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
	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 2026-08-24 13:52:34 ( v t e ) Writing: 26 August 01:00 (2 days left; 100%) Publishing: 27 August 01:00 (3 days left; 100%) There is 1 day, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 26 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-08-24 13:52:34.
July 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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 02	August 2026 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 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06	September 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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

Just became aware of a draft FOIA request in the name of The Signpost, currently residing at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion.It was moved there on 22 June, I just didn't see it until now.☆ Bri (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see this as an opinion piece. I do think I can help the author a bit with the FOIA request, I have a very small amount of experience with them.

Revert me if you want to but I'll replace this with a second diff piece this month. I think it is a very important policy proposal.

This is from the 2 possible articles section above. The second one I might put in Special report.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, Smallbones, and JPxG: before any FOIA request goes out claiming to be from The Signpost, I recommend a discussion on this talk page of whether this should be done, and a consultation with WMF Legal. I'd prefer that Wikipedia be seen as a neutral information repository and not a Wikipedia:Battleground or political football. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation to some degree cooperated with the information requests that came to them from the current administration. I have heard of no friction since, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. ↠Pine (✉) 06:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine, Bri, and JPxG: Pine, I agree with you in this case. There may be a delicate balance with the US administration in this case and the last thing we want to do is rock the boat and get their nonsense started up again. In the general case though, I think that FOIA requests are a matter for the journalist, with possible consultation with the E-i-C.

Note that I did put the above 2 articles in Special report and Opinion and think they look very good! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think a consensus is emerging, and I endorse it, too: FOIA requests attributed to The Signpost should be discussed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: while your boldness is commendable, the FOIA piece is not in the plans to be published in this Signpost issue. The Newsroom talkpage here would be a good place to ask for consensus to do something like send a FOIA request which involves the use of the Signpost's brand and could have side effects which not everyone wants to sign up to deal with, possibly in this case including the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. ↠Pine (✉) 23:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Slaporte (WMF): we may want to get input from your team on something like this. I could envision a FOIA request like this causing some friction, and I am concerned about the potential for such a request to spark a political and public relations incident which does more harm than good. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 23:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Y'all are welcome to do as you like. The legal attribution for the FOIA will be under my name and address. I only submitted this to the signpost because @Bluerasberry: asked me to. The FOIA request is going out without consultation from WMF legal unless they indemnify me from any costs or possible retaliations associated with the request. I was happy to delay until the signpost published my piece. However, it seems like Pine wants to delay further. I don't know who that is, but I submitted my piece through the normal submissions process and it was accepted, so I would not expect a departure from this process unless JPxG decides for it. Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: I don't know what WMF's position would be on this. There might be trademark issues with using the word Wikipedia without a signed trademark agreement with WMF, but I don't know and I'm not a lawyer. @JPxG: did you approve this piece? It seems that Bri did not, and I don't know who else could have granted an approval. ↠Pine (✉) 23:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cool sue me then. Is this a WP:THREAT ? Czarking0 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a really pointlessly inflammatory comment and I'd prefer you not say stuff like that. jp×g🗯️ 15:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lane did, how about you check SUBMISSIONS or the page history before you start making a bunch of baseless statements? Czarking0 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. It looks like Bluerasberry and Shushugah reviewed this, but JPxG didn't provide an opinion one way or another. However, I don't know what might have happened off wiki. What I'm concerned happened, and certainly appears not to be your fault Czarking0, is that a couple of other people moved this op-ed through the editing workflow, but it appears to me that the piece was not approved by JPxG who should make the final call regarding inclusion of pieces in Signpost issues. And I am concerned that this op-ed, and the use of the Signpost's brand, should have been discussed here and/or with JPxG before the plan got to this point, because moving pieces out of the production line at the last minute is very very suboptimal for everyone. @JPxG: I am thinking that there should be a higher barrier to moving pieces out of the submissions desk before they ever get staged in a Signpost draft, by requiring that you be the only person allowed to do this. Otherwise we end up with frustration at the very end of the production line. ↠Pine (✉) 00:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Trademark protection is to avoid brand confusion. There's no issue with using trademarked phrases (I can talk about Coca Cola all I want), as long as I'm not using it in a way that allows people to confuse my products or services with those offered by the trademark holder. There's no offering in this situation that can be confused with those provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, so there's no trademark protection problem. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Trying to disentangle some things:

• The object of the conversation above is here (i.e. the last version of the draft - btw, on a housekeeping note, I don't think it's a good idea to overwrite such a draft with an unrelated one; better move it to "Next next issue" or such)
• I think we have room for investigatory journalism at the Signpost, but yes, before sending out a FOIA request in the Signpost's name, it should be discussed here. (On the other hand, I do not see the point of publishing a draft FOIA request as a Signpost article.)
• Yes, we should be mindful about the Signpost being (ab)used for generic political advocacy or for political reporting about the misdeeds of the current US administration in general. That said, the particular issue here is clearly of direct interest to the Wikipedia community (as one of the - so far very few - concrete actions taken by said administration that had the potential to affect the Wikimedia movement directly).
• I don't quite follow the trademark concerns, especially given that the draft request emphasizes the Signpost's independence from WMF.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to start a separate section entirely on the workflow of the submission page. There have been multiple occasions in the past few months where op-eds or related pieces could have been stopped or modified earlier, and instead got moved out of the production line at the last minute, which is a bad and inefficient practice in my opinion. ↠Pine (✉) 04:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This has been done. Perhaps in this section the discussion can now focus on the FOIA component and what to do about it. I regret the suboptimal Signpost submission process, and I would prefer that the FOIA component be discussed long before this got as far as it did, but that can't be helped now, so I suggest focusing on whether The Signpost's name is okay to use in this FOIA request. My personal opinion is that I don't think this is a good idea, but I'd like to hear what others think especially JPxG. I'm concerned about the potential to trigger an incident which could impact Wikipedia well beyond The Signpost's readership, and I don't think that the risk is worthwhile at this point. On the other hand, if someone starts initiating a bunch of scrutiny on Wikipedia again, there may be less to be lost in sending a FOIA like this. ↠Pine (✉) 05:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, as a purely clerical matter, pasting a new op-ed over a blanked previous one requires a manual WP:HISTSPLIT which is a giant pain. How come we did that instead of moving the page...?

Second, and this is a useless thing to say, but mostly what has been said I agree with. A FOIA request is a grown-adult thing to do. We are (at least supposed to be) a grown-adult publication, so if we are unable to do that, it is rather wimpy. But our ability to do it does not mean that any particular instance is a good idea. While I do not know what the proper procedure is supposed to be for these, I know people who I can ask and get authoritative answers. I do not think the trademark thing makes much sense, since we are officially the Signpost and not the Wikipedia Signpost (and if the domain name is that much of an issue we can simply use https://signpost.news for which these situations are the main raison d'etre). It would be very good to do this if we had our shit together. There is a process for us having our shit together. I do not know if we have gone fully through that process. For example, the part where we request a waiver, it kind of reads like we are doing it on the basis of "give it to us for free because you guys all suck". Is that what you're supposed to do? I find it unlikely.

Third, I am much given to concur on the issue of moving things into the next issue space on the understanding that this means inclusion. Hitherto, the general way it's worked over the last few years has been along these lines:

• Submissions get made on the submission page.
• Every-issue features that combine multiple stories (like N&N, ITM, RR) are created directly in the /Next issue/ space (even if we don't run one thing, these features always have several, so the rest will remain).
• Long-established contributors will tend to create articles directly in the /Next issue/ space, because they are familiar enough with the process to know what will work and what won't.
• Editors virtually always write their own articles directly in /Next issue/ because they're the ones who would approve them anyway.

Every once in a while somebody will just submit a new article there, or someone will move one from the submissions page to the /next issue/ space; most of the time this does not create any awkward situation. Also, in previous years, more active EiCs (me) prowled the newsroom subpage list more actively and notice it more in advance. But it is still the case that the {{Signpost draft}} template says in its header that it's subect to editorial review. Perhaps there is some benefit to be had from making this more clearly laid out on the submissions page?

Fourth, a completely different article now exists at the linked page title, which is really not ideal (I guess this is the first one again), but anyway, I guess there is no real problem with this (other than I disagree with its basic premise, but not so much so that it is not worth running anyway). jp×g🗯️ 06:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about the fee waiver? That is an important part of any FOIA request which is not for commercial purpose. I could edit the tone, but the meat of it is I don't want to pay $100,000 (which is a realistic estimate without the fee waiver). Czarking0 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed (see also e.g. this explainer). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a decent explanation generally, but there is more nuance around volunteer/non-staff requests made with the expectation of publication within a news outlet. Czarking0 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I needed to state again this specific point to clarify: The FOIA request will not be sent in the Signpost's name. It will be sent in my personal legal name and address. I do not wish to be outed on wikipedia at this time so I redacted that from the draft. I do not understand why this was misunderstood.Czarking0 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that discussion above was about the reference to the Signpost in e.g. this part of the draft:

IV. NEWS MEDIA REQUESTER STATUS AND FEE WAIVER I request that this request be processed under the news media requester fee category, limiting any applicable fees to reasonable duplication costs only, with no search or review fees assessed. I am a published contributor for The Signpost, a newspaper that has covered Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the broader free knowledge movement continuously since December 2005. [...] The Signpost has previously reported on at length. The Signpost volunteers publish original journalism. Records obtained through this request will be analyzed, contextualized, and incorporated into original reporting, not republished as raw data. They will be submitted to The Signpost for editorial review.

But yes, we should be precise here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in this suggests that this is submitted on behalf of the signpost. I do not believe the signpost is a legal person and thus does not have the right to submit a FOIA request. I am perfectly within my rights as a US citizen to submit a FOIA request in the the news media category on the basis that I have published in the signpost and expect to publish further analysis of this FOIA request within the same. Anyone who does not understand that should educate themselves on FOIA requests before commenting further. Czarking0 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I assert that The Signpost has as much or more independence from the Wikimedia Foundation as anything else that the Wikimedia community publishes in the Wikimedia platform.

The following are to be avoided:

• Seeking permission from the Wikimedia Foundation or its representatives to publish
• Seeking approval or advice for editorial focus or scope of The Signpost
• Imagining a chain of authority running from the Wikimedia Foundation into The Signpost

Obviously there is overlap among the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia community projects published in the Wikimedia platform, such as The Signpost, but generally the relationship between Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation is analogous to YouTube videos and permission from Alphabet to publish them. The Signpost has a good relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation because of its independence and maintaining conventional journalistic boundaries that are common between newspapers and the institutions in their scope of coverage.

The Signpost is an independent Wikimedia community newspaper. It never has offered editorial power of any kind to the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation has always completely supported the editorial independence of The Signpost.

If anyone sees things differently or wants to phrase any of this better, then please share.

@Pine: All seem cool here? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Bluerasberry: thanks for the ping, but I have mixed views of this. I wouldn't want WMF wading into many Signpost issues, but on something like this I think their advice could be valuable. WMF has its own public policy staff, and I would prefer that their expertise be brought into the picture. It would be regrettable if something published in The Signpost, or in any way associated with The Signpost, was to reignite a controversy with an external entity that has plenty of resources and could divert a lot of attention from other important matters. Whether someone could do something, and whether it's a good idea, are two separate questions that are both relevant to the proposed FOIA. ↠Pine (✉) 20:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Once monthly there is a meet between Wikimedia Foundation public policy staff and Wikimedia affiliate organizers in the United States. The next call is scheduled for 11am EDT Friday 31 July. Pine, I believe you organize with Wikimedia Cascadia. If you want to join with Cascadia or you have another United States community collaborative reason to join, then I can get you an invite. The two Wikimedia Foundation staffers there are Stan Adams and Franziska Putz. It generally is out of bounds to publicize the discussions of that meeting, but in this special case, can I ask you to either join this meeting, or write questions for me and others to relay in that meeting, with intent that you bring back an answer? Alternatively, you could just write them now, as they are the ones making themselves available for government and policy general discussion about United States issues. And if you are interested generally about such issues, you could just start joining this meeting as a regular attendee. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry: thanks for the suggestion. I'm not a representative of any affiliate including the Cascadia user group. I wonder if pinging Stan and Franziska in this talk page would be easier, and better for transparency, to ask for input regarding this matter. What do you think? ↠Pine (✉) 20:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Do it! Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Thanks for asking the question. I met with Stan and Ziski yesterday for the regularly North American monthly policy meeting. While I am here discussing this, If anyone wants to join the private virtual policy meeting last Friday of the month at 11am NYC time, then let me you know. You have to identify yourself and while conversation is not sensitive, Chatham House Rule applies.

The response was to ask @Slaporte (WMF):. Stephen, we have a wiki community member doing and attempting a FOIA request to the US Department of Justice. Along with that attempt, the user wishes to republish their request in The Signpost, and write an opinion piece about their experience and feelings about doing all this. Questions: 1) Wiki community members frequently advise Signpost editors to seek WMF advice or permission whenever we run articles on political or legal topics. Can you please give or point to a statement that we can direct people to when they want to know the relationship between Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation? 2) By wiki community request, and for this case specifically, I offer the WMF the opportunity to participate in The Signpost's editorial discussion about running this FOIA piece. Which WMF staffer might we invite to The Signpost for discussion?

See the rest of the discussion here if you like. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noting here that I would like to see a response from Slaporte (WMF), and approximately 2 weeks have passed since this ping. Bluerasberry emailed him. I will check email later today or tomorrow. This wait is much longer than I was hoping would happen. ↠Pine (✉) 18:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi all,

I was asked to share some information from the Wikimedia Foundation legal department regarding the role of the Signpost relative to the Wikimedia Foundation.

In brief, our view is that the Signpost is an independent community journalism publication, hosted on the Wikimedia projects, and thus hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means several things, which I can go through.

First, the Signpost, like everything else posted on the Wikimedia projects, is a user contribution subject to the Wikimedia project Terms of Use. It may be worth keeping this in mind since the Signpost is not meant to be an encyclopedia but is still subject, for example, to not harassing or stalking people, not posting defamation, etc. I am sure the folks running its editorial decisions are doing their best to put out good quality work, but it is worth remembering that some of the most aggressive forms of investigative journalism can look a bit like stalking or violating privacy and may be violations of the site Terms of Use. Something that aggressive would need to be published on some other website or not at all.

Second, like all user contributions, the law makes the writers and editors of the Signpost responsible for what they publish and may in some cases obligate the Wikimedia Foundation to take down material post-publication. For those of you who have been keeping up with some of our more difficult applicable law cases, the Foundation currently evaluates applicable law to be U.S. law and other country law on a case by case basis (see Applicable Law Determination). This could mean that a Signpost article focused on, say, a European subject who’s actively litigating against the Foundation could end up being subject to a court order for removal and that the law of a European country could be applicable law for that specific case even if it wouldn’t be to the whole publication. We do note that the Foundation supports the importance of independent community journalism and opposes the use of legal process for intimidation. So if Signpost contributors face an inappropriate legal threat, they can contact the Foundation via our legal@ email address to determine if they qualify for our legal assistance programs or for support from a third-party organization dedicated to protecting journalism.

Third, the Signpost is independent within the confines of the above two points. This means that the Foundation does not exercise editorial control over what the Signpost publishes, what it decides to cover or not cover, and how it decides to cover it as long as it doesn’t violate the Terms of Use and/or is not subject to legal requirements under applicable law. The Signpost is free to ask the Foundation’s opinion on anything it wants, and the response (unless we indicate otherwise for legal reasons) is just that: an opinion.

Fourth, I will step out of the legal viewpoint for a general word of advice that is not in any way a legal requirement. We have seen in recent cases that the general public, including courts and regulators, does a very poor job of distinguishing between Foundation publications and independent community publications on our projects. So it may be useful when considering Signpost publications to think about the question: “what if someone either accidentally or maliciously misreads this piece to be speaking not on behalf of the Signpost, but on behalf of all of Wikipedia or on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation?” A disclaimer can help with this question, but disclaimers are not perfect and so considering things like tone, narrative voice, and perspective within a given article can also be helpful. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jrogers (WMF): thanks for the thorough comments. The fourth point is the one that most relates to what I am concerned about with the FOIA request that is under discussion. A disclaimer may be a good idea. ↠Pine (✉) 21:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Bluerasberry's statement above. Given that it has been a week without update. I would like some consensus on if this belongs in the next issue. Obviously this is not a binding RfC as JPxG has full authority over publication.Czarking0 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC) A: publish the piece Czarking0 wrote in the next issue B: do not publish any draft FOIA request relating to the Weaponsization Working Group / Ed Martin unless some new event brings this up again. Note that if this option is selected Czarking0 will still send the FOIA request and share the results with Signpost editors. C: publish a draft FOIA request relating to this matter, but the actual piece Czarking0 wrote is not goodReply

• @Czarking0: thanks for being willing to discuss this. I have a lot of concerns about option "A". Option "B" is the most cautious and is where I'd prefer to hold for now, but I'm open to considering option "C". If there is a decision to proceed with this, I'd prefer that both the FOIA content and the Signpost piece be worded carefully and respectfully, in order to minimize the risk of an inflammatory confrontation while also making a valid journalistic request. ↠Pine (✉) 20:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi @SAdams-WMF and FPutz (WMF): I would be interested in your perspective on this proposal. As I've discussed on this talk page, such as with Bluerasberry, I'm concerned about the potential for a FOIA request to spark a controversy that could go badly, including for Wikimedians who are far outside of The Signopst's readership. What do you think about how a FOIA request would be received, as discussed on this talk page? What are the risks, benefits, and tradeoffs, from your perspectives on public policy? If someone wants to proceed with this FOIA request then how do you think the request should be done in order to balance risk with benefit? Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 02:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I just want to make clear again this RfC is not about the FOIA request. The request is happening regardless of consensus here. The RfC is to publish a draft of it Czarking0 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    @Czarking0: thanks for clarifying, although I hope that you will wait to send the FOIA request until after WMF responds with their input. If you want to proceed with this, I request that the FOIA request and any Signpost publication about it be in a civil and non-confrontational tone. If the tone is non-confrontational then I am hoping that the risk of a FOIA request and any subsequent discussion will be less likely to spark political interest, or worse yet, a confrontation which could drain a lot of resources and create risks to the project or individuals not involved with the FOIA request. ↠Pine (✉) 17:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think the WMF should respond here. That would muddy the clear editorial independence. I also do not care what the WMF thinks of the request because I assume that their legal strategy involves little to no risk taking which is not how I want to live my life. If you want to edit the draft to be less confrontational I am happy to collaborate on that. Czarking0 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Actually, I have a lot of respect for Lane (I read their comment after I wrote the above). I'll deffer to his judgement in this matter. Czarking0 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pine and I briefly discussed what to do with no reaction from Stephen. We both decided to ping him again and wait longer. He is the Wikimedia Foundation general counsel and very busy. From one perspective this case may be a small issue from him, but from another perspective, I would appreciate some institutional clarity on WMF / Signpost relationships because of how common it is for the Wikimedia community to have the expectation that the Signpost needs to defer to editorial permission from the WMF. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "defer to editorial permission from the WMF." If you mean follow legal directives (which falls under the scope of foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Office Actions Policy), then I agree the community supports this. "Editorial permission" has a much broader scope, though, and it's not clear to me that the community expects English Wikipedia content to require permission from the WMF. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Isaacl: Please say more. A yes/no would be helpful. Does The Signpost need WMF permission or input or interaction to publish User:Czarking0/Are we embarrassed yet?. If there is an extent to which The Signpost might, then explain how to determine. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It would be helpful if you would clarify your assertion. Personally I don't think the community expects that The Signpost needs WMF permission to publish content, including the piece in question. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Isaacl: Here is the assertion: the usual Signpost editors here on this board, without doing anything unusual like checking in with the WMF, can proceed as Signpost normal in deciding whether to run 1) any submission in general and 2) User:Czarking0/Are we embarrassed yet? this submission specifically. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that no checking in with the WMF is required, though of course Signpost contributors are free to use whatever input they wish to make their decisions. I disagree with how common it is for the Wikimedia community to have the expectation that the Signpost needs to defer to editorial permission from the WMF. I don't think the community has this expectation. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would feel better about this FOIA request if Slaporte (WMF) or the WMF policy team would share their recommendation before this proceeds. I don't know if anyone really wants to block a journalistic request for information, and I would be more supportive of this if I wasn't concerned about a potential response from politicians involving using Wikipedia as a political football and potentially causing harm in a radius that's far larger than The Signpost. I appreciate that Czarking0's plan involves sending the FOIA request in their own name and being willing to have potentially large and unpredictable consequences as a result, which is courageous and noble for any journalist. However, even with Czarking0 being willing to put themselves on the line for this, I'm thinking of many other people who could be impacted and might not have Czarking0's resources or courage and who wouldn't want to increase their chances of becoming collateral damage in a political game. Also, I'm concerned about the potential for a political response to drain WMF staff time and money. I wish that WMF had already provided input, and I'm disappointed that this is taking so long. I would like to reach a conclusion of some kind regarding how to proceed. ↠Pine (✉) 18:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As Czarking0 seems intent on speaking for themself in the request, it's not clear that any third party's concern is going to dissuade them. (Whether or not the Signpost chooses to cover the request is a separate matter.) Also recall the WMF lawyers are responsible for providing advice only to their client: the WMF. This separation is in place precisely to avoid the WMF from having to assume legal responsibility for community edits. If editors start acting on the legal advice of the WMF lawyers, then there's an opening for potential litigants to claim that the WMF bears responsibility. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

"it's not clear that any third party's concern is going to dissuade them" I (male) would be dissuaded by being shown an alternative path of investigative journalism that is of significant interest to the signpost readership and potentially beneficial to the project for which I am also interested and would likely be a better use of my time as a volunteer journalist. I appreciate your input. Czarking0 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure; it didn't seem to me that Pine was seeking to do this when expressing their concern, but of course I could be wrong. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0, Isaacl, and Bluerasberry: thank you for your patience. Jrogers (WMF) has responded above. In his fourth point he brought up the idea of a disclaimer, which I think is a good idea here. Czarking0, is that something that you would be willing to include in the FOIA if you submit it? If you are determined to submit the FOIA then including a prominent disclaimer that you are making this request on your own and not on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, or the Signpost, then perhaps that could reduce a bit of the risk. Combining that disclaimer with a careful and polite tone in the FOIA request, and a careful and professionally worded Signpost piece, would not eliminate risks but may be the best available option if you are determined to proceed. Thank you for listening. ↠Pine (✉) 21:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I am open to a disclaimer. If you want to add one to the draft I am happy to collaborate. I am not sure that it is needed for this draft request piece though. I would see more of the point in including that in a potential future Signpost piece where the results are published. As far as actually including in the actual request. It will clearly state that I am the legal person making the request with my legal name and residence address as the contact details. If someone misinterprets that as a request from the WMF I would, at that point, have to assume bad faith. Czarking0 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: thanks. I edited parts of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion to make the piece more focused on facts and I think less likely to spark a confrontation. Please let me know what you think. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 00:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that the original Opinion was overwritten at Special:Diff/1363759492. I'm proposing here that we restore the two separate pieces via WP:HISTSPLIT. This will allow the proper handling of the original article (the one containing a FOIA request), whether it be returning to the contributor's user space, retaining in Wikipedia draft space, or outright deleting it. It's already quite confusing with a post-publication link on this page discussing the original page contents. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes please Czarking0 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request pending at WP:REPAIR. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I mentioned this a few sections up, since I noticed it when prepping for publication. I could technically do this myself but it is a very annoying process and there are many who -- miraculously -- actually find it enjoyable. jp×g🗯️ 16:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This was done a few days back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I find where it was put? Czarking0 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind it is User:Czarking0/Are we embarrassed yet? Czarking0 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll just note this without further comment. As far as I know, it is unprecedented. One of our contributors was warned, then blocked, over comments they made in the talkpage of their own contribution in issue 22:8. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-07-13/Op-ed This might also be the longest discussion in a Signpost comment section. AI metrics for conversation -

It is good when lots of people comment here.

Regarding the block, I am never quick to second-guess admin rulings, but for this conversation, the contributor and their personal views are supposed to be the center of attention. That is a different situation than someone forcing themselves into a public space where the conversation is more group oriented. I am unclear whether there is a personal attack accusation here. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/107384 which is a list of article talk pages by length. jp×g🗯️ 18:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now having had an opportunity to review this whole bolus, I am left a little perplexed. The author did have a very long and acrimonious dragout with multiple parties in which they became really angry and said some regrettable things. On the other hand, they were being met with pretty substantial hostility, which at least to me felt unnecessary. It is not really my place to go dick around with other admins' civility blocks, but it does seem kind of unfair. Such is life. jp×g🗯️ 23:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, looking back at that, I said some regrettable things myself. Bawolff (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think, in future, it may be a good idea for you to warn your contributors that English Wikipedia policies do, actually, apply to Signpost contributors -- namely, no casting aspersions and no making personal attacks.

Yes, even if the contributors have a pre-existing professional relationship of sorts with the Signpost editors -- and yes, when the WMF gives you just under $50,0000 to research, then you have a pre-existing professional relationship of sorts. [1]

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I certainly do not want conflict but I am not sure what to do to prevent it. If you like, you can join other discussions happening here in the newsroom right now, which are about orienting new contributors to Signpost submissions. Those discussions are seeking to do more screening of submissions to fail out drafts as soon as possible if they are not publishable. In my view, the recent failed submissions were either publishable or near publishable, so it is not a case of obvious bad content getting through. If you want a conduct reminder added to the screening process, now is a great time to suggest that in Signpost_submissions_workflow, which is also connected to FOIA request.

I agree with your idea, but I would appreciate your suggestion of how to warn, or you could edit any of the infrastructure here to just post the warning yourself. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Amazing! This one is #6!

Wikipedia Signpost Articles

Title	Author	Column	Date of publication	Bytes
Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching	Gamaliel	Editorial	October 21, 2015	211,609
Let's get serious about plagiarism	Moonriddengirl / The Signpost team	Dispatches	April 13, 2009	199,563
English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia	Smallbones, Andreas Kolbe, and HaeB	In the media	June 19, 2023	165,047
Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month	Emily Temple-Wood	Op-ed	February 17, 2016	136,226
How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine	The Signpost team	From the Signpost team	March 27, 2022	130,277
A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community	Brett Buttliere	Op-ed	July 13, 2026	130,177
WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment	Sdkb	Special report	January 30, 2022	128,441
Wikipedia has cancer	Guy Macon	Op-ed	February 27, 2017	119,466
Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?	Tony1	News and notes	October 30, 2013	109,713
"Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events	Nathan TeBlunthuis, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer	Recent research	March 9, 2023	107,509

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is an impressive amount of discussion. - Wil540 art (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added 4 more, making this a list of 10. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• July 17, 2026: Welcome to the high-stakes universe of World Cup Wikipedia editing - NYT/The Athletic article on a FIFA World Cup focused event hosted by Wikimedia NYC and WikiLatinos

Wil540 art (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• July 14, 2026: In the age of AI slop and misinformation, we need Wikipedia more than ever - SF Chronicle opinion piece -

Wil540 art (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: I encourage you to add your findings to the draft ITM, add yourself to the byline too if you want – we need contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added the NYT article summary. This is my first attempt at writing in this column, so please review my work and give me feedback, if needed. I will get to the SF Chronicle article. I wish I had a gift link for that one. Is there any signpost policy around using gift links? For example, in the summary I just wrote, I swapped the NYT link with a gift article link. - Wil540 art (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of a policy against gift links; however, NYT gift links only last for 30 days, so ... not a panacea. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have access to https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/2504577/wikipedia-host-faces-union-recognition-demand ? Andreas JN466 21:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: Sent – Doc Taxon • Talk • 18:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Doc Taxon Cool. Thank you. Andreas JN466 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I'm inclined not to take up more matters related to the union signature/NLRB issue for In the media, lest the column become a turn-by-turn accounting of a specific workplace unionization effort, which I don't think is really what we want. And the coverage increasingly lays bare which outcome they prefer (e.g. today's 404 Media story). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Jake, I see you've set the deadline for the next issue for August 1. That seems terribly optimistic given that you haven't addressed the problems from the last issue and how we can fix the problems. I let you know by email early last Sunday that the issue had lots of problems. I did not get a response.

The next day you showed up for 1 hour and 3 minutes to do your EiC work. You did some extremely minor copy editing on about 10 articles and published. That's all except you rejected my article apparently without reading it, suggesting that it was my fault since you thought it wasn't ready, wasn't copy edited, and if I read you right suggesting that I was causing chaos. I've asked you as directly as possible. Did you reject my article without reading it? Could you answer the question? When did you even find the time in that 1 hour and 3 minutes? How do you expect anybody to submit any substantial work if you reject articles without even reading them?

You have a habit of not showing up at all to to do the EiC job. We've been working under the WP:EICAWOL for a year or two now, but the problem was there even before that. Allow me to make a prediction. On August 1 (the publication deadline) you'll wake up, remember something about a deadline, maybe delay the deadline for a few days, or maybe just let @Bri and HaeB: and all the others take responsibility to publish, or maybe do an hour of "work" and publish sometime over the next week. Does that sound like your previous work?

Well I can't work like that. You need to take responsibility for the chaos in the last issue and the decline in quality over the last couple of years. Other people are trying, but not you. I can't work with an editor who rejects an article I write without reading it. I'd be happy to return here after you are gone.

One last thing. Please answer this question directly. Did you reject the article I wrote for the last issue without reading it?

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your frustration but The Signpost continually faces existential threat due to lack of staffing. If JPxG were gone, then that solves none of the problems you raise, and also creates many more problems. I greatly appreciate JPxG being here and making the extremely valuable contributions that they make.

I am sure that JPxG would appreciate editorial consensus and support. Along with JPxG, there could be a co-editor-in-chief, a consensus process among other editors to review submissions and demonstrate review to help JPxG make more effective decisions with less time commitment, or any number of other interventions.

An unorthodox standing offer that I can make is to meet anyone for video chat to talk about their submissions and I will personally type out review and responses as a record of diligent journalism, if that could improve our editorial process. I could just do this online asynchronously if it mattered, but for the complexity of these pieces and the related ethical issues around them, live conversations with document review often save a lot of time and are normal in journalism.

I have more to give and can be deployed in ways that stabilize the publication process. It is easy for me to recognize the difficulty here but I am not convinced that attempting to squeeze more labor out of JPxG is the route to a solution. I trust JPxG to make executive decisions, and it is not easy to recruit trusted users for these positions.

Smallbones, and JPxG, I can go through the piece [2] and document review and fact-checking here. That can establish diligence and review in the editorial process, which would be useful if the lack of documentation of diligent effort were the problem here. I have not deeply considered the piece, but if there are opinions here, I have the background knowledge and experience here to constrain the piece to neutral reporting and the facts. Opinions are fine, but not for the "in focus" column, if that is the issue. It is unclear to me what the blocker is in publishing this, but I am just guessing that consensus and support from multiple editors could establish diligence in review, which should be standard. There are litigious issues adjacent to this story, none of which involve me, nor do I want to be a part of them, but as a group we ought to be able to negotiate neutrality in reviewing submissions. I can even recruit other qualified but external reviewers of this piece, if we want more opinions.

I am unsure of the problem but I do want both of you around, engaged, and enjoying your time here. Smallbones - can you make a request to me of some way that I can help you? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry, JPxG, Bri, and HaeB:

Let me just spell this out as directly as I can. Sanger has been in the news a lot over the last few months attacking Wikipedia with at least a dozen major news sources putting his claim that he is the co-founder (some even just say founder) in their headlines. Just about about every Signposter has expressed some opinion about Sanger (probably most Wikipedians have some opinion). The last thing we needed IMHO was somebody expressing even more opinions about him - that wouldn't really solve any problem IMHO. So where to "get the plain and simple facts" about what he's done regarding Wikipedia. My premiss was simple, just check what the Signpost wrote about him throughout his career. Sure different authors had their own opinions but most of those are not here anymore (even on-Wiki) and there were lots of different authors over 20 years. I was also intrigued to find that the Signpost wrote about him in the very first issue in January 2005. So this was an "easy" way to just present the facts as they happened. Well, it turned out that there were more than 20 or 50 Signpost articles to read and summarize. (best count so far is 128). But that's just a fact of life: in journalism sometimes you get more facts than you bargained for. I just needed to do the work. I checked on this page if everybody was cool with that, and no real disagreements (some people wanted me to put in other things as well, like "outing admins" but that was never part of my plan. After going through about the first third+ of the needed work, I ran into an unexpected problem. Sanger had clearly said that he was *not* the co-founder. So what to do at that point? I suppose I could have just said "game, set, match" and give a summary opinion of why Sanger was full of it. Instead I just asked on this page #1 for a couple of people to check the quote, and a more vague #2 let's call it "Am I missing something here?" Bri soon verified the quote, but anybody could have done it in less than 5 minutes, Bri (who was clearly pressed for time) then added that he though Sanger might have been kidding, so I checked that but didn't see any evidence of that. Let's look at the quote.

In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia.

To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. He was specifically interested in finding a philosopher to lead the project, he said. He made it a condition of my employment [at Nupedia] that I would finish my Ph.D. quickly (whereupon I would get a raise)--which I did, in June 2000. I am still grateful for the extra incentive. I thought he would be a great boss, and indeed he was.

To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy’s, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.

— Larry Sanger, Memoirs

"(Any inconsistency between being "merely a grateful employee" and being a "co-founder" — a word he used twice in the Memoirs — was not mentioned by Sanger.)" I added this below the quote after reviewing Bri's suggestion that it might have been a joke.

You can check the quote simply by clicking on the link at the bottom of it and searching for the text "great boss".

Checking whether Sanger was joking or not is probably much harder - you might want to read thru Sanger's 14,000+ word Memoir to see if you can find any humor in it!

So this is where it stood on or before July 8, 4 days before Jake showed up on this page, (5 days before he did any editing of any article text for the latest issue - spending 1 hour and 3 minutes at it).

In the meantime, I'd gone through another 20-25 Signpost articles, summarizing them, putting the article into shape. Bri greatly helped giving me orderly lists of even more articles. He put his byline on the article for "helping with data" and I certainly agree with that. Bri and I both copy edited the article (much as we had both copy edited the In the media article - where both of us were also the only editors. In neither article did we mark copy editing complete due to the rule that somebody other than the authors needs to copy edit an article).

So what did Jake do to the article when he showed up to publish on Monday the 13th? Essentially nothing. He noted that Bri and I had some sort of disagreement and that the article wasn't ready then (thtat was Bri and my discussion of the 8th) He noted that the article hadn't been marked as copy edit completed. It was also clear that he hadn't appreciated the importance of the green box quote above (or even read it). He clearly didn't know the first thing about the article, and that was his reason for not publishing it.

So why is this important to the Signpost? It means that he has intentionally driven me out of the Signpost. If the EIC is going to reject an article that he hasn't even read, I can't justify putting any time into my writing (like 10-15 hours on my last submission). That's just "lost time" for me, stolen from me under false pretenses that he'd actually read it.

How does this affect other Signpost editors? His lack of effort robs them too, causing confusion on when the actual deadline is, likely f'ing up their articles too, messing up the submission process. He's just driving away lots of potential contributor.

But isn't having any EIC better than no EIC when we're permanently short handed? Doesn't he get something done around here? IMHO, No, other than his one line captioned comics. He drives away contributors, messes up production schedules, doesn't write anything in-depth anymore. Worse than nothing IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I emailed you. I agree to talk publicly here by text if necessary but the points you raise are of the sort that voice conversation, and not asynchronous text posting, usually address. I do not have anything private to say here, but if you are willing to voice talk with me I request that. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"So why is this important to the Signpost? It means that he has intentionally driven me out of the Signpost."

There's a level of paranoia here that's hard to describe. The simplest explanation is much more likely to be correct. There was a deadline. The piece wasn't marked ready to publish, wasn't flagged as copy-edited. JPxG used his authority as EiC to go "it's time to go live, we can polish the piece for the next issue".

I certainly understand the frustrations of writing a piece and seeing it sidelined. But you're attributing to malice what is 99.4853% likely to being overworked. Or, in other word, take a breather, WP:AGF, and remind yourself that the world hasn't ended. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones, note, too, that the above Sanger quote is about Nupedia, not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an idea that Sanger came up with in January 2001 (Jimmy was sceptical at first); the name Wikipedia, too, was coined by Sanger. And early Wikipedia press releases and media articles, such as the September 2001 New York Times piece "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You" by Peter Meyers (link is a free archive.org copy), did indeed describe Wales and Sanger as equal co-founders. (Personally, I suspect this was partly due to a desire on Jimmy's part to make Wikipedia sound a bit more respectable by being able to say that it was cofounded by a man with a Philosophy PhD.)

This is all covered pretty exhaustively in History of Wikipedia, and I think any Signpost piece based simply only on historical Signpost articles and ignoring the sources cited in article space would not go down well. The narrative presented in article space was fought over in the early days, but has long been stable and agreed to be factually correct. Andreas JN466 20:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An apparent WMF ex-employee dropped the following on my talk page:

• https://wikifired.org/2026/07/20/unethical-conduct

It purports to speak to WMF management's responses to criticism – some of which may have been published by The Signpost. Also alleges staff being directed "to withhold information from the Wikimedia movement community in order to avoid criticism". This is not entirely implausible; we have noticed transparency being more and more reduced over recent years (quarterly department reports/Tuning Session presentation decks no longer being published etc.). I am not saying I want to write a Signpost article about it, but it seemed worth mentioning here at least. Regards, Andreas JN466 13:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: and all. This looks interesting, but quite difficult to do right. It can't really be an anonymous complaint if we are to write an article about it. Somebody has to be public in most cases of an accusation like this. In other cases we might get a large group who are anonymous, or get the Wiki self identifications and edit histories, but both of those are difficult. The website you give above can, with some effort and luck, identify a person, but you'd likely run into some outing problems since the self-identification I've seen is not on-Wiki and could even be faked by a motivated person. I can give the purported self ID to a serious Signposter if you promise to be careful. I actually think there is at least one other Signposter who has heard of this case before and has some reasonable contacts with people involved.

Like I said - interesting but difficult to do right.

BTW, on another matter, the website Law 360 they name a US union involved with the Wiki-worker unionization effort Communications Workers of America. I'm not doing anymore paid subscriptions anymore, so I can't write that article, even though the temp subscription might be cheap. It's significant in that somebody has come forward and put their name on something (the earlier case - which we mentioned briefly - was a UK union which only applied for UK workers - so the main San Fran/US workers' group really hadn't gone public - now they seem to have. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

She links from the website to her linkedin-page, so really not much effort.

But I agree, difficult to do right. Ideally, we would have a second independent source.

Sadly, contentwise I can imagine people in the WMF behave like that Isderion (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Isderion: You may be right, but a social media account doesn't really help us, we need on on-Wiki self identification. And then we'd need them to either give us an on-the-record interview (probably via email) or some diffs on-Wiki where they discuss the same problem. A 2nd independent source would be great, but current WMF employees are probably (rightly) prohibited from disclosing private details of somebody being fired because of potential legal repercussions.

I suppose I can imagine *some* WMF employees doing something like that sometimes. But I'd prefer to give them the benefit of doubt unless this was really solidly nailed down. Wikipedians have to work with WMF employees and absent a set of solid facts, I think AGF applies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, my above comment looked a bit overly discouraging, so I checked out User talk:Jayen466 to see what is there. I provides a lot more context, but it still would be difficult to write up. Maybe if I could get their email, I could approach them to see if they want to be quoted and take this beyond an anonymous person with a poison pen blog. Anybody got an email? Andreas, could I leave a message for them on your talk? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, feel free to leave them a message there, Smallbones. (It's a wiki! ) If you do want to take this forward, please check that the whistleblower is aware of any potential legal liability they might incur for speaking out. (I would assume that they thought that through before creating their site, but best to check just in case.) Andreas JN466 21:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mostly agree and prefer your wording "*some* WMF employees. Not sure if a on-wiki self identification helps though. In the end it would just be the word of one fired employee (I don't want to appear mean, but maybe play the devil's advocate a bit here) Isderion (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

also discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Unethical_conduct_by_a_WMF_manager_according_to_Wikifired Isderion (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This section will be a response to User:Pine from the section "I'd appreciate a response Jake" and to User:Bluerasberry in "New Deadline". Both their questions/requests seem to imply that I'm being too negative toward User:JPxG. I probably am, since I really haven't given a way to move forward. In my defense, I'll say that it's been a while since Jake has been replying (other than very short "hey I got your note" - type replies) to my emails, and a much longer time since he seemed to put any thought into his email replies to me. If we could have had a decent conversation by email, I'd have much preferred that. But I think I've made my point that there is a major problem with how the Signpost is being operated, and that nobody has been doing anything about it. We need to recognize the problem and then figure out how best to solve it. We're all volunteers here, which mean thats nobody is forced to show up at all for any particular issue. But that means that one person, the EiC, has accepted the responsibility to see that the newspaper operates acceptably - he has chosen to do this. I have not been previously informed that he's asked to resign as EIC (somebody mentioned that) but that's really the only way out of his commitment. To write this calmly, and to give this comment some organization, I'll try to take my time on describing the best way out of our current problem (and avoid edit conflicts). I'll be back with at least a few more posts in this section. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for Jake since I was in much the same position myself. During the COVID pandemic I got overwhelmed by my responsibilities to my family and my responsibilities here as EIC, and really could not figure a way out for about 5 months. It took me a couple of months to figure out that resigning was one way out (I should have - but didn't -figure out that I could just dial back my expectations for the Signpost. Surviving is often the best option, rather than trying to be perfect). But it did take a while before anything happened. I finally just had to say something like "I'm leaving after the March issue". So what do I suggest that Jake does? Probably the best thing would be to take a month or 2 off and figure out what he can and cannot do here. Make a promise that he thinks he can keep. If its not enough to be EIC, I understand completely.

Nothing I'm saying here is a criticism of User:Bri. When he saw that the Signpost was in a bad position he stepped up to the plate and did everything he could do. I'm not speaking for Bri, but I really appreciate what he's done over the last year or two. Still, I've worked with him long enough to realize that he's not happy with how much he's had to do. We all need a change. Pine, and Bluerasberry and others have said that we "just have a capacity constraint" as if that solves any of the problems.

We should be honest and say that "our writing and publishing capacity doesn't match our expectations or goals for the Signpost" and then come up with a way that makes it possible to make the inputs and expected outputs a good match. I don't have all the answers here, but will say that this is not a unique problem. It's something almost every organization has had to deal with at times.

Problem solving 101: What output can we expect to produce with the resources we have? Publishing once a month, we can certainly produce 5 good articles: say News and notes, In the media, Recent research, Traffic report, and one other (Disinfo report won't come out every month, but a good Opinion, In focus, or Special report is likely to be submitted every month). We should be able to find good articles from Diff, the WMF, or WikiEd also. But say 5 is our goal, we can still meet that and have time to actually to read all the submissions. For newby Signposters I suggest that we tell them that it's always better to submit a more-or-less complete draft. We should even have time to plan for EIC succession as well.

More details for the short-term problems coming up next. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Suggested program

Please realize that coming up with a action planning is more difficult than just recognizing a serious problem. But it has to be the first step. All criticism and alternatives welcome.

1. Recognize the problem and resolve to do something about it.
2. Jake should take some time off and tell what he wants to and can do for the Signpost.
3. If he wants it, Bri should take some time off too. We need him too much to let him burn out here!
4. Publish on a strict monthly schedule, say the last Sunday of the month starting in August. We all need some rest.
5. We need some interim EICs for the next few months. I'll suggest myself, HaeB, and Bri (all former EICs) in any order they want.
6. As soon as possible, start an EIC succession plan. The lack of one is a long-term problem here
7. Figure out what we plan to accomplish for a regular issue. Maybe 5-6 articles minimum (I forgot On the bright side earlier).

• organizing some copy editing folks. Maybe contact the Guild of copyeditors
• read and give feedback on all submissions, without promising that the article will be published
• probably do a "From the editors" simply explaining how to contribute to the Signpost (without any panic) - we're just going through one of our irregularly scheduled renewal phases.
  • Maybe put up a list of possible stories for some of the newer folks here, without suggesting that these are the only possible stories

Gotta run. Duty calls. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have thought about this quite a lot, and I have also seen that the Signpost is struggling. I think that, as a community, we need to develop a plan of action to revitalise the Signpost, and created a userspace page to do this in. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Smallbones:

Thanks for sharing suggestions. I think there is agreement that the responsibilities assigned that are currently grouped under the EIC role all need to get done, including final reviews and approvals for publication, the actual publication process, and regular time investment in watching and commenting on proposed articles in their early stages of creation. However, one person doesn't need to be responsible for all of these every time, and in practice others, especially Bri, have often been doing extra duty minding the fort while the boss is away, and they too have capacity limitations and don't seem to want the EIC title and all the responsibility that comes with it. I don't know that there is anyone who has the interest, capacity, and skills to take on more coordination tasks.

Regarding deadlines, it's a bit tricky to know what to set. A full month of content could be so much that actually publishing in shorter intervals is better for reducing the amount that a reader would go through in one entire pass of a Signpost issue, and also for shorter turnaround times covering events such as the disbanding of the Community Tech team. Additionally, if a piece that someone wants to publish is punted to a later issue, the delay may be much less problematic if that new issue will happen sooner rather than later. However, publishing more often also requires someone to do the final reviews and publication process more often. My experience was that the technical publication process was relatively straightforward, but the reviews could take a few hours. My first choice would be to publish more often, such as biweekly, but with an expectation of only 4 pieces per issue and accepting that the quantity of content may vary significantly from issue to issue.

I like the idea of rotating the EIC responsibility between issues. If that can be coordinated for at least the current month plus one issue, that might work well.

Yes, it is fine for volunteers to take breaks, including JPxG and Bri. If the EIC responsibility rotates then maybe this will help with them feeling that taking a break for an issue is fine, which may also recharge their batteries for a later issue.

The EIC role could easily be a paid half time job, including writing content. However, finding a willing funder that isn't the Wikimedia Foundation would take some effort. Is anyone aware of an open knowledge non-WMF organization that might be a willing funder? I have one idea.

↠Pine (✉) 21:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

One idea that I have thrown around a little bit is that of a companion publication to the Signpost, which is not restricted by the issue format currently used. My thought with it is to allow for some reporting on significant and time sensitive processes, and reducing the need to rush to get articles on major events done quickly in the cases where the event in question occurs shortly before scheduled publishing. I have drafted that here.

In regards to the EIC role, the idea of rotating it to avoid burnout is excellent. I think I'll add it to the action plan I am drafting as a potential option. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl: at times in its history The Signpost has been published weekly. A weekly cadence is nice for significantly reducing the delay between issues, both to improve timeliness of breaking news reports and reducing the delay if a piece is punted to the next issue. It is possible that The Signpost could occasionally publish more frequent issues and/or "extra edition" issues to cover time-sensitive topics, but I doubt that there is enough human bandwidth to have weekly issues regularly. I wish that there was, and perhaps if the EIC role became a paid part-time job, there would be. In the meantime, what do you think about formalizing the option to have extra editions in case of time-sensitive news which doesn't fit well with the current cadence of publishing every three to four weeks, assuming that there are enough of the correct people to do editorial review and publication of extra editions, and with the specification that extra editions may have as few as one Signpost section? ↠Pine (✉) 17:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be a good option, as you say it is unlikely there will be the human resources for a weekly edition, but having some process or mechanism for extras would be good. I thought of doing The Signpost Gap as a way to allow this to happen without disrupting the rhythm of publishing, and overriding existing articles before they have a chance to be seen by semi regular readers etc. but at the same time, such time sensitive stuff does need to be seen. We would need a way of ensuring extra content is both easy to find and not obtrusive of the latest issue. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

From Editor-in-chief: The editor-in-chief heads all departments of the organization and is held accountable for delegating tasks to staff members and managing them. my emphasis added. Maybe having departments here could help. Having a small group who report to the EiC but that are themselves in charge of most of the effort for (just looking over stuff) N&N/Tech Report/News from WMF, In the Media/Recent research, and Featured content/Traffic report. Maybe Arbcom/Discussion too. Those seem to have heavy overlap so a single team/committee/whatever you want to call it could oversee it. Once said team thinks it's ready they then pass it onto the EiC. Publications regularly have this, whether it's one person or a team overseeing a section, they handle getting it ready and then pass it up for final check. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recognize the problems which Smallbones identifies and agree that resolving them would greatly improve the efficacy of The Signpost. I am backing JPxG until and unless they make a decision to change things, because I feel dependent on the order they bring, and appreciate the extremely difficult executive decisions that they make, and because they uniquely hold community esteem and respect to avoid catastrophic errors which could end The Signpost. My primary concern here is in avoiding existential threats to The Signpost or its independence as a community newspaper. I see that Smallbones has spent a huge amount of personal time producing good journalism, but good journalism is also risky, and I trust JPxG sending it back because ultimately I believe that the piece will get published, and because I think the piece will be better if we have more community review and support of controversial pieces. I also experience the pain of rejection for pieces where I have recruited labor to organize, and where I would like for phases of community pre-review and review to repeatedly confirm that an article laboriously developed is on a path to get editorial consensus to proceed to publishing.

The strongest statement that I can make at this time is that I am ready to take orders from the Editor in Chief, and that I also want an open forum for anyone who has complaints and ideas for how to make things better. I do not see an obvious simple change to make that will readily improve our situation. We are a volunteer operation with only a few pieces to move around the chess board, and when a player is down in material, that is not the time to make sacrifices of available resources. I would greatly appreciate any ideas for outcomes that retain all our good people, but support them with delegating duties so that everyone can be at their most effective without being burdened beyond their availability.

Smallbones, even if you are EiC, someone else in authority needs to have legitimate, confrontational, critical power to review the piece like the one you submitted, and JPxG adds a lot of legitimacy to the eventual publication of your submission by sending it back. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See m:Requests_for_comment/The_future_of_Abstract_Wikipedia. Community view leans strongly towards closure of the project. Andreas JN466 07:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start in News and Notes. If someone wants too, please feel free to expand it or start an article in the Sister Project column. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If there's a spot open, I'd like to be able to publish an essay about my experiences attending wikimania. It would be less of a generalized what went on in every session I attended like the last time. Instead, it'd be more focused, because I attended a handful of sessions to get the most out of them and had meaningful conversations outside of that, while using the rest of my "free" time to take care of myself because it was all very emotionally exhausting. But I have a lot of important info when it comes to the board, foundation, and some affiliates that I think is worthy of The Signpost. I'm drafting it off-wiki to make sure I don't accidentally say things that might get people in trouble, but once I'm certain I've met that responsibility, I'd like to publish it for visibility. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a great idea! I don't think it should go under Essay though. In general that has been used to republish "old" Wikipedia essays, in cases where they seem to be especially relevant at the time. I'll suggest Opinion or Op-ed but it depends what you want to do. Perhaps Special report if you stick particularly close to the facts of what you observed and why these facts are relevant to current concerns. We've even used a plain Wikipedia heading before.

If this is the only article about Wikimania, you might start with some basic facts and statistics to summarize the whole in just a paragraph or two. But I'll suggest to others that we try to have an article about the Wikipedians of the year. In particular, we should mention User:Jules* and User:Barkeep49 who have both written for the Signpost. (Did I forget one this year?) In the past several WotY's have written for the Signpost. Jules* and Barkeep might even consider writing up their own first person articles. There was even somebody from Canada a few years back.

Other articles about Wikimania might try to cover all the highlights or review any especially interesting videos. Only 1 author would need to give the 1 or 2 paragraphs about basic facts and highlights.

Yes, there is room. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: There was even somebody from Canada a few years back. Yes, me. Anyways, I think opinion or op-ed would probably be the best fit. I'll update you once I've actually finished writing and reviewing the piece. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my hokey (hockey?) sense of humor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Clovermoss: perhaps for this joke you should send Smallbones a Canadian Wikipedia:Trout. ↠Pine (✉) 21:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I chuckled ;) Isderion (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm definitely open to doing this, but am a little fuzzy on what you're thinking. Also what's the deadline? Having just spent a week doing almost no work and Wikipedia for basically every waking hour, I'm going to need to flip that ratio for a bit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Clovermoss: thanks for volunteering. I watched some of the online sessions, and could pitch in a few comments about those if you'd like additional content from an online viewer. If you have enough content and want a Signpost piece solely for your own writing, that's great too. Opinion, op-ed, or community view sections could all work. ↠Pine (✉) 20:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Started a Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026! News from Diff from this article: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/22/meet-the-wikimedians-of-the-year-2026/ I added some images and captions. I also slightly re-ordered the article because they had Hijiri last, while the Wikimedian of the Year article pairs him with Mari Avetisyan. That is how I structured it. -Wil540 art (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: I noticed this has a lot of wikilinks; the very first even links to the article about Wikipedia. Is this an intentional choice or an artifact from Diff itself? My first instinct was to remove them but wanted to check with you first. Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 08:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The links are an intentional choice. Puzzlingly, Diff hardly uses links at all. I was trying to show the other side of the coin, the power of links. Unless there is a MOS against them here on the Signpost, I prefer to leave them in. If they are too much, I'm ok with the removal of some basic ones. Thanks for asking. - Wil540 art (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, just wondering! :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 21:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones, @Bri: I just wanted to check in to wee what will be happening with this piece. It looks like it has a lot of content, but hasn't been edited in ~2 weeks. Is there anything else that needs to be done with it? Mitchsavl (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's only 1 day left to make any changes, and I haven't heard anything from @JPxG: as far as suggestions for changes or even a response from him to my question Did you even read the article I submitted before you rejected it? The article I submitted still stands on its own, and I submitted it so it can be published as is, with a few minor changes from me. Without an answer to my question, I don't think that any extensive changes (beyond simple copyediting) should be made. He hasn't addressed the fundamental issue that there are problems that we can deal with in his performance as E-i-C.

What I might be able to change in 1 day. First, to @Jayen466:'s assertion that the 1st quote in the green box was about Nupedia, not Wikipedia. I can just add the full title of Sanger's The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir. The whole article is about both Wikipedia and Nupedia. It may take awhile to go thru the whole 14,000+ word original, but Sanger did everybody a favor by condensing it to 2,800 words on-Wiki as User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia. It doesn't give the same quote but discusses the same topics and refers to Wikipedia about 10 times more than to Nupedia. So that's a very simple change to make. So is the piccy. @HaeB: quickly suggested another link to a Signpost article. It's quite relevant and I can include it. What I can't do is just include all of the 70 or so Signpost articles that I didn't include earlier. The article would then be about 4,000 words.

I could add an intro that previews the results of the investigation, and a conclusion that reviews them, but I wanted to exclude anything that would reflect my own opinions. But I can do it if folks really want that.

Along that same line I found something that @Bri: might be interested in. See the bottom section added in 2009 to Sanger's blog. It's very funny (but not ha-ha funny). I think he realized that his claim to being co-founder was utterly destroyed by the quote (according to the usual definition of founder used for businesses and other organizations), so he gives his own personal definition for the word. The funniest part is is the example he gives, saying that France could be described as the founder of the United States according to the business definition because it donated money to to the cause. And then he states a definition for social movements, etc. that gives credit to Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. That's not needed in order to call the signers of the Declaration or the Constitution "founders", I think it would be impossible to name the founder(s) of a social movement (other than of an organization related to a movement). It's just a bizarre definition.

There is a huge, effectively infinite, amount of information that could be added to the article, but it needs to stay at a reasonable length. Just tell me what you want and I'll see if I can do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

He should just use the USN term "plankowner", and nobody would bat an eye. I also find his attempt to separate the usage of the English word "founder" into two flavors baffling. In my mind, the founder of a company is someone in a position of authority, not just original company employees. See History of Apple Inc. for a good example – the original business partners are listed as the founders. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where you say, Any inconsistency between being "merely a grateful employee" and being a "co-founder" — a word he used twice in the Memoirs — was not mentioned by Sanger, you would have to mention –

• that Larry was indeed called a co-founder in early press releases and articles like the New York Times piece I mentioned ("I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. (He also works as the editor in chief of another online encyclopedia, Nupedia, which relies on a more traditional system of peer-review editing to assemble its contents.)), and
• that Jimmy described himself as "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" in 2002.

I fear you (and The Signpost as a whole) would be roasted if you skipped over that. There is a reason why the Wikipedia articles on the early days of Wikipedia use the co-founder term for both Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. We can't rewrite that history. Andreas JN466 19:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jayen466: You're being a bit overdramatic aren't you? The early articles can be covered briefly to the extent they haven't been already, but do you really think that I'd mind being "roasted" by Sanger supporters? I get the occasional hate-email from supporters of much more terrifying people than Sanger. It's not a big deal.

If you know where I can find the press release(s) from 2001, I'd love to see them. There should be one from July 2001 just before there were half-a-dozen articles about Wikipedia, including the Sept. NY Times article. BTW that article in no way gives equal billing to Wales and Sanger. Wales is mentioned about 6 times at the top of the article. Sanger gets 1 mention in the middle. And both get mentioned in the caption of the one pic, which appears in the archive at the end. The supposed first press release from Wikipedia was in January 2002, just after the first anniversary, and not too long before Sanger was laid off.

Wales did say that he was "co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia" to the yahoo tech blog in August 2002. He just didn't mention Sanger (or anyone else) as being another co-founder. It would seem that since he'd laid off Sanger 6 months previously, he'd more likely be talking about his business partners at Bomis, or even to the whole group of Wikipedia editors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 (archive.org record of prnewswire copy)

• The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.

That page was created in January 2002 by Larry Sanger and subsequently edited only by Brooke Vibber and Erik Möller.

Similarly, edited by Jimmy personally: Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003

• The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger.

There is a broad range of people who are familiar with that history and who'd expect the Signpost team to be familiar with it too. Andreas JN466 07:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm considering covering this presentation: Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist / Commons:File:Actualités, Kurier, Signpost…wikijournals, wikizines, wikiletters, wikipress?.pdf from Wikimania on Wikimedia journalism. Recording can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKOImdtm9jg&t=885s Are there plans to cover this elsewhere? Wil540 art (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Wil540 art: I mention this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/On the bright side but don't go into detail, so more coverage in a separate Signpost piece should be fine. Please also note Clovermoss' plan mentioned above on this talk page. Thanks for volunteering to write about the presentation. ↠Pine (✉) 22:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Pine: Will do, thanks. I'm aiming for a deep dive here that includes quotes and a selection of the Q&A. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article is now ready for copyediting. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Big discussion on the recent WP:LLM policy: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Recent changes to WP:LLM are too restrictive and actively harm some parts of Wikipedia Mitchsavl (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl, can you follow up on the WMKO open letter? There is one more open letter from Malaysia, as well as responses from the T&S team. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I won't be able to do it right away, so if somebody else could do it, that would be great. I'll do so when I have time if nobody beats me to it. @Robertsky, could you post the links to the Malaysia letter and response here? Mitchsavl (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I found the WMF response, and added it, though I was unable to find the open letter from Malaysia. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl, the Malaysia letter is here: m:Wikimedia_Korea/Open_letter_to_the_Wikimania_community_July_26,_2026/Wikimedia_CUG_Malaysia's_response_in_support_of_Wikimedia_Korea’s_statement_on_Wikimania/en – robertsky (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I copyedited this article, finding little to edit. User:Pine, I was wondering about the blurb? Before copy editing, it read: The World Cup, and Wikimania music. I edited it to: The World Cup and Wikimania music. Not sure if another element was going to be added to it? Perhaps Tour de France? Or perhaps I'm missing something? - Wil540 art (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: thanks. I revised that blurb and a few other things. Please do a quick check of the updates. ↠Pine (✉) 02:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: All looks good except one capitalization question. How to write out wikipress? You have it: WikiPress, in the recap article I used: Wikipress, I just checked the slides and Noé used: wikipress, no capitals. Should we standardize here or is it ok for there to be multiple capitalizations for the name? - Wil540 art (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Noé - Where do you stand on what is the correct capitalization: wikipress, Wikipress, or WikiPress? Or is there more than one correct way to capitalize it? Some light research informed me that German Wikipredia had a short-lived publishing initiative called Wikipress in 2005 where they published books under that name. German_Wikipedia#Wikipress_series is where Wikipress currently redirects to. (Perhaps this should be re-redirected towards a Wiki-news outlet page?) WikiPress goes nowhere... - Wil540 art (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noe replied via French Wiktionary. "I don't know. I may not use capital in French, but in English, it is up to you" I changed the recap article to "wikipress" no capitals, as it describes a type of press and is not a proper noun. That's what I'd recommend here but also fine with it staying WikiPress and there being multiple ways to write it. - Wil540 art (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: thanks for checking this. I modified the article, and created the project page Wikipedia:Wikipress. ↠Pine (✉) 16:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll be around later today. @Smallbones: I will run the Larry thing. jp×g🗯️ 13:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG: Thanks! the version from 2 weeks ago is still publishable IMHO, but in response to @Jayen466: I was expanding the article, which is a harder slog than I thought. I will decide on which version at 16:00 utc and let you know. @Bri: either version might need copyediting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can help on and off today and will give this priority. Glad to hear it is accepted for publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri and JPxG: I'll be 30 minutes finishing up a complex paragraph or two. An hour if you want a conclusion (I'd guess it's needed - maybe). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones In addition to the 2002 and 2003 press releases mentioned above, you may want to factor in somehow that in 2001, Jimmy credited Larry with the idea of Wikipedia:

• After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process. As it turns out, Wikipedia is dramatically more successful on some measures, ...

It is also generally well known that Larry coined the word "Wikipedia". [3] See also [4] [5]

Of course he was an employee throughout. As mentioned above, I think the co-founder billing was partly because Larry had a Philosophy PhD (a matter that appears to have been important to Jimmy at the time, as it represented credibility). Andreas JN466 16:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is just too much poorly presented or unclear information in most of the refs you suggest. To be understandable I need to present the clearest info. I've seen those you mention and previously rejected them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what's unclear about

• Jimmy himself writing that Larry had the idea for Wikipedia,
• the 2001 New York Times article
  • describing Jimmy Wales as "Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project",
  • mentioning "Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales",
  • describing "Larry Sanger of Las Vegas" and "Jimmy Wales of San Diego" as "the founders of Wikipedia, an online reference tool"
• the 2001 MIT Technology Review article
  • citing "cofounder Jimmy Wales",
  • describing Wikipedia as a "free-wheeling Internet-based encyclopedia whose founders hope will revolutionize the stodgy world of encyclopedias" and "the brainchild of Wales and its full-time editor Larry Sanger",

– but thanks for at least including the press releases. Andreas JN466 19:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, note this great paragraph in the MIT piece:

• Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.

Andreas JN466 20:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Ok I'm finished with it @Bri and JPxG:. Sorry it took more than an hour. I'm also sorry that it's a bit oveer 4,000 words, but at least that answers most of the questions people might raise. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  It's about as polished as I can make it now, but someone else probably ought to do the final copyedit signoff. Just due to the potential for my own blindness from over-familiarity. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to avoid confusion regarding "Recent research": I wasn't planning for a RR in this issue (as most here will know, it's a generally monthly effort and I count on there being another Signpost issue this month). I see Czarking0 has started the draft already with a brief stub about a noteworthy paper (thanks!), but it's not enough material yet to justify inclusion in the upcoming issue, so I would normally take this to the next issue. But if anyone has a chance to flesh this out more in the next few hours (for example by adding some of the freely licensed charts from the paper as illustration), or covering the Lir paper discussed above, then I might be able to help get it into a publishable shape later tonight Pacific time - but please don't hold up this issue for it. (PS: general reminder that our usual custom is to have the publication deadline fall on a weekend day, which has various advantages.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd support delaying publication of this piece Czarking0 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear I mean my RR contribution Czarking0 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mailing list post done. --Andreas JN466 11:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't get around to creating content for Serendipity in this issue. The placeholder can be deleted. ↠Pine (✉) 17:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri and JPxG:Is it too late to get this piece approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is pretty brief. Was there nothing of interest happening in July? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I boldly set the next publication deadline to 22 August 01:00. @JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, and HaeB: Would one of you like to volunteer to be acting EIC for this issue? Aligned with the discussion above, perhaps JPxG and Bri can take a nice wiki-holiday and not need to think about The Signpost for at least this round. ↠Pine (✉) 19:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine, I support your efforts to keep the gears moving on this conversation. As a newcomer, I support whatever you all decided. One note on the publication date, per the Wikimedia discord: NLRB ballots will be mailed August 11 and will be counted September 3. Perhaps September 4th, 5th, or 6th would be a better publishing date to freshly cover the results? This connects back to the ideas and issues @Mitchsavl brought up in his The Signpost Gap proposal in terms of the issues around the timely covering of important topics. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: thanks for the comment. If the upcoming issue publishes on approximately 22 Aug and the Signpost sticks with a cadence of publishing every 3 weeks then the next issue would be scheduled for 12 Sept, conveniently approximately a week after the vote count, which hopefully will allow the Signpost News and Notes regular contributors to do what they need to do between the vote count and the 12 Sept. Also, there may be people who want to submit or modify planned opinion pieces based on the results of the count, and having one week would also be convenient for that. So I suggest sticking with 12 Sept for the next publication date. ↠Pine (✉) 19:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, and HaeB: Would one of you please volunteer to act as EIC for the 22 August issue? Please note the comments below asking for opinions about possible pieces to include in that issue. ↠Pine (✉) 19:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping, but (like Smallbones it seems, see below) I'm not available to act as EiC for this issue, and while I appreciate you nudging the process forward in general, I also don't think such ad-hoc appointments are a great idea, for various reasons.

Instead, considering that JPxG's last on-wiki activity was over two weeks ago and that the EiC role also includes important pre-publication activities (such as, as you indicated, providing guidance on submissions before the final thumbs-up/thumbs-down at publication time), it looks like we may want to resort to the tried-and-tested WP:EICAWOL procedure for this issue, assuming that JPxG still doesn't weigh in later today and that Bri will again volunteer to carry out publication. (Of course I'd also support Bri taking up the formal Co-EiC role he's held before, but that's his decision.) In that case I should be able to help out as usual by reviewing and approving some sections as usual, after getting RR in a publishable form.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I boldly set the next publication deadline to 22 August 01:00 - given that most sections still need more work (e.g. copyeditors, your help is welcome!), neither Bri nor JPxG have confirmed yet that they will be available to carry out publication (see above), and some discussions seem unresolved, I have just timidly and tentatively moved it by a day to 23 August 01:00 UTC - also consistent with our general custom and preference to have it fall on a weekend (US time). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am back and can publish today (Sunday, Pacific time). Need to look around and see how the issue stands. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Great, so WP:EICAWOL it is. I also just updated the deadline template again, given that my earlier adjustment turned out to be too optimistic still (not too much progress over the past one and a half days). Feel free to update further. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's the rush? I think 1 or 2 September would be fine Czarking0 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

We selected this date a while back, partly in light of U.S. national holidays coming up. Anyway I can go pretty much as soon as copyedit is done. We are currently looking at unchecked In the media and Opinion. And Recent research is not marked as ready for c/e so I'm assuming it's not going to be in this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Update. Now just In the media is pending copyedit. Publication doesn't have to wait till deadline, if cped is done. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned previously: Please update the deadline template if you plan to publish earlier, it helps coordination (publishing earlier has caused confusion just recently).

RR should be publishable too now except for the missing piccy.

Regarding Opinion, please be mindful of the discussion below. Several are opposed to publishing it, and since we unfortunately don't have the EiC around to make the final call for us, some consensus evaluation is in order.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two responses to HaeB.

1. Opinion pieces should be as free of censure as possible. I think the controversy over the content of the FOIA request is basically "is this newsworthy"? I think it is, but it doesn't have to be as on opinion piece, according to our own content guideline: An idea or perception not necessarily based on fact, sources, or knowledge.. I don't see the harm of publishing it on that basis. The FOIA request might be merely performative to bring attention to the case (I'm not necessarily saying it is), but the request is in the context of statements and actions that many reasonable people can take as threats, and it's perfectly legit for us to give space to an opinion editor to be talking about that. The only substantive question is, are the first two sentences of the Background section at all justifiable?

The Signpost and others have previously reported on the Trump administration's attempts to hurt the Wikipedia project. In particular, Ed Martin, of the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group, has vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse.

I'm comfortable publishing them and think there's plenty of backing especially with the addition I made around the word "hurt".

2. Re deadlines. My view is, the writing deadline should not be moved up by the publisher, but the publishing deadline may be. This seems fair – all the writing should be complete at the writing deadline. The publishing deadline is a soft deadline by comparison, more of a suggestion to the publisher/EiC to guide their final composition process and give a heads-up to copyeditors. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate your thoughtful replies, but re 1) and free of censure, I'm sensing a type of fallacy that sometimes accompanies invocations of WP:NOTCENSORED. I should have clarified that I actually agree with you (and the author) that some of the concerns that had been voiced about harms possibly caused by this piece (which even lead to invocations of the WMF Legal department above) seem very overblown. You are also correct that "newsworthiness" is not a required property of opinion articles, but that doesn't mean that there should be no criteria at all. A text that basically says "FYI, I'm planning to submit this FOIA request" just doesn't offer very much substance as a Signpost piece (whether in the Opinion slot or elsewhere). I'd encourage us to think about this kind of editorial decisions more from the perspective of what brings value to our readers, rather than based on an abstract desire of "giving space" to opinionators. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see two possibilities here. One, the FOIA request is of no interest to any reader – a "nothingburger" as we say where I'm from (ganz nichts?) – and readers turn the page. Two, the FOIA request either sparks some concern about the investigations, makes at least one person wonder what the DOJ is actually up to, makes them wonder whether outside actors are up to something nefarious on Wiki, or maybe less dramatically want to determine the course our internal workings take, or something else happens in their brain. The second possibility is definitely substantive and I opt to provide the space to bring those thoughts to life, and to spark further conversation about what to do about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Re the second possibility: All this would be better served by publishing a piece after the FOIA request has already been submitted and (ideally) processed. Why all this insisting on publishing something now when nothing of that has happened yet? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess my take is, getting the information in front of the community sooner is better than later. Even if the information is "I'm going to do a thing" not "I have done a thing". When the thing could have really meaningful consequences if DOJ responds with stuff we care about, such as, yes, there is an ongoing investigation. Which they are likely to say whether or not they actually answer the questions raised. Plus, someone in the community might share knowledge that the submitter can use to perfect their request and make it less likely it gets rejected for technical reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The argument that publishing this opinion piece is useful because it helps get more eyes on the draft request would be a bit more convincing if 1) it hadn't already received lots of attention and feedback on this page (including even a reaction from the WMF Legal team), and 2) if Czarking0 had actually addressed all the suggestion received so far - it seems that that is not the case.

Anyway, considering that you since went ahead and published this, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-08-24/Opinion is probably a better place to continue that discusssion.

Regads, HaeB (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

What I meant, specifically, about the hypothetical DOJ response. We might get a claim of FOIA exemption under U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). That means that there is an investigation. I went down the list of FOIA exemptions and none really seem to apply (e.g. personal medical information, national secrets) except this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well I thought I had some function, at least for my email, but not sure now. It likely can be fixed somehow at someprice, but I have no idea how long it will take. So it's somewhere between "no promises" and "count me out" for this issue. Now I'll see if this works! It took me 20 minutes! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: sorry to hear about the cracked screen. if you have any hardware needs then you may want to look at meta:Hardware donation program. I'm guessing that you're referring to a tablet or phone screen given that desktop monitors don't normally crack. If you need mobile or desktop hardware that you can't afford for Signpost activities then I hope that the hardware donation program will provide anything you need. ↠Pine (✉) 19:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very well-written opinion piece by Bill Beutler: Paris Syndrome: Labor Strife, AI Anxiety, and a Leadership Test at Wikimania 2026, The Wikipedian, 6 August 2026

The Signpost has run a few pieces by Bill in the past, with his permission. I haven't asked Bill (waves), nor User:JPxG, but if both were agreeable, I think this would make a fine addition to the next issue. --Andreas JN466 18:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andreas! Sorry for the slow reply. Absolutely, Signpost has my permission to reprint it, if the Signpost team agrees. Cheers, WWB (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report @Jayen466: Staged, can you further process and advance editorial review. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cool! Thank you both, WWB and Bluerasberry. Andreas JN466 19:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The RAW ran a great (fake) Wikipedia:Baby Globe interview that we could translate and republish: w:fr:Wikipédia:Regards_sur_l'actualité_de_la_Wikimedia#Ses_goûts,_sa_Wikimania,_sa_prochaine_tournée..._:_Baby_Globe_nous_dévoile_tout_! - Wil540 art (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a rough translation here. Warning: I am not a Francophone, rely on the translation at your own risk. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

We've dealt with a similar situation before at Cherchez une femme. I'd asked a couple of reasonable translators to check or redo the machine translation after they had already made a couple suggestions. They did very well with just a few more changes. Notice that no translation is perfect. For one thing a perfect translator would need to be perfectly fluent in both languages. (I'm not perfectly fluent in even one!) But I'd prefer that if there are "mistakes" translating into English that it reflects the French understanding, rather than the English - leave it closer to the author's intention. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm natively francophone (Canadian version), I could look into this and other translations (below). In my experience, machine translation between French and English is pretty accurate, so there likely wouldn't much to do save read and adjust tone/nuances. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, @Headbomb, @Smallbones - I did some formatting here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour

This is a message from Noe via the French Wiki discord:

"Hey! Thank you for this article, it is a great idea! I think some cultural adaptation could help humour to be more adapted to this audience. For example, "Endive or Chicon" is a large debate that occured in the old days for the title of a page about a vegetable with regional names. I think it could be better to change for a similar debate on English Wikipedia, if you can suggest one."

Any suggestions?? Perhaps a famously extended renaming debate? - Wil540 art (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gave it a spitshine and checked the translation, which was as expected, fairly accurate and not in need of much love. I credited Bri for the machine translation and Wil540 art and myself for the review. Feel free to tweak your roles if you feel that doesn't reflect what you did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks good @Headbomb. I found this phrasing awkward in American English: "But if I had to sum up my Wikimania experience, I’d say it’s primarily about meeting Wikimedians—people who reached out to me and hugged me when I least expected it... " in the response to the Question: "Is it a good position to be in—Baby Globe at Wikimania?" I don't want to be overly sensitive but this phrasing sounds like Baby Globe is describing nonconsensual touching? Is that how the French version reads as well? Am I misreading it? - Wil540 art (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't describe non-consensual anything, just surprise at being unexpectedly embraced (literally) by the community.

... des gens qui m'ont tendu la main = literally "people that put their hands out" meaning handshake/offer help/reaching out in general

... qui m'ont pris dans leurs bras = literally "who took me in their arms" i.e. hugged.

... à des moments où je ne m'y attendais pas = literally "at moments I did not expect"

It's a very wholesome description of an interaction. Their might be a cultural divide here for Americans, but to a French person (including I suppose a French-Canadian person), there's nothing to raise an eyebrow at.

I'm certainly open to better wordings if you have them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think perhaps it's the least expect it. That might be too strong/the wrong word. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the English idiom "met me with open arms" is apt here? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Headbomb thanks for the breakdown, I concur that least expect it is the issue here. @Bri I like the suggestion of using the "met me with open arms" idiom. I've tried to simply incorporate it in the place of "least expect it". The only part that is missing is the element of surprise that I think the original wording was attempting to express? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I restored the unexpected moments sentiment, and removed the extra clause regarding being embraced (the original only has it once). The original has a comma; it's not the hugs that were unexpected, but the moments where the sensation of being welcomed occurred. Reaching out (with a hand or hug) are metaphors for being welcomed (though, of course, they could have also been literal; you'd have to follow up with Baby Globe :)). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suspect they were literal here. It's how they read in the original anyway. Any, no objection to the current version. It might not be the most accurate of translation with respect to literal events, but the sentiment is better translated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I actually don't doubt the literalness, was just going for the joke. Nonetheless, my interpretation of the original is that the ending clause applies to both of the preceding clauses, and so applies overall to the welcoming sentiment as represented by the actions and the parallel metaphor. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

What do we think about translating this RAW article: La crise s'intensifie après le refus de la WMF de reconnaître le syndicat WWU (The crisis intensifies after the WMF refused to recognize the WWU union.) w:fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2026-08-05/WWU as a community view? It is interesting to read a French perspective on this news and I believe this story includes interviews and quotes that haven't been covered in the SP. Of course, it would need a good translation. - Wil540 art (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2026

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#French_Wikipedia_Signpost-equivalent_article_on_the_WWU_debacle An interesting conversation about this article is happening here. I'm not going to able to write this up for the next issue but if anyone else wants to, they should go for it. -Wil540 art (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• The edit line for embarrassed but not Ed Martin's fault was a reference to earlier pieces the signpost has run. It is just to draw attention. @Pine: Did you read the previous Ed Martin coverage regarding him wanting to embarrass wikipedia?

• −

  Trump administration's attempts to hurt the Wikipedia project

  +

  current United States Government administration probing the Wikimedia Foundation

  Is not a change I am willing to put my name on as an opinion. My version states the facts.

• −

  vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse

  +

  accused Wikipedia of bias

  I at least have the courage to stand by previous signpost reporting.

• −

  A year has passed since he instigated his shame campaign, but what has he actually done to bring shame on the biggest project for free information in human history?

  +

  Almost a year has passed since August 27, 2025. What has happened since?

  My version is stylistically better and more interesting

The rest of your edits I think are fine. I would be happy to collaborate, but I suspect our opinions of the matter are too far apart to make an opinion piece that we would mutually support.Czarking0 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Czarking0: given that your name is on the byline, I'll leave this to your judgement, but please make sure that all facts and descriptions are well sourced. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Did you read the previous Ed Martin coverage before making these edits? Czarking0 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I did spend a few minutes looking for sources. The only source that I found which seems applicable was a New York Times article which may have exactly the needed information, but it is paywalled. With some effort I might be able to get the full article but I am busy and didn't want to look further, so I worked with what I could see. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 03:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Bri, Smallbones, JPxG, HaeB, and Bluerasberry: I am assuming good faith about Czarking0's reading of sources, and the person who runs the publication process may want to do their own check. With those disclaimers out of the way, unlike before, this time I will not object to publication, and I am leaving the piece in the publication queue. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 21:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  In the future I ask that you not comment on any draft pieces or edit any articles I have contributed to unless you have read the sources linked in the pieces. That seems like a bare minimum level of due diligence. Czarking0 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I understand the request, and agree that this would be preferable, although given available time and other matters I can't promise that it will happen on every occurrence for Signpost drafts. When dealing with a draft for the Signpost, it is simple enough to say that a source which someone else can't access provides evidence for a point, and then people can discuss it further or leave it alone. Perhaps in this case it would have been better for me to edit fewer things at first and then save the rest perhaps for later if and when I can get a copy of that New York Times piece. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I don't even mean the NYT piece. I am referring to the other Signpost pieces which I linked to in my op-ed. Though yes i do think the NYT piece is important for the total context. Czarking0 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @Czarking0: I did look at other sources but they did not provide direct evidence for a claim made in your opinion piece that I don't see backed up in The New York Times article which I have now accessed. Now I have a request for clarification. Your opinion piece includes this statement: "Ed Martin, of the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group, has vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse." But the New York Times piece doesn't seem to make that specific assertion, and neither does this previous Signpost piece. There is this file providing evidence of the questions asked by Martin to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Times quotes Martin as saying "But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed", but the "they" seems to be referencing people who he believes are guilty of "weaponizing" the Justice Department, not Wikipedia. The Times piece contains a reference apparently to the letter in regards to Martin using it to communicate publicly his opinions regarding Wikipedia, which is not the same as specifically saying that he "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse." Possibly this Free Press article provides evidence that Martin specifically "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse", but I can't seem to access the TFP article at the moment. Can you be more specific about where there is evidence that Martin "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse"? Perhaps there is a source other than NYT that makes that clear, such an interview with Carlson or the Free Press article, in which case adding the additional reference to your opinion piece after the statement "vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse" would help. Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Feel free to write your own opinion piece, but at this time I am happy with what I wrote. Czarking0 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not the EiC, but if I were, I wouldn't run this piece. It puts the cart before the horse. It also comes across a bit as grandstanding. IMO the correct way to proceed is to

1. either submit the FOIA request, replacing any and all references to the "Signpost" in the FOIA request with references to "community journalism" (or deleting them), and then reporting on the results received here or elsewhere,
2. or not submit the FOIA request.

If there is anything interesting in the response you get, Czarking0, I actually think and hope that you might get weightier publications than the humble Signpost interested in your story. But until the FOIA request has been submitted and responded to there isn't really a story. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I somewhat agree but @Bluerasberry: asked me to submit is here first and I trust his judgement. Czarking0 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, I do not (see also); there have been several cases now where a submission that had been championed by Bluerasberry turned out to be problematic and was eventually rejected by the rest of the Signpost team. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Andreas that this shouldn't be published. Regardless of the value and appropriateness of the planned FOIA request (I'm probably a bit more relaxed than Andreas about the Signpost being mentioned in such a request, as long as the sender is not claiming to be an official representative), the mere information that someone intends to submit it just isn't of great value to our readers.

I'm also a bit taken aback to see the author simply resubmitting this piece largely unchanged and opening this thread here without any reference to or acknowledgment of the extensive previous discussions about it just a few weeks ago, and by his entirely unreasonable demand that other Signpost team members not comment on any draft pieces or edit any articles I have contributed to unless you have read the sources linked in the pieces (not even fixing typos, really?).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I 100% stand by my decision. The expectation that you read sources before commenting on a piece is reasonable. I have stated my openness to others suggesting changes to the request. As an opinion piece, I do not wish to take the backbone out of it. If the The Signpost preferred to publish a similar piece as a statement from the editors collectively rather than an opinion piece I would be more open to crafting the language towards something we all agree on. However, I am also in support of publishing in its current form. Czarking0 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: I think we have plenty of coverage here doing journalism, but out of an abundance of caution I added text in a footnote via this edit to justify the use of the word "harm". I think reasonable people will receive news from a government official that he wants to discredit an institution that it implies harm towards that institution. But spelled out the rationale. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like the note. I also would have no issue with using a different word if there is a good suggestion. Czarking0 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I 100% stand by my decision. - Czarking0, it's not your decision who gets to comment on your Signpost submissions under which conditions, or to edit them.

The expectation that you read sources before commenting on a piece is reasonable - no, it is only reasonable if someone makes claims that specifically depend on these sources. Many comments or edits will not. (I haven't reviewed the exchange between you and Pine, and am not taking sides - maybe Pine said something in the former category.) I can't believe I have to explain such basic things here. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should be aware that this is also very far from how we handle WP:V in the mainspace ("you must not edit my article unless you have read every source cited in it"). What is different in bylined Signpost pieces is that the bylined author should be able to stand behind the statements/claims/opinions - but that's not the same as granting him the right to set the conditions under which other team members are allowed to comment or edit.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the part about bringing Articles for improvement to the main page would be better covered in the Discussion report.Czarking0 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• @Jayen466 and Bri: please see Czarking0's point above. Also would you please mention the upcoming Wikimedia Café session in the Notes section? There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities in August. Both sessions will focus on the Next 25 initiative, including framing the initiative. Participants may attend either or both Café sessions:

1. 29 August 2026 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe
2. 30 August 2026 03:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific

Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 01:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It was User:Mitchsavl who wrote that little paragraph, but I am pretty sure he won't mind either if you move it across, Czarking0. --Andreas JN466 12:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:HaeB, would you have time to write up the section on Raju Narisetti's departure? I recall from Wikimedia-l that you are really au fait with the context (far more so than I am). Andreas JN466 16:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri: I added a couple things and then saw you had already covered the Altman story. I think yours is better but i'll leave it up to you to delete what I wrote in case you want any of the content.Czarking0 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but first mention of the Altman thing was an edit by User:Mitchsavl. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There was a private comment from one of the people mentioned in this piece that the Is Bernadette Salty? heading is more provocative than the actual text. To be honest I am engaging in a bit of headline journalism to promote engagement. I will leave it up to the other editors here to determine if a more neutral heading is better for the style The Signpost wants to achieve.Czarking0 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I might note that Sohom is associated with salt so this was meant to be a reference, but now I think maybe that is too inside baseball. Czarking0 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Chorchapu: This draft looked interesting but I guess is now abandoned? Andreas JN466 06:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

For now, it is. I started writing it about a month ago but decided that it would be better to wait until the WikiProject's 20th anniversary and publish it then. There is more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_articles#Promoting_WP:AUG26. I've never written a Signpost article before - @Jayen466: should I keep in in the Signpost draft space or move it to my userspace for now? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think it would be best to move it to your user space, just in case anyone else wants to write a WikiProject report for one of the upcoming issues and needs that draft space.

I look forward to seeing the finished version of your piece next year then! Best, Andreas JN466 18:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! I'll do so now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Starting new section to keep things in chronological order.

Looks like the issue is in shape to publish Real Soon Now. I'll stick to the latest publication deadline which is in a little under three hours, but in the future if we get to this point, I'd feel OK just going ahead with publication in this state.

Here's what's planned for inclusion, approximately in this order: See you in a bit ... taking a break for at least an hour. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

One hour to go, still planning to go with the list of items above for issue 11. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Slight reordering to comport with WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance:

1. News and notes
2. In the media
3. Recent research (up)
4. Discussion report (up)
5. Traffic report
6. Humour (up)
7. On the bright side (up)
8. Opinion
9. Special report
10. Comix

Cheers. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Starting the process! Please, no editing till I post it's complete, or the script may become angry. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. Table of contents looks normal. Spot check of a few subscribers looks good. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bri, thanks for publishing this issue. The baby globe interview is still marked as a draft. I’d fix it if i knew how. Wil540 art (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wil540 art: Thanks for the heads up! It appears to be a glitch in the publishing script, easily fixed. Hope that's the only one. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I noticed shortly before publication the draft was missing some of the usual header info. Probably got accidentally cut somewhere during preparation. A manual patch of the header templates was attempted, which looked OK to my eye but may have been out of order, or had some other defect that sent the script off the rails. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to approve this for publication, but (as done before) decided to run it by Sol 5.6 for copyediting and factchecking suggestions.

And it indeed flagged various factual issues. Some (e.g. on outdated box office figures) seem a bit nitpicky, but others deserve some attention (e.g. I think it is indeed incorrect to say that Jason Arday filed lawsuits, as opposed to sending legal threats and getting the police involved against a reporter). Per Bri above, we are nearing publication, so we shouldn't spend too much time on this, but if anyone has a moment to look into it, that would be great (I'll try to do so myself, but likely won't get to it until in about an hour from now). Obviously all corrections should be human-authored. CC @Igordebraga, CAWylie, YttriumShrew, and Bkissin:

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good job fact checking. I found potentially a source of bad info here, which mentions someone bringing a lawsuit against Cambridge with a reference to an article in Varsity (Cambridge), but the other article is from 2024 and is about another person. Without further clarification where the claim is from, this should be removed. BTW this is found in the "Most edited articles" section. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Changed this part. The others, even if copy-pasting from the Top 25 Report or the articles themselves might've led to inaccuracies (one fact I took from the tropical storm page isn't there anymore, so I rewrote), only changed a few bits because I'm not taking advice from a bot (nitpicking on things like the Commonwealth events - even if the 6 events for parathletes are subsets of the 10 for regular ones, adding both for 16 is not exactly wrong - and making grammar and tone suggestions that Bri and anyone else who looked over could've changed already), can you please the next time around just list what bothers you like other Signpost editors have done before? igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing these factual issues (I also just fixed some additional typos flagged by Sol). Not sure what you mean by can you please the next time around just list what bothers you like other Signpost editors have done before? As for the usage of "events" vs. "sports", Sol's seems to agree with the infobox in 2026 Commonwealth Games ("Events: 215 in 10 sports", a big difference to "16 events"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not the first time other Signpost editors call me in the Newsroom regarding something they think needs a fix, doesn't bother me, it happens. Only didn't like putting the whole page through a bot rather than give your highlights, gives the same feel of people saying "I researched through AI". The only one of those in my life is Gemini because it comes on searches without being asked, and doesn't always help me. (yes, I conflated sports and events, just a poor choice of words, put competitions) igordebraga ≠ 01:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As the person who added Arday's initial entry into that particular report, I gleaned most of the information from this version of his article. His litigation against Cambridge, I think, did actually come from the Plagiarism Today website after a Google search. Most every entry I add into the weekly report comes straight from the respective enwikis, with some online searching for some updates for report purposes, without regards to authenticity. (In the Arday instance, a case of simply "read it on the internet, so it must be true"). I will be more thorough with BLP entries. Wyliepedia @ 04:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

But the Plagiarism Today article linked by Bri above doesn't support the claim that Arday [...] filed lawsuits (it only mentions a lawsuit filed by Arday's critic Nathan Cofnas on a different matter).

I appreciate that you folks mostly base these writeups on what the articles themselves say (I guess I would do the same), but given that including them in the Signpost kind of records them in a permanent version (since factual changes to Signpost articles after publication are generally avoided), there's an extra motivation to avoid mistakes here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply