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 2025-11-09 11:14:12 ( v t e ) Writing: 8 November 22:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Publishing: 9 November 22:00 (1 day left; 5%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

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

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

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]

A banned user has an op-ed published by Breitbart today. Usually I would just skip this for ITM, but this one has to do with the removal of candidates standing for WMF Board elections. Not so sure about skipping it. Any thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I just had a look at it, and it seems quite a comprehensive and worthwhile write-up. Also, I could not see any outings in it (whenever a name is mentioned, the article links to a relevant self-disclosure). A second pair of eyes on that aspect would be welcome though, given the incident in the current issue. Andreas JN466 12:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BREITBART. The link is blacklisted, so we'd have to ask to have it white-listed. It's also considered to be unreliable for facts. The author is banned, so anybody could remove any quote that we insert from him. I always thought he was just a bully - so there are probably other people who would be offended by seeing his opinion presented here as well. And if anybody is offended, ultimately it would be our fault. We're also mentioned in his opinion piece, so us giving any background or commentary on the piece would be difficult. In general, it's just not worth the trouble. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator, so I can fill whitelist requests — but I agree with the issues you raise here. I don't think we should gag ourselves for the sake of merely avoiding ruffling feathers, but I think a brief mention is probably all that is needed here (whether with or without a link). Including a link inclines a bunch of people to call us conservatards on here and excluding a link inclines a bunch of people to call us libtards elsewhere, so the only real consideration for me is whether it's actually a good or a bad idea to include it. jp×g🗯️ 07:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above, I'm going to put in a brief mention without the link. Something like "A banned user published a comprehensive write-up of the situation around the slate of candidates in Breitbart News, which is also a blacklisted site on English Wikipedia. The Breitbart write-up also mentions internal Signpost discussions, making it difficult for us to present for multiple reasons." ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be opportunity to also make a reference to a Sanger op-ed on a different blacklisted site that we can't link to: The Daily Signal. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely not sure how to describe the letter mentioned in this diff at In the media. Is it demanding information from WMF, or requesting? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In form, he was just asking. But the committee he heads has subpoena power, and the chairman can use it. So it's really more than a request. Can we include the Green eggs and ham video? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this goes in ItM or elsewhere? It's drafted up right below in the fashion that I would do ItM.

• This piece from IBM [1] says that WMF did the Wikimedia Enterprise model (see prior Signpost coverage 1, 2) because "Attribution is a key motivator for [Wikipedia] editors, and the [Wikimedia] Foundation sees proper sourcing as essential to its mission. Making sure LLMs credit Wikipedia for their information is an essential step."

The thing is, I haven't ever seen attribution in an AI chat result. Is that a thing? In fact the DuckDuckGo AI just told me this:

DuckDuckGo does not give direct attribution to Wikipedia authors when it displays information sourced from Wikipedia in its search results. The search engine pulls content from Wikipedia to provide quick answers but does not typically display the authors or contributors' names.

Then, when I asked for details on other chatbots:

Whether chatbots give attribution to Wikipedia authors varies by the specific chatbot and its design. Here's a breakdown of how some popular chatbots handle Wikipedia content attribution:

and this table (emphasis by yours truly):

Chatbot	Attribution Handling
ChatGPT	Generally does not provide direct attribution to Wikipedia authors when providing answers.
Google Assistant	May provide summarized content from Wikipedia but typically does not list authors.
Siri	Offers information without citing individual contributors, sourcing from Wikipedia among other platforms.
Cortana	Similar to others, it may pull content from Wikipedia without direct attribution to authors.
Bing Chat	Often summarizes information from Wikipedia, but doesn't attribute authors or contributors.

...which is about what I expected.

Anybody want to give a reaction? Does this fit into ItM? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's close enough to fitting. Frankly, I've never heard of a chat-bot or LLM that credits the authors, but most people here would like to see Wikipedia as a whole credited or linked. The CC-by licenses must be good for something and most folks IMHO would settle for a link to the article and a declaration that its CC-by. Has that ever been upheld in court? I dunno. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, never ask a chatbot about itself (disregarding any general considerations about the reliability of LLMs, there is the specific problem that an LLM's training data can, almost by definition, not include information about itself). Besides, how many human-written publications do you know that directly attribute Wikipedia authors instead of just providing a link (as web-enabled chatbots do too)?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know your meeting with Donald Trump went ok? WP doesn't start an article about it. How Albanese can pass the Oval Office Wikipedia test. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF published a blog post on 17 October titled "New User Trends on Wikipedia" that is being picked up by the likes of Livemint:

• Wikipedia loses 8% of human traffic as generative AI and social platforms change user habits

This could be covered in ITM or N&N. As far as I can tell, currently it's in neither. @Bri and HaeB: --Andreas JN466 22:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was already about to write up something, seeing that we seem to have a bit more time until publication. (I had already posted some quick notes about this on Thursday/Friday in the "Wikimedia AI" Telegram group, which btw can be recommended as currently the most active movement-wide discussion venue about that topic area.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather hold new media items for next issue, if they aren't of extreme immediate note for the community (like the NYC incident was). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not at all suggesting to hold up this issue for this story. But we're being told that "lots of discussion" has already begun about this, so our readers are likely to benefit more from whatever added value we can offer here if it goes out now than sometime in November. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing deadline is looming soon (tomorrow?), how's the team feel about the issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News & Notes is nearly in shape, I have only about 3-4 more bullets from my notes, none of which are urgent for this issue.

I've set aside News from WMF for just coverage of BoT elections and the recent controversy. That is in need of some work. I'm coordinating with @Jayen466 on it

I've also earmarked Interview for BoT election stuff. I'm conducting an interview of Ravan, Lane, and a member of BoT. I'm coordinating this offwiki for now, can loop editors in via mail/discord. This is in decent shape. Soni (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Soni. Just noting that the writing deadline has now passed. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N&N is now complete from my end. I have no major edits on that.

Interview is also nearly complete. I am hopeful of follow ups, but honestly do not expect them to reply within time for us.

News from WMF still needs some work.

All of these sections definitely need some copyediting/editing. Hopefully someone else can take care of those. Soni (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been corrected since, but to help Soni avoid it in the future:

The "News from the WMF" section is for republication of content authored by WMF staff (cf. previous issues), so it was obviously the wrong place for this kind of independent reporting. I have just updated the content guidance page, to hopefully make this a bit clearer.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is mainly fleshed out from my end, except for one TKTK column and WMF bulletins being covered.

As a general note about N&N, User:JPxG please do not publish anything marked as TKTK under my name. I noticed it was done for 9 August issue for Bulletins, while the entire N&N section was unfleshed out. Somehow I did not notice that section being a mess in the issue until now. I'd rather publish nothing or delayed news than shoddy news. And if it's shoddy, I'd like my name retracted from the section. Soni (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only TKTK in that particular N&N at the time of its publication on August 9 was in a commented-out part, so hopefully no readers were harmed in this incident.

However, this is a great point in general. Note that we also had a conversation here a month later after another N&N was indeed published with some visible TKTK placeholders. JPxG subsequently added a "Show all TKTKs in next issue" button to the "Article status" Newsroom section and also appears to have begun steps to implement a warning in the publication script in case it is run when TKTKs are still present.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't have time to dig into when TKTKs got removed from the history. Iirc they were removed shortly before publication, which the script may not catch.

The comment was a general note for sections I write, as I believe strongly about my sections being well written or not at all. If my last edit leaves things in a placeholder state, I am requesting fleshing it out or removing those sections, instead of just publishing as is. Soni (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started this segment - Interview. The section as of now contains all of my questions and the responses, nearly verbatim.

I suggest copyediting a bunch of this for clarity, especially the repeated "Would you like to address [X]'s concerns?"

Soni (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also asked the following follow up questions to the two BoT members (Nadzik and Lorenzo).

1. From the Point of View of the candidates, how confidential is this? Are BoT candidates not permitted to comment on the elections? The public and private statements on this from WMF/BoT on this contradict or are very unclear.
2. Many in the community lost faith in BoT because of transparency. Community members do not feel heard by BoT, and the comments from sitting BoT members are often sanitized to the point of losing meaning entirely. What specific measures will the Board take to improve this transparency and restore trust with the community?
3. The Board has committed to reform in the past, only to veto or reject any specific measures. What specific improvements are the BoT willing to consider? Will the BoT accept external oversight? How does the community guarantee this is not empty talk?

I don't know if we'll get their responses before the publishing deadline. My current expectation is no. If we do get the responses within time, I'll add them. Else follow ups will have to wait until next issue.

Soni (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like something quite important with respect to timing, so it may be worth poning slightly. After all, the Board election will be over before the next issue. jp×g🗯️ 19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for copyedit. --Andreas JN466 18:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The item says the two candidates were "quietly dropped" but it seems we know from one of the official board posts. that they "received a communication from the Board", presumably via email. Should that fact be added? Or maybe "dropped without notice to the community" is better. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "News from the WMF" has always been written by somebody from the WMF in an official capacity. I'll suggest using "Opinion" or "Op-ed" for this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andreas JN466 03:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG

I don't think "Opinion" is appropriate for a wholly factual piece on the timeline of events. I strongly recommend this be moved to "Special Report" or "In Focus" or something more appropriate. Neither Opinion nor Op-Ed is good landing spots for this article. Soni (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I moved it per this discussion, but reading through the article I was feeling a little meh on it being in "opinion". I think that something like this would more want to be at "Special report". jp×g🗯️ 07:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my pass on the overall article, it's been significantly altered from Jayen's last version. The Aftermath section and the lede are very meh in my eyes, and could be significantly improved. I think the rest is pretty stable, and make the timeline and what happened much clearer Soni (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soni's improved the article a lot. I've rewritten the Aftermath (now "Going forward") after discussion with Soni.

I've also had a go at the lede.

The link to the Interview section might be better in italics at the bottom. By the time people have read through the article, they'll have forgotten the note at the top. Andreas JN466 15:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and have moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report accordingly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB, Soni, and JPxG:, just for reference, we are quoting Owen's post on Meta-Wiki dated 7 October in N&N:

For what it's worth, I do know that Esra'a chose to stand down voluntarily before the end of her term, not as the result of a political campaign about "foreign influence". Equally, the current board has only 2 US citizens (not including Jimmy Wales), with the remainder being from Belarus, Brazil, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Poland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. As someone who values and respects Esra'a and her work, I'm disappointed she is no longer on the board, but let's not head too far into the realm of conspiracy theories as to why she is no longer there.

I would also suggest that the more relevant description of Mayree Clark is that she has been a trustee on the Wikimedia Endowment Board since April 2024 and has a long career history of working in finance, specialising in risk management, and a long career history of non-profit governance. While I would rather have seen another queer woman of colour be Esra'a's replacement on the Board, it is clear that Mayree Clark is eminently qualified for the position. '

On 9 October, Owen said on Wikimedia-l:

I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.

That left me a bit confused. Owen did not respond to a mail. Perhaps we should not quote either statement from him in N&N? I am okay with not mentioning Esra'a's departure in the Special Report; as it is, we don't seem to know enough. Andreas JN466 07:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a contradiction between these two comments, and I don't see why Owen owes you or us an explanation here. He can be simultaneously disappointed with a lack of diversity in the choice of Esra'a replacement and dispute the factual claim that her departure had been caused by a political campaign.

And with respect (seriously! I appreciate your work on this piece overall), I think that the fact that earlier you found it hard to escape [a] conclusion that has now been pretty much proven to be false should make you adjust your priors a bit in a way that facilitates such escapes in the future. Or in Owen's words: Genuinely, there is no conspiracy around Esra'a. [...] Please do remember that there is more to the world than just US politics (thank the gods 😅) 

I seem to recall that you and I had a not too dissimilar conversation years ago about your fascination with US foreign politics seeping a little too much into your Signpost writing (back then involving something with Hillary Clinton).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to everything HaeB said though, I think Jayen would be better served taking a step back on this, so we don't risk bias. Soni (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now that I've reread the full mail a couple times, agreed with HaeB hard. You can believe someone stepped down for personal reasons, and still be disappointed their replacement wasn't someone more similar to them in background. I am in favour of keeping the N&N exactly as it is. Soni (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And you could have achieved this conclusion-escaping simply by comparing the date of the Esra'a replacement resolution (August 4) with the date of the Republican congresscritters' letter (August 27) that you suspected the former to be the "first fruit" of. (More generally: It's often worth reading the Board's resolutions and also its agendas and minutes.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the minutes of the August 4 meeting still aren't online today, and there is nothing about Esra'a in the agenda, but the resolution was (it was posted on August 27), and you're right, I should have looked for it. (I did acknowledge that on Meta-Wiki over a week ago.) Andreas JN466 08:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for my "first fruit" comment, that actually primarily related to Ravan's removal. I think it unlikely that the current political pressures from the Republicans played no role whatsoever in the Board's decision to remove her from the ballot. And before someone says that all of this happened before the Comer/Mace investigation went public and therefore couldn't have anything to do with it – this all started months ago, when Trump appointee Ed Martin accused the Wikimedia Foundation of violating the law by “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public” and having a board “that is composed primarily of foreign nationals” who are “subverting the interests of American taxpayers.” (Here, too, the main concern was said to be about I/P, as though the board directed Wikipedia coverage of the conflict.) Andreas JN466 13:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found it odd that one of Hillary Clinton's secretaries was put in charge of Wikimedia's movement strategy effort, that the chief communications officer of the Clinton Foundation also does PR for Wikimedia and so on. But we don't need to rehash that here and now ... the US and global political situation has changed rather a lot since then, and whatever concerns I had then feel rather obsolete today. Andreas JN466 09:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice this mail from him. I am in touch with Owen offwiki and he'd said he was happy with anything we quote from him on-wiki or on Wikimedia-L. I'd attempted to reach out to Esra via him, and was unsuccessful.

I'd also shown Owen this version of N&N past him to be sure I was not misquoting him. I do not want to step on landmines in case things were private.

Either way, I think N&N should cover this, but we should not mention it in Special Report. And we should probably cover the quote from email then? Soni (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just to be clear, what I'm alluding to with I do know that Esra'a chose to stand down voluntarily before the end of her term is a private email conversation with her, that she asked me not to share. She has since said that she would prefer not to be talking with journalists at the moment.

I'm happy to chat in more detail if y'all need (by email or video call as you prefer), but I'm not gonna say much more about a private conversation without Esra'a's permission, which I do not have. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, what originally set me off was Esra'a's comments about Gaza quoted a few months ago in The Guardian: [2]

However, as that article mentions, Esra'a started a new "Surveillance Watch" project last year and got a Mozilla Fellowship for it this year [3]. It seems she is fairly busy with other things – maybe just too busy with other things to stay on the WMF board as well. Andreas JN466 10:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a reference to the coy way that Nataliia's email to the community was worded. She merely said that "the Board has unanimously decided that four candidates will be on the ballot for the 2025 elections: Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński, and Wojciech Pędzich". The names of the two candidates that were dropped from the ballot don't appear in the mail.

The email essentially notified the community and affiliates that two shortlisted candidates had been disqualified – without mentioning either the candidates or their disqualification. Andreas JN466 04:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni and HaeB: Eligible users who have not voted yet are receiving email reminders to do so. Is this a new thing? If so, it might be worth mentioning. Andreas JN466 10:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Signpost should amplify such rumors without some fact-checking. I took a quick look at my own inbox:

• October 11: "Vote in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 election" from board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org (actually three of these within 25 minutes, but that's much more likely the result of a buggy setup)
• October 16: "Your vote is missing!" from electcom@wikimedia.org

That's quite similar to last year:

• September 6, 2024: "Vote in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 election" from board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org
• September 11, 2024: "Last week to vote in the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections" from board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org

(Search links if you happen to be using Gmail and would like to check your own inbox: board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org / electcom@wikimedia.org .)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply by email. Andreas JN466 17:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my mail, I did reach out to someone for confirmation.

In addition to that, I also had a look through my own mailbox (search term: "Vote"). The 2024 voting period lasted from September 3 to September 17. I found two emails about the vote:

• one on Sep 3, the first day, from Katie Chan via Wikimedia-l ("Have your say: Vote for the Board of Trustees!")
• one on Sep 16, 30 hours before the end of the voting period, from Katie Chan via the Wikimedia-l, wikimediaannounce-l, and board-elections lists ("2024 Board of Trustees Voting Period to close tomorrow")

The 2025 voting period is from October 8 to October 22. I have had four emails so far:

• one on Oct. 9 from "Elections Committee" via Wikimedia-l ("Have your say: Vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees!")
• one on Oct. 10 from "Meta-Wiki" direct to me ("Voting has begun in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections")
• one on Oct. 11 from "board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org" direct to me ("Vote in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 election")
• one on Oct. 16 from "electcom@wikimedia.org" direct to me ("Your vote is missing!")

With three days to go, this year's vote already looms much larger in my mailbox than last year's. (I have not changed my email or any other subscriptions since last year.) So my experience matches that of Nemo and others. What do your inboxes look like? Andreas JN466 18:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving to examining concrete facts here. Some notes:

• As mentioned by email, I don't think what you mentioned there would be "confirmation".
• I understand that what people are primarily concerned about are getting emailed directly, so posts to mailing lists like Wikimedia-l should not count here. That said, the Oct 8/Oct 9 (I'm using Pacific time) email that you mention did actually go to my personal inbox too besides Wikimedia-l, so I guess you are right that it should count as well.
• As for "Voting has begun in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections" from "Meta-wiki" on Oct 11: I didn't receive that. It seems that you enabled emails for on-wiki notifications on Meta, considering that googling this subject line leads to phab:T392232 (filed in April 2025, so very much contradicting assumptions that this was part of an effort to counteract recent boycott calls):

The Foundation teams supporting the 2025 Board of Trustees would like to explore the possibility of deploying the Notifications system to notify eligible voters from the community to vote during this year's Board election. The community vote is expected to happen between late August and mid-September 2025. The hope is to deploy a Notification message on the first day of voting.

I mean, they evidently failed to send that "on the first day of voting" (Oct 8) as planned, which you could argue creates additional attention load. (Also, the ticket says that they plan to send another reminder on the same channel on Oct 20, so you could consider changing those notification settings now.)

• By the way, regarding the extraneous Oct 11 emails that I conjectured to be caused by a "buggy setup" above, it seems someone filed phab:T407608 for this issue ("When the board election notification emails were sent out [...], I got three of them to my main email address").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for tracking down the origin of the Meta-Wiki message. But note that I didn't write that any more intense email campaign was "part of an effort to counteract recent boycott calls".

The point is, rather, that we are quoting Risker and The Land as saying that participation rates are comparable to previous years. But you know statistics. If there is a more intense email campaign this year, then 2025 and 2024 are not statistically comparable, and just saying that participation is much the same as last year becomes worse than meaningless. That is the point that Nemo is making. It doesn't matter when the change was planned.

As for the message "Your vote is missing!", people might well interpret this as a response designed to counteract the boycott calls. But the fact is that this message style appears to be new, and nothing in the text suggested that it was related to any boycott calls. We can leave it to the reader to interpret that any way they will. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for academic interest, there was a cock-up with the changed date as well:

• m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025#Voting ends at 23:59, 10 September 2025 (should be 22 October)

Andreas JN466 20:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we at for this? Most of everything looks like it's in. I 'poned the template to a pessimistic estimate tomorrow, but unless we want to hold off further on the interview followups, I don't think there is much use in 'poning any further (or indeed to that date). N&N is mostly done, ITM needs some simple expanding, and the rest looks mostly fine; my plan's to copyedit and roll. jp×g🗯️ 07:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will sleep for a few hours. If I awaken and don't see anything here about us wanting to hold off on getting some further item, I'll just start copyediting and prepare to publish when done. @Svampesky: noting that thing you said you'd want to throw in next issue, if that came in? jp×g🗯️ 07:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Recent research. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None planned for this issue. (I always try to post the usual notice at least several days in advance if there is; also, the anticipated publication date for the next RR issue is generally noted on the Etherpad linked here. I usually kind of assume that regulars of this page are familiar with that routine, but maybe I should augment the RR section of the content guidance page a bit.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of ITM is still unfinished. I just worked on some parts a bit, and should be able to do more tomorrow (Pacific time). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Media has about half of the media links unformatted, which looks ugly in the publication but I think the content is more important than the presentation at this point. Still, anyone is welcome to upgrade the formatting. I'm going to have limited time to work on the issue until Sunday, Pacific Time if it is still in the works then. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think publication soon is quite important, and would suggest User:JPxG prioritise that accordingly. I think ITM is in at least a servicable state at the moment Soni (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am preparing it now. jp×g🗯️ 15:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current state here? Apart from polishing up N&N (headline, piccy etc.) this seems to be the last significant blocker for getting the issue out, see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO N&N, ITM, and Special report are all in a publishable state now despite the missing copyedit checkmark (haven't checked the rest). Let's hope we can get this issue out very soon (e.g the Grokipedia story is likely to become awkwardly outdated if it gets delayed another day). Heads-up for whoever is going to run the publication script that "Opinion" (leftover redirect) and "Recent research" (draft for the next issue) must not be included. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran "simulate publishing" mode of the publication script, w/o any errors, and I can publish later today if required. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say go ahead as soon as convenient for you. We are clearly in de facto EICAWOL territory at this point (with e.g. the deadline template having slipped several days into the past, as someone noted here). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Andreas JN466 20:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am shooting for between 2200 UTC and 2300, unless EIC is able sooner. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb, Oltrepier, Red-tailed hawk, Svampesky, Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, and Adam Cuerden: Calling editors/copyeditors – especially for a look-see on the items pending copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a last look, then will begin to publish in a few minutes. Pencils down please, lest we incur an edit conflict that can derange the publishing script. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Published. A few subscribers have started getting the mass message, so that's good. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here, got notifications both here and on German WP. Thanks! Andreas JN466 23:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regular TOC at WP:Signpost looks good, single-page edition looks good, archives have the new edition included. No script drama; so far, so good. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notice pending; it has been requested but doesn't look like the request has been acted on yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah. I am running the Python scripts now to populate the databasen. jp×g🗯️ 00:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link for reader feedback on issue 13. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the emailer (that several of us received). This story is in ItM In brief (at top). I'll send requests to official WMF type sources for confirmation, check spelling and links (copy editin always helps!) and try to finish this. As it reads now:

• Breaking news at Wikiconference North America: Newsweek (no longer the reliable source it once was), reports that the conference was disrupted by a man who "was arrested Friday after brandishing a loaded revolver and threatening suicide inside a Union Square (New York City) office building, prompting a brief active shooter alert and swift intervention by event staff." This news has been confirmed by a trusted source who is attending the conference and we are awaiting confirmation from official sources.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corroborated, unfortunately.

• https://www.amny.com/news/armed-man-custody-union-square-civic-hall:
• https://gothamist.com/news/gunman-storms-stage-at-wikipedia-conference-in-manhattan-no-injuries-reported
• https://nypost.com/2025/10/17/us-news/nyc-wikipedia-conference-halted-when-non-offending-pedophile-storms-stage-points-gun-at-own-head/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-17/man-with-gun-tackled-arrested-at-conference-in-downtown-nyc (subscription required)

NYT has a piece on the wikiconference but it doesn't mention the incident (yet). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully just a random hoohah, and not someone with an axe to grind against Wikimedians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the official WMF statement (in response to my question - I'd guess they'll now send it out to everybody

"Earlier today, a conference attendee entered the WikiConference North America event with a gun and approached the stage, announcing an apparent suicide attempt. They were detained quickly and taken into custody by law enforcement.

Participants at WikiConference North America are safe, and we appreciate the conference organizers and attendees who stepped in to help during the opening ceremony. The rest of today's program is cancelled, and there will be additional security as well as law enforcement onsite for the remainder of the event.

We are grateful to the event organizers and local law enforcement for their support."

I think this should be the main part of the article and probably should go in News & notes, leaving out personal details of the young man (and editor), whose identity will almost certainly come out. We should be careful about showing him some respect following what must be a very painful incident. No jokes please and anything that looks like name calling should definitely be left out. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYT noted that the event doesn't have an article yet (which I think we shouldn't at this point), but it's mentioned now at WikiConference North America. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to write something up about this, and am now in the process of trying to contact as many people as possible at WCNA. Heads up to check emails! jp×g🗯️ 01:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryana Iskander on Wikimedia-l: [4] Andreas JN466 23:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'll be crosseyed for the next couple of days. 2) I won't be able to do anymore on ItM without a violent physical reaction. 2) Mostly I see the need for copy editing (see 1) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(The comment below was moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. It looks like the customary Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Use newsroom template had been accidentally deleted there a while ago, which might be why Sdkb ended up leaving this comment in the wrong place - although they should also have seen an edit notice saying the same; if that failed to show, that might be a bug worth investigating. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

---

@Bri, the entry on the apology letter currently reads a bit as if she's apologizing for the board's decision, but on clicking through I see she's actually apologizing for a previous email she sent about it. Could we clarify that (and maybe also link to the previous email)? Sdkb ^talk 19:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skdb: Friendly reminder that while you may or may not be be acting on a volunteer impetus here, it might behoove you to disclose in such exhortations to the Signpost that you are also a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Movement Communications team according to User:Sdkb-WMF (albeit not disclosed at m:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Movement Communications#The team), which presumably has been quite busy with this Board candidates affair in recent weeks.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB, that's a reasonable ask. To clarify, I'm acting entirely in my volunteer capacity here — no one asked me to comment, and I've long had upcoming issue Signpost pages on my watchlist and offered copy edits such as the above. If I were doing anything related to my WMF contracting, I would use my WMF account (per my userpage disclaimer). But given the potential confusion, I'll step back from these sorts of suggestions.

I'll reply to your parenthetical about the staff list at your cross-post.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your understanding. To clarify just in case, my recommendation was about disclosure, not about refraining from such comments altogether. (In this particular case, while you are of course correct that this personal vs. board apology distinction is important, I would also agree with Bri below that this was maybe a bit to soon for an intervention, also because this very early draft didn't even convey such a wrong interpretation.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that text is just a placeholder virtually copied from a Signpost talkpage. I plan to return to it for polishing. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mught need an Arbitration report... some unusual posting here and redaction of an arb by an admin (I think). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed the current and, I presume, very early, title and blurb for the Tech report. First, I wanted to thank @Valorrr who, I'm guessing, must have learned about our work and decided that it's worth a title.

I'll be happy to see this mentioned whatever way you deem the best. Only describing a small step (20%->40%) would work. I'd like to ask you to consider focusing on the context, too - we just want to make user accounts more secure. Expanding the availability of 2FA (that will go further than 40%) is part of the Account Security initiative. We are now redrafting the project page, and we should update it soon after the weekend. We'll give more info about the technical enforcement (which extent is now limited), support for passkeys, and more.

Another take I wanted to propose is showing the state of the Safety and Security objective which includes the Account Security initiative, temp accounts (will have been deployed here a few days before the issue goes out), hCaptcha (with the upcoming trial on the editing experience, not just account creation), and a few other projects. These things are puzzles of one picture as one team works on them, and I'm drafting a fairly brief and comprehensive overview/the state of WE4. I hope it will be useful for you. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GP came out last night and I'd like to cover it with a Special report. This is Smallbones having computer problems again but I think they'll be over by tonight. There's about 900,000 articles. The few articles I've looked into in depth look like about 60-80% copies of Wikipedia articles, i.e copying most of the Wiki article, but having some changes. I'd like to get some statistics, but there's not a lot to work with. What I'm looking at mostly would be something like a book review. Look at a Grokipedia article and compare it to the Wikipedia article with the same title. It would be good to get a couple of people writing about their favorite WP article (that they've written?) and compare to the GP article 5 or six article pairs should give a good overview )Plus intro and conclusion. Anybody want to join in? Smallbones 204.13.204.194 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see some comment on this is happening over at WPO already. I have to say I was disappointed to see that its entry on the Yellow vests protests is better structured than the entry here (which was largely written at the time of the event and has not been significantly revised since). It also doesn't quite rise to the same level of rhetoric as the penultimate line of the 3rd paragraph of the introduction at en.wp: "Participation in the weekly protests diminished due to violence, particularly due to the loss of eyes, hands, and neurological disorders caused by police blast balls" 🤕 -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Hello, thank you for the heads-up! I can try to review one article myself, hopefully I'll have enough time in the next few days. Actually, I think I've already spotted a few notable differences in the GP article about the Detention of Johan Floderus. a page I originally created myself, so I think I'll stick to that.

Oh, and you can also find some interesting insights about the differences between Grokipedia and Wikipedia on The Verge, Wired and NBC News (among others), if needed. Oltrepier (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Bri, Rhododendrites, Oltrepier, and HaeB: - I think we need some editorial guidance on how to split the Grokipedia articles up. I'll suggest the basic news articles all go in In the media, perhaps divided up into 2-4 sections. Up top 1 section on the pro-Grokipedia news stories (this looks like it may be a bit short though), another section on the plain pro-Wikipedia articles, and perhaps split off a third section where the main point seems to be their surprise that Grokipedia looks like it's copying from Wikipedia (where else did they think GP was going to copy them from?). And then down in In briefs several true one-liners about unique takes. Perhaps. I could get something like this started and then see how it shakes out over the next week, but I'm pretty sure I won't be able to finish it 9 days from now. Rhododendrites should do the Op-ed, an overall analysis (however he'd like, without super-fine details) but 1000 words wouldn't be too long, maybe more if he keeps banging away at the main points. Also I'd like to head up a Special report. What can we do that hasn't been done in ItM and the Op-ed? Article comparisons of the obvious articles on GP vs. WP are already done in the press by "neutral parties". I think comparisons by Wikipedia editors on their favorite or self-authored articles would be something that a lot of people would be interested in. Oltrepier, go for it. Just some guidelines. Each should be 1 long or 2 medium length paragraphs. Is Grok CC licensed or attributing Wikipedia. Relative length. General impression, source quality, mistakes. Just let Wikipedians tell us what they think. But like I said, editorial guidance needed. With 4 or 5 co-authors I could definitely write the intro and conclusion before publication. Sign-up here folks! Smallbones (2600:4040:7B37:BE00:9CD5:D022:573B:B626 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

The Times of India has a quip that I'd love to purloin for a blurb (but I won't): "a billionaire, a bot, and a battle for epistemic supremacy". Nice AI generated thumbnail, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'd suggest something like "The Grok, the Bot and the Wiki" as an alternative title... Oltrepier (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes, and an image with the GBU movie poster with characters replaced by ... what, Robbie the Robot, Wikipe-tan, and something else? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Sounds great! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Copy that, I'll start working on my blurb for the Special report as soon as I'm done with the one about the it.wiki controversy. Oltrepier (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales appears often in the media recently on speaking engagements related to his new book. Am planning to cover this relatively lightly. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, this is happening but I haven't actually gotten the sources together yet for ITM. So far I've seen substantive interviews at Interview magazine (print), Marketplace (radio), and LBC Full Disclosure (video). There's also something queued up at Alabama Public Radio that hasn't been released yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Isn't there a New York Times interview, too? Or did you already cite it in the previous issue? Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-20/In the media#In brief. I think another editor squeezed it in right before we published. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it was a group effort; I put in a bare link [5], Smallbones expanded it to a proper bulleted item [6]. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section of In the media is done, now. I kept it brief, like I planned to. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Wouldn't it make more sense to move that section right under the one about the controversy, though?

I know many things on Wikipedia start with Jimbo and end with Jimbo, but still, we could cover all about him in a single time. Oltrepier (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, go ahead and move the book section. No strong feelings about location from me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need someone to review the book for the next issue, I could. I have a COI, though. I also got the book for free from Jimmy. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss That would be pretty nice, actually! Oltrepier (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great (and since we've had a few discussions about journalistic standards in context of the last book review(s), let me say that since this book is already published, seems clearly of interest for our readers, and you plan to disclose relevant COIs like having gotten a free copy, I don't see any such concerns this time). If you need inspiration regarding the format, previous Signpost book reviews can be found via [7]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! It's been a while since I last kept in touch with you all, but I think I'll finally be able to help you work on the next issue.

I'd like to cover a recent controversy over at the Italian Wikipedia about an incident that supposedly took place during the Istrian–Dalmatian exodus; although the article has survived a Request for Deletion, many have raised concerns over the neutrality and the accuracy of a page that not only describes an event we're still unsure whether it's actually happened or not, but also involves a hot political topic – the it:Wu Ming collective actually were the first ones to report those issues.

Are you OK with it? Oltrepier (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't heard of Wu Ming before. My take is yes, this is topical for In the media, maybe with some additional explanation for our English readers of the cultural context of Wu Ming to Italian society. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Alright, thank you for the feedback: I'll try my best, then! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'm so sorry I haven't been able to submit my blurb, yet: I definitely didn't expect the rabbit hole I've put myself in to be so time-consuming to browse for information...

I'm confident I'll be able to finish the blurb off tomorrow, though! Oltrepier (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've finally managed to finish and submit my blurb about this controversy. Apologies for being so late: like I said, I did not expect the researching process to be so time-consuming... As asked by Bri, I've tried to add some context about the Wu Ming collective and the controversy as a whole, but feel free to cut down any kind of detail that feels unnecessary! Also, as usual, I put my trust in copy-editors to bring the blurb to the point where it's actually comprehensible enough... : D Oltrepier (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Signposters. I've found myself having several conversations about Grokipedia in the last few days and decided to gather some thoughts in an essay. It's here: User:Rhododendrites/Grokipedia. It's not polished, but the content is largely there. I was thinking about where to pitch it, and realized it may work well in the Signpost (I presume you're going to run at least one piece about it in the next issue anyway). But you tell me -- perhaps it's too long and/or too opiniony? First-time submission, long-time caller. Please be blunt with me -- if it's not a good fit, the plan is to speedy the page and pitch elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Hello! At a first glance, your blurb looks alright, but I'll let some more expert eyes review it, as well.

Yes, we're planning to publish at least a special report about this, as @Smallbones wrote just up above. Oltrepier (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read that Matteo Wong piece today. I think it would be good for The Signpost to go beyond mere factual reporting on the launch. In other words, I would welcome an op-ed or such.

Quick feedback on the essay - it's a great essay but possibly long for a Signpost op-ed, I'm not sure what our readers' attention span is. One possibility is to condense it into 1-2 pages for the newspaper but link to the longer version. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and understandable. What is 1-2 pages, ~500 words? I think, in that case, I would withdraw it for now and go look for a home for the full (or a fuller) version, intending to circle back afterwards to inquire about a shorter take. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: My off-the-cuff answer was probably too curt, and wasn't meant to discourage. Here I've written a Quarry query to show the length of all of our published Op-Eds. The longest one is over 22 kilo-characters, and takes a bit more than six pages to display on my screen (with a large table included). The one right in the middle is 9400 characters and displays in three screens. The latter is more like what I meant by "feels about right". ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri@Rhododendrites Actually, we have published far longer op-eds/special reports than that. Examples include

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report,
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed,
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-07/Op-ed.

(All of these are dwarfed by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-06-24/Recent research.)

I think Grokipedia is a topic you can profitably write a lot about (and it's important enough to publish multiple takes on), so please let's consider it. It's always nice when someone offers to write for us. Andreas JN466 23:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, the titles are case sensitive. I must rewrite the Quarry code. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Quarry, now what I said is the longest is actually the 10th longest. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a look at the top ten in the new list. Going by the comments, what is striking is that all of them actually got really good engagement. I think our audience's attention span is fine. Andreas JN466 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Just saying hello and happy Halloween! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Just an update: Based on the initial suggestions above of [what I interpreted to be] 500-1000 words, I did pitch an updated (2000 word) version to another outlet which seems to be running with it. It is not an outlet that publishes CC by default, but if there's interest in excepting here I think CC can be arranged. Sorry to jump off so quickly -- I didn't really want to trim it that much, and I should've had a clearer picture of what length would be appropriate for the Signpost before pitching it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it published CC would be great for us. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's up, with a CC tag at the bottom: With Grokipedia, Top-Down Control of Knowledge Is New Again — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Thank you for this, it was an excellent read! Oltrepier (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Oltrepier. The reception has been encouraging so far. Doing a little bit of press about it this week. Would love to opportunity to get some feedback from Wikipedians via the Signpost if the editors decide to run it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites, Bri, HaeB, JPxG, and Oltrepier: I've uploaded Rhodoendrites piece to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion. It's only 2000 words and I should be able to fully format it within the hour. Even if he wants to delay the publishing to the next issue, there's no need to delay formatting it. I don't know that "Opinion" is the best rubric, feel free to change it. I will be uploading a compendium of editor views of Grokipedia, probably to Community view this afternoon. It should complement the "Opinion" not really compete with it. Ditto for all the media pieces covered in ItM Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a super quick look and at first glance, sections and other broad formatting look fine. I'll see if there's some kind of image that can go along with it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones It looks fine to me, as well. Thank you for letting us know!

[On a side note, if you've still got a slot for your Community View piece, I'll send you a blurb as soon as possible...] Oltrepier (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short (2-4 lines) would be great. Just pick a main point and maybe link to an example. Yes, I know, that's a pretty narrow slot left! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Shoot, I was about to complete a much longer blurb, haha!

No worries, I think I can shorten it quite easily. Oltrepier (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smallbones. I made some small edits to the top and bottom and replaced the image. I prefer to use my username on-wiki, even if the connection is obvious. Is that too confusing? On the image, the previous one does say "machine power" but it's not talking about an actual machine and it's pretty specific to Missouri politics. Couldn't find a better alternative, so just swapped it for the Grokipedia screenshot displayed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Special Report is currently unused. We could either move Rhododendrites' post to there or Op-Ed, I think both are better than Opinion. Soni (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got linked here from Wikipedia:Speedy deletion/Creating a new criterion – we have two new CSDs, U6 and U7 (replacing U5). Several users remarked that they had not been informed of the discussions in time, so it might be worth it to drop a note about the new criteria in the Signpost. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, adding a placeholder to NaN. Right now I can't build it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is alternate account for Bri, which I just authenticated on my primary account's talkpage. I might be using this account for newsroom communications and Signpost authoring and editing. Bri.public (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a budding discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide where Jimbo has weighed in extensively, including discussions about the "NPOV Working Group". This has led to someone tagging him with a "Introduction to contentious topics" template, and general questions about the NPOV working group

I cant tell if this needs coverage yet, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye out on. Soni (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brefore seeing Soni's note here, I picked this up from The National. I think it could be #1 story at In the media. But maybe News and notes (in addition) if there is extensive on-wiki activity. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here: A bunch of media are erroneously saying that Wales locked the article Gaza genocide. But it was actually ScottishFinnishRadish. I touched base with SFR to confirm, which he did to me and again in another thread. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera now acknowledges their initial coverage was in error, and the headline says "Wikipedia Editor" locked the article, not Wales (the URL has the original, erroneous title embedded). Other media may be catching up as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Times has an unsigned piece mentioning Wales's problem with the article's neutrality and apparently concluding that the editing freeze locked in a pro-Israel outlook. I doubt they actually read the article. I'm not planning to include it in this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Including it is actually a good way of showing why the Tehran Times isn't reliable, because this is one time where our audience is in a position to know the facts first-hand. Andreas JN466 01:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over the POV/alleged-POV in Gaza genocide has become rather extensive on the talkpage, to the point where it's covered by many external media. I think The Signpost needs to cover this, and I'm recusing myself from doing it. I will however point out some things that I think are factual.

• There was an RfC in September 2025 that discussed the lead paragraph
• Jimmy Wales brought up what he determined to be POV in the lead paragraph in interviews, and on-wiki 2 November, after extensive outside complaints, including the Congressional inquiry we covered before
• The POV/alleged-POV wording appeared on the main page on 22 September 2025
• Wales was templated on his user page, in a way that seemed confrontational or unnecessary to him some, and was criticized there for bringing it up with several reasons and non-reasons given
  • Complainants said you can't relitigate the issue (ever)
  • Complainants said you can't relitigate the issue so soon after the RfC
  • Complainants said you, personally, as the founder, can't start the relitigation because of your oversized influence (I think I'm summarizing this right)
  • Complainants said that this reflected political pressure, not the needs of the community or the project
  • One complainant directly asserted Jimbo had been bought of by the state of Israel
  • You can't bring it up on your talkpage because so many people read it and it amounts to canvassing
• An administrator locked the article to allow only administrators to edit it, with exactly the wording that Wales called out as a POV problem
  • Many media mis-read this as Wales locking the article
• The talkpage discussion has been collapsed (today)
• Wales was taken to ANI for Self-promotion and other claims of wrongful behavior. The case was closed, and a new one re-opened.

Maybe you can tell I have thoughts on this that I think would not serve The Signpost's mission well in a neutral writeup. So I'm inviting someone else to think about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wales was templated on his user page, in a way that seemed confrontational to him Note that this is also a requirement of WP:AE. It's not clear whether that was the intent of the templating editor, I'd have to check. But that seems to be a thing more relevant to our Arbitration related systems than not. Soni (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting this off on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. This or Special Report seems more appropriate than any other segment. It'll be a blend of ITM, N&N and Discussion Report, with maybe Opinion/Op-Ed depends on the tone taken. Such a blend seems less a "Discussion Report".

My current plan is to both summarise the events so far with Gaza, but also recap Wikipedia's special relationships with its co-founders Soni (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni I think "In focus" or "Op-Ed" would be the best places to talk about this, since @Smallbones is already planning to run a "Special report" on Grokipedia, as per the discussion above.

At this point, I think we could just turn the ITM blurb into a shorter note, or maybe even move it to the Brief notes. Oltrepier (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Focus it is. I'm in favour of ITM having a short blurb just linking to "In Focus". Basically instead of two or three different coverages in various sections, all of them link to In Focus.

As i said in the mails, I'm not certain on my availability to flesh this out over the next couple days. We shall see. Soni (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page in question, as Wales has already been notified about the discretionary sanctions framework, he is considered to be aware of it and its successor, contentious topics. Thus it is not necessary to use a specific template to notify him about a specific contentious topic area; any message would do (a specific template is only required for the first alert about the system). "Some" is just two editors, and I feel one of them being a bit generous in assuming that Wales is already aware of the restrictions (apart from the contentious topic designation) that have been enacted regarding the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The other comment was brief and ended in "lol" so I'm not sure it was more than a passing comment. (I agree it's unclear if there was any intent to be confrontational; on the surface, it was like many notices issued to discussion participants.) isaacl (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Is there any interest in a WikiCup report, like I did when I won two years ago? (I could write it up within a few hours) BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on behalf of The Signpost since we are close to the editing deadline: Yes, please. Could you please follow this link with preloads to start it as WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Wikicup report? Looks like our last one under that title was 2020-11-29 Wikicup report. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @BeanieFan11 You could also add a shorter note at News and notes, since there's still some space left down there... Oltrepier (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could add a short note, but I think I should be able to have a full report written up in maybe two hours or so. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, now I see we have used two different capitalizations – Wikicup and WikiCup. Use the one you prefer. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer WikiCup, but I already started it under "Wikicup". I don't want to mess up anything – perhaps once I finish it can be published with a capital "C". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these before, and I think they were definitely to the benefit of the readership and community (either as a single feature or as an ongoing report during the process); I'd be happy to publish one, but it may prove difficult to get it together in time for publication, as Bri says. jp×g🗯️ 20:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it at the moment – should have it done within two or three hours. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: It looks like Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring was set up to encourage writing Featured Articles, yet only two participants created one each, and neither one of them was in the top 8. Can you explain that a little bit in the writeup? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're only looking at the last round. Across the entire competition, 46 featured articles were scored. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I thought what I was looking at was the all-up scoring. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Wikicup report. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 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) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a story on NPR yesterday about Wikipedia, lawsuits and Elon Musk. More information at this link on their website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz, I've got that one in preparation for this part of the upcoming Signpost In the media. As discussed #Jimmy Wales book tour, above, I was planning to gloss over most of the reporting on Wales' book, but I'll look harder at this one and see if there's more to it than the book. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have taken so long on the Community view article, but I think with a good copy edit, it will be ready for publication. ItM looks good, Opinion is great, News & notes needs some work, Tech report has some good possibilities. There are something like 8 articles that could be ready to publish by tomorrow's deadline, but a few need that extra effort to make it in time. To me it looks like several articles are time sensitive, so it looks like, we should move fast to finish some articles, & spend some time copy editing, and cut any unfinished articles in order to publish on time. For now, I'm taking a break. @JPxG: let us know when you'll be ready. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on it tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision still mostly consists of placeholders, and the only story (a very brief one about Temporary Accounts) largely overlaps with News and notes. @Valorrr: Are you planning to add more content? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am; I've been a bit busy though. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]