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

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/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
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-10-13 22:42:18 ( v t e ) Writing: 15 October 20:00 (2 days left; 15%) Publishing: 16 October 20:00 (3 days left; 21%) There is 1 day, 21 hours, 17 minutes and 42 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

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

@Bri, JPxG, and HaeB: ITM has an usual pattern this issue, almost everything could legitimately be put in one article without sections. It may be too early for this, but I suggest a basic structure like:

Intro

list of articles about how bad Wikipedia is:

• bad to worse (2 articles, maybe "EVIL" and late term abortions)
• Even worse (Rindsberg 1?)
• Much worse (Rindsberg 2?)
• The worst

Counterpoint (Harrison and White) with others placed where they fit

possible titles Extraordinary eruption of “EVIL” explained

Or perhaps, The facts concerning the recent eruption of evil everywhere, following Mark Twain's The facts concerning the recent carnival of crime in Connecticut

Possible blurb: Oh, what a tangled web we weave

Anything not related to this can go in the Briefs.

I'll try slotting the articles in the right places, there's still a lot of fact-checking to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice this Rindsberg guy really loves us. jp×g🗯️ 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITM looks a little bumpy now but hopeful that it will fill in as we go. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to discuss this - there are things to discuss - and @HaeB: has gotten down to brass tacks in editing the editor's introduction (top of the article).

There are three things I want to do in that intro and 1st section.

1. Show how many critical articles there are putting down Wikipedia this month
2. Show how serious the accusations are, up to and including that WikiEditors are evil. In these times accusations like that are very serious. People (outside of Wikipedia) are being deported against legal rulings, fired from their jobs, sued for $billions, jailed on fake charges. This goes much beyond Musk saying that he'll give a $billion to change our name to "Dickypedia".
3. Show how flimsy or contradictory the evidence is for these articles

I believe that Wikipedia editors should be informed of these very real threats.

2 points that I've wanted to discuss from the start:

1. Is this the worst eruption that we've seen? I'm happy to make this personal ("... that this is the worst outbreak that this reporter has seen.") Or from The Signpost in general (would need some agreement here - has anybody seen a worse outbreak. Siegenthaler doesn't come close, maybe Israel-Palestine?) Or even from Wikipedia in general (people will understand that we are not speaking for Wikipedia as a whole, just making a considered judgement.
2. The "We're appalled by the assassination and by the spector of political violence" Should we express emotion here? I think it is justified to express that I (or we) are not directly criticizing a murder victim (and not just out of respect for his family). It would now almost seem if we were inviting attacks if we didn't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the essay "How Wikipedia Can Save the Internet With Advertising". Doesn't the argument rest on an unexamined premise that Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia community need more money? How does this relate to what has always been a volunteer-based activity? Another thought, presumably the advertising bucks would be collected and allocated by the very same foundation that already has substantial resources and presumably (according to the essayist) is not effectively spending the contributions nor the revenue the endowment throws off? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's fairly direct saying that we need money to fight against both the broligarchy and the government. I did put in the likely reaction from the community. My personal opinion? Theoretically his approach is needed and might work, but it would be extremely difficult to get the community to go along with it in practice. So we'll likely fight against the inevitable successfully, until it's no longer successful. So far only Jimmy Kimmel has survived a direct attack unscathed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding fact-checking for this: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk, I could find neither the term 'reprehensible' nor 'leftist' using WikiBlame. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page now. The Point quoted it and I had a terrible time trying to find where it came from originally. It the following quote about the Erika Kirk AfD discussion from Jesse ON FIRE. "You are reprehensible, disgusting, evil people who are trying to cancel her and get rid of her because you are leftist."

Do people really write like that (other than at AfD's and WP:ANI)? No it's on the video. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via Chartered Institute of Linguists, Wikipedia: Editing the narrative deserves a mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the link right now but apparently Larry Sanger was a guest on the yesterday's podcast.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered (briefly) as part of the larger Sanger story in N&N. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I didn't see that was in NaN. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody confirm that Sanger posted Nine theses to his blog in September? It's odd that he proposed some that are already confirmed to be in the works, like no more anon IP editing (on enwp, at least). We've covered this one in The Signpost as recently as February but starting much earlier. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very different things.

Sanger criticizes that Wikipedia "allow[s] people to edit without logging in", and proposes to require everyone using accounts, for added transparency (as e.g. the Portuguese Wikipedia has already done, and as the English Wikipedia has done for the specific task of creating new articles).

The upcoming (Oct 7) change by WMF is framed as introducing "temporary accounts", but it primarily consists of removing IP visibility for people who chose to edit without logging in, i.e. a marked decrease in transparency. Apropos, it's great that we seem to be nearing publication thanks to JPxG's tying of up loose ends right now, but I still feel we would be doing our readers a disservice if we didn't include at least a brief note about this, as it will be one of the biggest editor-facing changes in years.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it now. Giving HaeB co-authorship credit for the idea and for some of the phrasing copied from this convo. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: See my comment in the publication section below, let me know where you're at on it... jp×g🗯️ 02:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that our next issue is supposed to come out today/tomorrow.

• In the media is more or less done
• Traffic report is written, but not copy edited, not even the tourist view
• I always assume @HaeB: arrives in time, but it doesn't look like it's started
• Obituaries @Blue Rasberry: looks quite interesting but needs a long ton of work
• Comix - a nice 1 liner.
• A couple of ugly lists posing as articles
• News & notes - not started

I do have a disinfo report that I should finish before we publish. When might that be?

pinging @JPxG, Jayen466, and Anybody else?: with some frustration

@Bri: thanks for all the work you do

Any advice appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I will be home and able to write at the least, the discussion report prior to the deadline, and then look to finish whatever else is laying around (assuming the issue is still bare slabs by then). jp×g🗯️ 07:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITM and Disinfo both look very good, but the rest looks like it is still slabs (I am at fault for two of them, disc report and comm view :( ) jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will sleep now and set it forward a day -- since we are past it now. jp×g🗯️ 07:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to be offline for the rest of the day Sunday (US). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everybody know, I'm editing with an Alternate account! AltSmallbones (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everybody know - I'm baaak. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just started N&N to cover a timely topic; another one that we should at least mention briefly there is the temporary accounts rollout on Oct 7 (see also the suggestions page).

In any case I can have both N&N with the current stories and R&R publishable by the new deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where we're at right now:

I am ready to publish right now -- I was thinking I might be able to write something more on Sanger's theses, but I have to get on the highway, and do not have time.

@HaeB: @Svampesky: You've both mentioned that it may be worthwhile to delay publication a bit in order to get things in. I am fine with postponing it a few hours or whatever, but I need to know now; I can either publish right now (and then run the script to populate the database) or wait the four or five hours until I am done driving and do it later tonight. Alternately, if there is a very good reason to postpone, I can do it tomorrow, but I do not really want to do this.

Let me know... jp×g🗯️ 02:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear anything in the next ten minutes or so, I am going to have to make a snap decision between publishing and postponing a day, so if anyone has a preference one way or the other, now is the time to let me know. jp×g🗯️ 02:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - since Bri just added some brief coverage of the missing item, I don't see any remaining obstacles to publishing now. (Would still appreciate another heads-up once you are actually launching the script, as I would otherwise do some more additional incremental improvements.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus, the same minute. Well, everything is done -- the daylight is vanishing, and this means I have to go, but I will be back in about three or four hours and then I can run SPS and Wegweiser. jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Btw, it seems that Svampesky (sadly) hasn't been editing since July - did you mean to ping someone else above? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he'd sent me a message, but I reckon at this point if I wait any longer we are due to publish in February. I am back and rolling it now. jp×g🗯️ 06:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HaeB, that's very kind. I reached out to Giraffer about republishing of their guide to temporary accounts, and Mandruss about republishing their humor essay. It was at the very last minute, so hopefully both will be ready for the next issue. Svampesky (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Giraffer (talk) Giraffer (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like publication was successful, hoorah!

Here is a feedback link for reader comments. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section I started, titled "Did Arbcom lock in POV bias? And will Congress look into this?" was removed and suppressed. I could not find any discussion before or after, only the comment "section has problems" on the deletion. JPxG seems like it would be appropriate for the EinC to investigate. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#You_all_linked_a_page_outing_two_editors. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The impetus for this seems to have been linking to the Tablet and National Review articles. jp×g🗯️ 02:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: From what I gather, editors are not permitted to discuss OSed material on-wiki at all, so please check your email. jp×g🗯️ 03:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BoT section should be a separate section than a part of the next News & Notes.

Also, because of propriety and some of the arguments against him, it is extremely important that the BoT section does not have any input from @Bluerasberry. This should be obvious to everyone, but I'd like to explicitly say so here and in the section as a disclaimer as well.

Obviously, it might still be good to quote him and Ravan, but we might have to explicitly reach out to both to get their comments on this. Soni (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woukd it be outing to link a news story that has Ravan's full name? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe no, because BoT candidates are expected to reveal their full names as part of the election process, it's one of the few roles in the movement where you serve publicly with your real name disclosed. I believe the shortlisting page on meta also does, unless you're referring to a different name than is written there. Soni (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I plan to shortly add the Oct 10 JNS story that appears in Google News search for 'Wikipedia'. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]