingly high tolerance to disrupters, that administrators often fail to prevent those who insist on improper concerns from further disrupting, repeat offenders are often released from a block on the sole basis of a simple promise, and the RfA/RfDA are vote-based. The tone could be revised, but the core idea should prevail: We, as stewards of our mission, should safeguard our projects from improper demands; we may advocate and invite them into our mission, and alternatively guide them to the correct venue, but if all efforts failed, we would have no choice but to force them away. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is now 5 days left before the deadline, and the article is not yet marked for copy-editing. Should I mark it myself? 1F616EMO (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. If the article is ready, mark it yourself. Wil540 art (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've marked it for copy-editing. 1F616EMO (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to see some reviews of Sunshine Hills Reality Edit (Tina Connolly), in a post-truth world with a Wikipedia-like entity. The book doesn't even have an article yet as far as I can see. Going to wait just a bit and see if a) it is notable and b) if more reviews appear. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to add this at the 11th hour. Frankly the story turns my stomach, but it needs to be told calmly. It looks like the guy who supervised Christa Pike's botched execution supervised 3 other executions in Arizona in 2022 and likely told the executioners to look up the proper dose on Wikipedia. And the appropriate Wiki article provides (still!) that information (despite the MOS for medicine strongly saying that we shouldn't provide doses). I know I don't write well when the story turns my stomach, so extensive copy editing for style would help, as would some independent fact checking. For some reason I can't bring myself to name and link the Wikipedia article where the dose is given. Something about "what if somebody else uses it?" Any help appreciated, but please keep it dignified and conservative and don't put it in the title or blurb. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a strange development to that horrible story. Wikipedia's involvmement is mentioned in this article interview: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/07/nx-s1-5991884/former-tennessee-prisons-chief-also-oversaw-botched-executions-in-arizona It doesn't say that Wikipedia misled them; however, it does say that the records indicate there were instructed to look up on Wikipedia what the "appropriate dosages should be." - Wil540 art (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the NPR story is perhaps the best story to base this on. I've got a lot of on-Wiki stuff sorta related to this. But it really doesn't make a lot of sense. Other than some good Wiki editors ignoring the Meds MOS, there's nothing I can say about them doing anything wrong or acting in bad faith. It's just very bizarre that a government official seems to have told the executioners working for him something like: "Hey guys, you want to kill this person right, just check Wikipedia". But no jokes allowed here, ok? @Bri, HaeB, Wil540 art, JPxG, and Czarking0: any ideas? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I don't participate in death-penalty related conversations Czarking0 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not anybody's fault here, but I don't love the passive voice in the NPR story: in the records when department employees are told to check Wikipedia. What records? Who says those records exist? Who wrote the records? How were they disclosed? Who told whom to check Wikipedia, and what were they supposed to check? Was it the only reference used for the lethal doses in execution protocols? Was Wikipedia even consulted about dosage, or something else (potency of aged chemicals, maybe)? It's just so thin – far less than a sentence of substance. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is at least one indisputable fact here, that Frank Strada was in charge of 3 botched executions in Arizona and then in Tennessee he was in charge of Christa Pike's super-botched execution, the buck stops with him if ultimately he (or the states) cannot produce where they got the dosage or what was the protocol for getting it. Judge Duncan's expertise only extends to his investigation in Arizona and he just refers to "records". Are they printed protocols or emails or maybe even just an interview with an execution staff member. He doesn't say. His whole point in that short paragraph is that many records of protocols are intentionally being hidden (by the state or its employees) so that they can't be held accountable. So does that mean that we don't report what the media has said, or that we just report what we know from the media and from the record as reported in the Wikipedia database of records. I've added that I found "little or no" evidence showing that Wikipedia editors broke any rules. More evidence of course would be better than the little we've got. But I feel that publishing what we've got is a lot better than not publishing it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is my personal policy to try to never edit Wikipedia articles related to a Signpost article that I've written. As a journalist it could put me in a dubious position and as a Wikipedian it could put me in another dubious position under different rules. It also eliminates the need to include a distracting COI disclosure in the Signpost article. Except for one or two much earlier Signpost articles I think I've succeeded in keeping the two roles separate. Case in point, Rhodo has removed the doseages in the affected article(s). I'm glad he did, but it was not at my behest and we did not cooperate in any way on it. No harm, no foul. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

NPR came out with an "update" this morning at [1]. The text at that link is different including a very slight change (in words, not really in meaning) so I've started updating the Signpost article. It's also clarified that this is an "exclusive interview" that must have been done recently. One potential problem, NPR doesn't update the audio or a separate "transcript" usually for 24 hours (but I'm not sure about weekends). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This:

Accusation of Qatari propaganda In this narrative, American freedom of speech protections make Wikipedia a channel for bad actors to spread propaganda as the Qatari government and likely other political forces use the encyclopedia to advance their propaganda. (RealClearPolitics) – BR

@Bluerasberry: There wasn't a link in this, so I tried to find the article with a web search, but I don't see anything at all at RealClearPolitics about this. Even if I just search for Qatar and Wikipedia on Google News, the most recent things I can find are from March. I don't know if this is a formatting error or what, but I am going to take it out for now since it seems like a phantom item. If anyone finds out what it is supposed to refer to, and has a link for it, then it should go back in. jp×g🗯️ 22:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Thanks and good catch. I both messed up the link and the source. I staged it for next issue. It is actually from ReadClearWorld, the global imprint of the much better known America-focused RealClearPolitics. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/By the numbers

User updated this article and it is ready for review. This was previously submitted about a month ago.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Does_the_country_of_birth_affect_the_likelihood_of_having_a_Wikipedia_biography?

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

OpenAI “rogue” agent activities found on Wikimedia projects -> Started tranferring this Diff article written by Selena Deckelmann here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from Diff - Wil540 art (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very good. It's possible to publish this instead as "News from the WMF" since it is also published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10/05/openai-rogue-agent-activities-found-on-wikimedia-projects/ (I haven't 100% checked to see if it's exactly the same, but likely it is). I don't know which would be better. The Verge has summarized this and asked comment from Open AI at

https://www.theverge.com/news/1004929/wikipedia-openai-rogue-bots-wikimedia-foundation-outage which should go up top at In the media. I've been thinking about getting something about LLMs and P(Doom) [see above] and this might be the angle - What can Wikipedians do to stop a takeover of Wikipedia by Open AI. I've got ideas, but the main idea should be to collect others opinions on what the community can do to stop the Borg, or is resistance futile? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’m fine with it being published in News from WMF. That would probably be more accurate since the article is coming from the CTO.

I support you cooking up a “stopping the borg” article. BTW, the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup are doing heroic work. - Wil540 art (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I popped in something to In the media, since The Verge has reported on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If the MIB image is too playful, we could use an image of a data center like this one: File:Amazon AWS us-west-2 morrow east AZ 01.jpg.

@Bri, I want to propose a more descriptive blurb, something like: Selena Deckelmann, CPO/CTO of the Wikimedia Foundation, explains recent detection of AI agent activities on Wikimedia projects. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Courtesy link:  this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 18#OpenAI rogue agent activities found on Wikimedia projects, mainly because it appeared as the 2nd most viewed article on October 5. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 00:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Thanks for the heads up, I added it the article, putting it after the attribution line. -Wil540 art (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it would useful to add a mention that the default editor for both mobile and desktop users (anonymous and new) is now the VE. The RfC was centrally advertised, but as far as I am aware, when the actual switchovers were done (mobile, followed by desktop a few days later I believe), there wasn't any announcement or indication. In addition, there is a new edit check, LLM paste check, which uses technical signs to conclusively (mostly) detect when text is copied from some of the popular LLMs. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done This suggestion has been incorporated at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes#VisualEditor is now default. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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 others up 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.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Is Recent research ready for copyediting? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 13 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

This should be publishable now except for the missing piccy. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "Israel supporter Robert Kraft" should be evaluated by someone who isn't me. Specifically: are those two words sufficient to describe Macklemore–Ed Sheeran tour controversy § Robert Kraft? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri Well, there's a whole section on Kraft's own page that might come in handy in this case. Oltrepier (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, Oltrepier, and HaeB: and all. I might be missing a fine point here, but it looks to me like there is a question of balance here. My personal feelings are that in the Gaza conflict, it's not going to be possible to present "balanced" text in any article about Gaza that will satisfy everybody, and I'm not going to try. Re: Traffic report in general, they give lots of info and lots of context or other material on a regular basis just because they are trying to write something interesting in a list of some of the most controversial current topics, and I don't know how to formulate an interesting article that would do otherwise. In general, I settle for "truth" as I see it and accuracy, or at a minimum adherence with WP:BLP. I'll go out on a limb here and say "Israel supporter Robert Kraft" is "true" and accurate and is consistent with WP:BLP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I worry about characterizing anything complex with a short phrase. The choice could have been "opponent of anti-Semitism", "billionaire Jew", or any number of things. But I'm satisfied with your true/accurate criterion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is several hours past writing deadline. Sections should be marked ready for copyedit as soon as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Will you be available to manage publication of this issue? I only ask because your last edit was on the day of the previous issue's publication. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 00:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow maybe, Sunday definitely. jp×g🗯️ 01:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's good to hear. Thanks for the quick response. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @JPxG: would you please share a status update? I believe that some sections need copyediting before publication, so unless you have extra capacity to handle both copyediting and publishing in the near future, perhaps the publication date will slip slightly. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, things IRL have built up and I don't have more time for the Signpost this weekend. I tried to finish up the leftovers in In the media. My advise is that if they aren't good enough, just delete them - they are not worth the time. I was trying to write a Disinfo report about what the Wikipedia editor community can do about Open AI's editing onsite. I have some ideas, but they aren't ready yet. Maybe I should reserve an Opinion or Op-ed slot for November? Sorry but I'm outta here for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: thanks for the note. Depending on what happens between now and tomorrow, perhaps you will have time to finish anything that you'd like to complete on Monday before the publication of this Signpost issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: I'm almost recovered from IRL, but will delay my proposed Disinfo report until the next issue (hopefully as an Opinion or Op-ed). The topic is important but is not going to disappear soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Pine: and all. I think it's time to invoke EICAWOL again. JPxG's last edit was on this page on October 10, and before that on Sept. 16. Bri, can you do the publishing honors again? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Smallbones: are there any updates about publication? ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to give JPxG a chance to reply. Will make time Tuesday evening (Pacific) if I'm still required for publication then. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: thanks. This might be a good time to mention that I recently discussed with Bluerasberry that the editor-in-chief role involves enough work to be a paid part-time job if its scope includes substantial Signpost content creation, managing the newsroom, and executing the publication process, and that on-time publication has been a problem for the Signpost for many years. If you are interested in being looped into a discussion about how potentially the EIC role could be funded while minimizing potential conflict-of-interest issues, then please email me. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 03:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine & @Bluerasberry I support this effort to fund an EIC role. My 2 cents can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#WP:EICAWOL? fyi: @User:JPxG & @HaeB responded unenthusiastically to the idea of paying an EIC. - Wil540 art (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support seeking funding for a technical and administrative publisher for The Signpost. I do not support funding for an editor in chief.

More broadly, I support funding many Wikimedia groups to have infrastructure support distinct from programmatic support which directly has an impact.

Here is what I want funded generally - meta:Wiki administrative executive

Here are past proposals to seek funded administrative support for The Signpost

• meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Bri/Signpost publication manager
• meta:Grants:Project/bluerasberry/fund a Signpost publisher

Out of scope: editorial decisions, content creation or development

In scope: technical act of publishing, administrative communication like pinging people in queue to submit or volunteer, do documentation, connect Signpost to other Wikimedia systems/project/affiliates to get their submissions

Being an editor in chief is a lot more fun when it is about executive decisions and upholding ethics and social values, and a lot less fun when it is about administrative backlog and scheduled task management. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bluerasberry: if your support for the idea of funding Signpost activities is limited to funding the publication process then I would suggest that the funding go toward improving the automation of the process, so that less human time is required for every issue. I would ideally also like to fund a half-time editor-in-chief role which would be responsible for managing the newsroom, recruiting writers, reviewing incoming content, and writing new content. The latter I could imagine funding with a grant from someone like Craig Newmark. Funding only technical improvements to the publication process, in principle seems allowable do with WMF funds. Should we divide this discussion of funding the EIC role as a whole into separate discussions related to different tasks that are currently bundled into the EIC's scope? Maybe separating the concept of providing funding by type of task would help with developing consensus around which work to fund and how to fund each.༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• For the essay: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/two-roles-one-wikimedia-education-ecosystem-lessons-from-wikiconference-north-america-2026/
• For the Technology Report: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/09/ai-and-the-future-of-wikimedia-reflections-from-wcna-2026/
• For the WikiConference Report and/or Community View. These both cover Wikimania, from complementary perspectives.

• https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/my-first-in-person-wikimania-reflections-lessons-and-outcomes/
• https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/05/from-local-contributions-to-a-global-movement-my-wikimania-2026-journey/

༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just regarding the second item, I don't think this is a very good fit for "Technology report" (whose main scope is news and developments in the technical platforms used by the Wikimedia project).

I would also encourage us to be selective regarding conference attendance reports by individual scholarship recipients, considering that may not be written with our audience in mind. E.g. how much do the Signpost's readers really benefit from "Key lessons learned" like this?

I learned that extended user rights on Wikimedia projects are not limited to administrators. They also include roles such as page patrollers, file movers, file renamers, stewards, bureaucrats, checkusers, and other users with specialised permissions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Plus, I thought we've had already two pretty good contributions about Wikimania on Issue 11, right? Oltrepier (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @HaeB and Oltrepier: I considered the value of the conference reports to experienced contributors, but something that is not a "key lesson" for an experienced contributor may be a "key lesson" for a new person. Our experienced readership might benefit from being reminded that some people are new, and the opportunity to see the world through their eyes. Here is a suggestion: this month's Signpost conference report section could simply list and link to each of the recent conference reports that have been published in Diff. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• In the absence of objections, I will adapt https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/08/two-roles-one-wikimedia-education-ecosystem-lessons-from-wikiconference-north-america-2026/ for "In focus". Other uses have been found for "Community view" and "Essay". ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Pine Wait, how about putting that blurb in "WikiConference report", and leaving a list of the remaining articles on Diff at the end of the column? Oltrepier (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Oltrepier: which blurb? ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Found this out from a media source.

I can honestly say that a good 10-15% of the active accounts since 7 October 2023 have either been my own sockpuppets or other users I have personally and intimately coordinated extensively externally (on sources like Discord) with to ensure the project has a pro-Palestine bias.

The title contains my question for The Signpost: how and when do we approach this? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like worth covering, perhaps as part of a Discussion Report in case we'll have one lined up for the next issue (together with the subsequent appeal discussion and administrative decision), or in ITM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@HaeB: Thanks for the suggestion. I started Discussion report with that quote. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: one thing to consider is whether a confession may be false and intended as a provocation. I don't know one way or another, but it's one thing to keep in mind. I would be interested in hard evidence, and I recommend being cautious about how a statement like this is described in The Signpost. I have not looked into the facts surrounding this particular statement or the Discussion report draft. My caution would apply the same if the statement supposedly confessed a different attempt to tilt content. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I put very little stocks in these confessions. "User:SuperbGazelle said she and three of her high school friends were personally was responsible for at least 23.75% of Soviet casualties in WWII." Sure buddy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, that's kind of why I had suggested to cover it together with the subsequent/surrounding appeal discussion linked above (see e.g. the comments by Kowal2701 or Moneytrees there). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 19 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

• See also the comments below in the sections "Wiki.gg shutdown for PHP critical security issue" and "Special report". ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

As reported on by The Telegraph and The Guardian, apparently Sandi Toksvig is working with the University of Cambridge on the Mappa Mundi project, which aims to supplement Wikipedia and other portals with more information about women in academics.

Without a doubt, this looks like a lovely initiative, and Toksvig is right to point at the wide information gap that still exists on Wikipedia, but I don't understand why she focused this much on firing shots at the site, instead of giving more insight on her own project...

Anyway, this should be an interesting story, and I can work on it myself, now that I should have more time to contribute again! Oltrepier (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also The Spectator, paywalled, author Toby Young. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now also a critical Opinion column in The Irish Times. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri Ok ok, I think it's enough, let's cover it! : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

My article is ready, if you're available to copy-edit it! Oltrepier (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Saw this ABC Science video [2] which talks about the Philosophy game, but across different Wikipedia languages. I may be underselling it but it is fascinating. I’ll try to cover later, but if anyone wants to get a head start, go ahead! Mitchsavl (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl That looks great, actually, so thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl Ok, yesterday I added a short item about the video, and I must confess that I was blown away by the effort that journalist had put in that project!

I've restrained myself of turning it into a whole blurb, though, just because you might have understood the video better than me, and so you should a better job at trying to explain it... : D Oltrepier (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi JPxG, I have boldly written content for this issue's essay's section. I am fine with moving my essay to a different section or postponing this if there are other needs to use this essay section. If my essay needs to be postponed then I would be fine with you copying my content to a new page in my user space, then replacing my content on the Signpost page. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 22:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note to the person who is acting EIC for the upcoming publication: unless I change this draft to say that copyediting is complete, please assume that this is not ready for publication. I may not have time to improve this essay before the upcoming publication deadline, and I may want to postpone this to a later Signpost issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I boldly started the upcoming Signpost "In focus" section as an adaptation of "Two Roles, One Wikimedia Education Ecosystem: Lessons from WikiConference North America 2026" from Diff. @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) and Bukky658: I'm hoping that this content will remain on track for publication in the upcoming Signpost issue. Before publication there will be reviews from at the Signpost editor-in-chief and possibly additional contributors, and plans may change. However, please feel free to boldly edit the Signpost adaptation as needed. I hope that this will be published in the next issue. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 23:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This essays seems to conflate Wikimedia education with Wikimedia in education. - Wil540 art (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: perhaps LiAnna or Bukky658 will respond to this concern, and possibly edit the text to clarify. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art@ Thanks for raising this point. I agree that distinguishing between Wikimedia education as a broader movement and the use of Wikimedia projects in educational settings is important. Our intention in the article was to highlight the complementary roles of Wiki Education and EduWiki Hub, particularly the distinction between classroom-based support and global, community-driven support for education communities.@Pine It may be helpful to make this distinction more explicit in the Signpost adaptation so that readers can better understand the different scopes of work. Bukky658 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bukky658: would you like to modify the Signpost version to make this improvement? I would prefer not to significantly modify your work myself, so that you and LiAnna can remain the only authors listed in the byline of the Signpost piece. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine How about putting that blurb in "WikiConference report", and leaving a list of the remaining articles on Diff at the end of the column?

Sorry, I've come across your original message a little late... Oltrepier (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier: I am teeing up "In focus" to be the piece about education systems. I think your comments here about blurbs might be in the wrong section. It appears that you left a similar comment in a different section. Should the comments here be struck? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine Yes, I must have mistaken your piece for another article... Sorry : D Oltrepier (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Pine! This piece was fully authored by Bukky658, so she should get the authorship credit! I just helped with the actual presentation. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier: there was an update to the text. What do you think now? @Bukky658: thanks for the update, and I wonder if you can also mention that Wikipedia might also be used in read-only education activities such as analyzing how talk page discussions occur or how certain topics are covered such as the relative counts of biographies; see Wikipedia:Research help/Librarians and Teachers and Meta:Research:Index. I believe that read-only activities are considered to be outside of the scope of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in Education and are instead categorized as research, even if that research is happening for class assignments. Do you think that stating in the Signpost piece that read-only use of Wikipedia in education, such as for analyses of Wikipedia content, seems common but these activities are generally outside the scope of the Wiki Ed Foundation and the EduWiki Hub? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Pine, @Joalpe has updated the article to reflect your suggestions. Bukky658 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's an important story about a well known Russian contributor to the Russian Wikinews being arrested for 1st "minor hooliganism" then rearrested for "minor hooliganism" and then for "treason" regarding being "paid" with "stars" on Telegram worth $26. I have some problem reporting his name - but only because I don't think making it a major issue in the reliable press would help him at this point. We can see what's going on in the press just before we publish. The case is discussed on Jimbo's talk page, on a Russian Wikipedia talk page (those folks are brave!) and in Medusa (Russian language reliable source located in Latvia?) and originally Vot Tak a Russian-language Polish-government propaganda radio station originally aimed at Belarus. Vot Tak (which means something like (there that, voila, or you got that right in Russian) has lots of details, including details about Wikipedia which are more correct than Medusa. I suggest we just report the details that might be given by the main stream Western press, or by the WMF. But we can wait until the publication date to decide. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones Thank you for reporting it. Should it go in N&N for now? Oltrepier (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: Is this story going into N&N or ITM? There's an argument to be made for both, so I'm just wondering where you plan on putting it. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 16:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@QuicoleJR I would say N&N, just because the story directly involves various Wikimedia projects and even Jimbo himself. Oltrepier (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. N&N. I'll see what I can write tonight, likely without naming the victim now. But maybe later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

At the time of Nobel Prize Awards every year, German Wikipedia's Kurier newspaper reports which Wikipedia language versions have biographies of the new laureates before their awards were announced. Here is the 2026 article - https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Kurier&oldid=271285495#Wikipedistischer_Nobelpreis_2026

I got permission from the author of this piece to republish this in The Signpost. However, I would like some thoughts from others on whether it right to do this at all, and if we do, how should we do it. One way to do this is that I run it through an AI translator, publish just the English, and link back to the original German language version. I propose and ask about other ways to do this below.

Reasons why I think we should do this are that the story is interesting, it is Wikipedia original good journalism and we could use more of that, I want to develop a precedent for The Signpost to be able to accept non-English language submissions, and I want to improve the exchange between Signpost and Kurier.

Remind me - what precedent is there of Signpost publishing non-English content?

If we were to do this -

• Should we publish German language as is?
  • If so, should we accompany that either with a translation or link to an automated translation tool?
• Should we only published translated content in Signpost?
  • If so, is an automated translation sufficient?
  • Is a human-processed translation without AI or tools preferable?
  • If we do publish a translation, what expectation do we have, if any, that we have another person besides the translator approve the translation?

Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's a good story.

We publish in English and link to the original in the editor's introduction at the top. One example off the top of my head (titled "Cherchez une femme"! That was my title, but there's no need for a foreign language title).

I did a simple google translate on the Kurier story and other than the tables, I think there were only 1 or 2 words that didn't quite make sense to me. Apparently, Germans set their tables differently and the last 3 or 4 column headings didn't make sense to me. I'd guess HaeB could finish the translation in 5 minutes

I was looking for a place to put the translation, and finally decided on "By the numbers" because there are very many column names taken up by old, old stories. Somebody needs to clean this up. Sad, but true - we have to reject some submissions sometimes! Who wants to do it now? But there is no template for "By the numbers".

@HaeB, Bri, Bluerasberry, and Pine: et al

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Somebody should tell Kurier their link to de:Hebräische Sprache is busted. But the story itself I think is suitable for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Weighing in on this, I'd like to advocate for either a translation done completely by humans, or at least to have a person read and if necessary correct and improve the automated translations. I think it is important to keep the biases in mind that keep being replicated in automated translations. A human can quite easily check for them.

Aside from that, I really like the idea to have more exchange between the newsletters, it's a very nice suggestion for more, language barrier overcoming connections! With that in mind I think it is probably good to translate articles, it creates less of a barrier. DarkGreenAndSunny (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/By the numbers

I translated the article with Claude Sonnet. I noted this at top. Then I edited the article to bring in the familiar context of the evaluation, which is that it is an annual tradition to check which Wikipedia language versions already have biographies for new Nobel laureates at the time of the prize announcement.

I used the AI to make a literal translation first. After I found that too blocky, I gave it instructions to start with the literal translation but smooth over for English readability, but also to keep idioms from the original language without translating them. I was trying to balance literal translation with cultural interpretation.

Comments and further edits are welcome. I would like to be open to more translated exchanges. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The site Wiki.gg is about to go offline due to “critical security issues with PHP” (per their Discord). This may be worth mentioning, and worth noting if the same thing happens here on Wikipedia, as we both run MediaWiki. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, rated 9.2 on the CVSS which goes to 10. It affects Wordpress, too. CVE details likely to be released Wednesday. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

[3] Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 12:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@The ed17 Right, so that's why I couldn't open wmcloud to look for the page-views. Thank you for reporting this. Oltrepier (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

A full statement is now on Diff. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl @The ed17 Did Wikimedia projects also go down later in the afternoon? Oltrepier (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not aware of Wikipedia itself going down, but as shown in the link above it did impact some services. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian just published a short and sweet insight into the overall PHP vulnerabilities, if we want to take inspiration for the "In focus" column and other related news. Oltrepier (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619 writeups now available. Use-after-free leading to remote code execution vuln. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think this should be mentioned on the N&N column. Oltrepier (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl @Bri @Pine @Bluerasberry @The ed17 In the end, we didn't manage to write a full article before the deadline, but I think that's still fine. We did mention the PHP black-out over at ITM, and maybe we could save time to write a longer and more accurate article on the subject (perhaps with some guest comments) on the next issue. Oltrepier (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe this is from https://www.wikimediastatus.net/

Since all Internet bots went down, we had an opportunity to observe how that affected Wikipedia editing. Instantly, edit count went down by half. I do not think any part of the loss could be from humans.

I have no idea how many of those bot edits are from our own good ones versus the other team's bad ones. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry If the data is verified, I think you should include it either in N&N or the "In focus" column, 'cause it's pretty interesting! Oltrepier (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm missing some context here. What does all Internet bots went down mean? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri As many bots on Wikipedia run PHP as Wikipedia does itself, after the PHP2Shell bot operators, or the hosting services that they run on would likely have shut down as a result until their operators were able to get round to updating PHP on their servers. As regular Wikipedia editors would not have had to do this, they would not have stopped editing the Wikis so therefore the missing edits are bot edits. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean authorized bots run by Wikipedians? Or off-wiki, unauthorized bots? Or can we tell the difference? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sort of answering my own question. The MediaWiki manual gives instructions for bot programming using both PHP and Python libraries or frameworks. Still, I don't know how prevalent whatever language flavor is. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the prevalence of PHP bots either, though there would likely be a lot of them. Even if the bot itself does not use PHP, I wouldn't be surprised for them to be hosted on a service which does. Many Wikipedia bots are hosted on Toolforge, which went down during the outage, and some services not operated by the WMF would have likely seen impacts as well. I don't mean authorised or unauthorised bots; such a security vulnerability would not discriminate between authorised and other bots. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the answer is in this post. Toolforge, where a lot of bots run, including anti-vandal bots like ClueBot, was taken offline. Not sure when it is coming back. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Status on the bots bot hosting services as they are brought back online is posted on the wikitech wiki here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like ClueBot has been back online for a bit. Here's its first edit after a 2-and-a-half-day nap:

10:55, 23 October 2026 diff hist  −40  m Garance Authié Reverting possible vandalism by ~2026-56663-24 to version by ~2026-54794-05. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (4563154) (Bot) thank Tag: Rollback
20 October 2026
23:19, 20 October 2026 diff hist  +1,413  N User talk:~2026-56189-31 Warning ~2026-56189-31 - #1 current thank

☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of bot traffic, see wikitech:KAPOW. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I probably won't have time to address this myself but anyone writing for The Signpost might want to do a quick read of The Architecture of Open Source Applications (Volume 2) which has an accessible overview of how PHP came to be chosen for MediaWiki. Interesting to me is the fact that some concern was given to performance, available talent pool of developers, and some mitigations for common programming errors – like SQL injection and over-dependence on global variables – but, at least in this writeup, weaknesses in the underlying PHP implementation are not addressed. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

All of the above subjects perhaps should be included in the upcoming Technology Report instead of N&N. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine Sounds good to me! By the way, I've found a few good reports on the matter by the likes of Reuters, The Guardian and Il Post (in Italian), should you wish to use them for the article. Oltrepier (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine Wait, I've just realized there's already another piece from @Mitchsavl in preparation over there. Oltrepier (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier:, thanks, but as you may have already seen, I commented in the discussion about that report, and in the discussion about the "Special report". ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Somebody needs to make a final decision on whether the "postponed" draft that's been sitting in the "next issue" slot for the community view column since August will ever be run by the Signpost. Either copy-edit and run the piece or decline it (I'm leaning towards the latter TBH). Either would be preferable to letting it rot in limbo for even longer. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mollystarkdean: You mentioned that you might be able to give comment to this piece on Wikipedia and fandoms.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view

This submission has already been discussed at

• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_51#22:12_Community_view
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Fandoms_and_the_Wikipedia

As QuicoleJR says, we have arrived at the point where someone needs to volunteer to develop the piece or we need to decline it. I fixed a few things but among other issues, it needs a clear thesis at the beginning.

Do you have capacity to decide here? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I copyedited the submission earlier. If it were mine, I would take the section titled "Focusing on Wikipedians" and make it the up-front thesis that Bluerasberry is looking for. Hooking the reader's interest by saying "here is something a lot of your peers do", then explaining the phenomenon further. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look. Molly Stark Dean #NewsNerd (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I gave this second eyes. Let me know if there are any other submissions you need me to resurrect from the submission graveyard. I'll submit My Wiki Heart when the photogs submit the official photos to commons.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view Molly Stark Dean #NewsNerd (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suggest moving Christophe's essay from "Special report" to "Op-ed". Then the lead section about the wishlist in what is currently the "Tech report" could become a standalone "Special report", and content related to the "Wiki.gg shutdown for PHP critical security issue" discussion could be added to the "Tech report" without making it huge. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note to self for future sections:

• Week 1: wikitech:KAPOW. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lokKpSrNqDA
• Week 2: see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-10-13/On the bright side idea regarding pets of Wikimedians
• Week 3: humor from WikiConference North America.

• The missing bus
• The special shop door
• The sign on the library aquarium
• Echo (discussion with User:Clovermoss)

• Somewhere above or in the following OTBS: the joke from Discord which I screenshotted.

༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: et al

I'd planned on an opinion piece about autonomous agentic bots and what the editor community should do about these, which came from Open AI. I am now aware that just yesterday at least 3 autonomous agentic bots have been blocked (by admins User:Asilvering and User:rsjaffe, which have been introduced by regular editors and are offspring of the company iLands [4]. I've confirmed almost everything that was sent to me at User_talk:Athanelar#Mail_call! So I'll do this as a regular Disinfo report (which sometimes includes some interpretation and commentary needed to explain some fairly complicated ideas). I'll also likely have a section at the bottom Opinions and recommendations since I started this essentially as an opinion piece. Comments welcome now but I don't expect to post anything until tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: thanks for the update. If you haven't already seen this, you might want to look at wikitech:KAPOW. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, the iLands ones are probably the least offensive AI agents we have to deal with. An AI agent motivated to find WP:V failures on wikipedia is pretty likely to do so successfully. It's the ones writing their own text that are a particular problem. You can find at least some of those in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia AI agents. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Asilvering: Thanks for the info and it will be mentioned in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, HaeB, Pine, and JPxG: et al. I've been working for 3 or 4 weeks on getting an opinion out about AI.bots. (It might be too big a topic for me!) But I'm switching this Disinfo report to straight news. And adding a News from the WMF which will be the WMF blog version by Stephen LaPorte. With an extra intro from Bernadette Meehan following my request for a comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

“Human-created knowledge is the foundation that makes AI useful to people. Wikipedia volunteers built that foundation and expand it every day by collaborating, sourcing, and sharing reliable information freely with the world. Your efforts put you, and the Wikimedia movement, at the heart of the future of knowledge, which everyone has a responsibility to protect.” - Bernadette Meehan

As far as the straight news Disinfo report goes. It'll be faster than the planned Opinion piece. Tentative headline "Better bots or bumbling borgs". There might be some grammar problems with that though. If I recall correctly The Borg is a proper noun of a unified singular entity.But there are thousands of these borg-like creatures (off-Wiki in most cases). Bri, you likely know how to solves this problem. What does the MOS say? BTW, the blurb might be "The Borg has landed."

Next topic. I'll move the WMF blog version of the WMF announcement today. Should be simple. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Following Lily's comment that Borg "sounds Swedish", maybe the right formulation is "bumbing Borgen"?

Just a wee bit more seriously replying to Smallbones, here is a scholarly book that considers this question. They find that "physically disconnected Borgs" as individuals constitute part of the "Borg collective". So I think you're safe using the plural for alliterative purposes. However, I'd prefer to see "The Borg have landed" if you use that headline variation. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Writing deadline is under 6 hours away. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a tough time meeting it, but I should be ready with a good draft Sunday morning. Lots going on now, e.g. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/10/30/why-wikimedia-is-speaking-up-in-a-major-ai-copyright-case/ by Stephan LaPorte and a Diff version and a submission by Eureka Endo on same. I suggest we go with the LaPorte version under News from WMF. Verge coverage at https://www.theverge.com/policy/1022880/wikipedia-openai-new-york-times-copyright Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I saw the story about the WMF amicus brief at The Verge and somewhere else ... forget where it was right now. Was planning to hold them for next issue. But if you think you can add it for current issue that's OK too. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I saw stories at AV Club, Engadget, and Gizmodo. The headline at the latter is provocative: "Wikimedia Foundation Tries to Save Itself From Oblivion by Brokering AI Copyright Deal". ☆ Bri (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri @Smallbones Just so you know, a WMF staff member has submitted his own article on the matter. Oltrepier (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is now ready for copy editing at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from Diff. I talked with the Communications folks extensively when this showed up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've marked the Disinfo report ready for copyediting. It's a bit long, but overall I think it's ok. I do want to check on the $26 treason section in N&N to see if anything has happened that would make me change my mind, but I doubt it.

I think I mentioned this just before the last issue was published, but I think there are several articles that were delayed in previous issues, or previous previous issues, or ... News gets old quick and if they can't be updated and published, they should be rejected. I don't think we want this edition to be the night of the living dead. So, off the top of my head, I'll suggest that the old Special report not be published. The one I'm most disappointed with is By the numbers. I still can't understand the translation (the translator needs to understand both language - and the table headings just don't compute). I'll be back in a few minutes after look at the next issue page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones On top of this, as I've proposed in the thread up above, maybe we should just save the article on the PHP chaos for the next issue, so we can collect and process all the information with the highest accuracy and care. Oltrepier (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones @JPxG @Bri @Mitchsavl @Jayen466 Just so you know, yesterday I've copy-edited almost the entire ITM column: if somebody's able to go through my own entry and the "In brief" blurbs, it would be really appreciated! Oltrepier (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Afternoon, fellas. jp×g🗯️ 21:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

!!! Nice to see you !!!

The Trick or treaters just started arriving! I'll be delayed for a few hours. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rolling it. I would definitely like to either get something ready for these languishing submissions or sweep them off to /Drafts/ -- lot of prime real estate in being in the queue, no sense of them being there if they are not getting used. Also running Wegweiser to populate the indices and requesting the watchlist notice. jp×g🗯️ 13:47, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri @JPxG @Smallbones Shoot, we totally forgot about Wikidata's birthday! Well, at least we know what to write about in the next N&N column... Oltrepier (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject United States' 20,000 Challenge just passed the ten year mark and is going strong. Since I'm a participant I would prefer someone else to evaluate whether it is newsworthy. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply