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, 47
	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 2026-02-26 04:58:02 ( v t e ) Writing: 7 March 01:00 (9 days left; 50%) Publishing: 8 March 01:00 (10 days left; 52%) There are 8 days, 20 hours, 1 minute and 58 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-02-26 04:58:02.
January 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 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	February 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01	March 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05

Hello! I've finally managed to expand the In focus piece on the Jimbo and Larry controversies we started a few weeks ago. Very belatedly... but still, it's done now.

If @Soni, @Bri, @Smallbones or everybody else wants to take this home, now you should have an easier task in your hands! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pog. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going through it, and I am really not sure about a lot of this.

Starting out, the summary of Wikipedia's origins is not that great. We have three paragraphs here, but I don't know that it gives a better introduction than three paragraphs of Wikipedia. We kind of mention Nupedia and give some quick milestones but don't really explain why this stuff matters. Then we get into a kind of weirdly snitty pigtail-pulling section about Larry.

He's also made multiple comments on the Gaza Genocide article. In the interest of giving his views the weightage they deserve, we are not covering his comments.

Everyone on the planet Earth is aware that Wikipedia editors are predominantly liberals, so we don't need to remind them of it every ten seconds. Larry wrote a bunch of the foundational policies and was quite involved in the early days of the project, which for some reason we do not mention, and instead take potshots at Everipedia etc.

It is, of course, important to mention that Larry has not participated much in the project since 2002, and that Jimbo has had a much larger role in the community in the last twenty years; I think this can be done without so much of a tart flavour.

all of the requests [...] have got rejected

By who? This is the most critical aspect of this. I don't think anybody outside Wikipedia cares about our pomp and circumstance. By the participants in RfCs, I should assume?

We get into the coverage of the whole kerfluffu after that, and then don't really say anything about it. I guess the main thing about this piece, for me, is that I don't really see what the reader is supposed to gain from it. I also don't think we are doing a great job of explaining what's going on to potential readers who don't already understand how Wikipedia works. This is kind of how it's framed, but I don't think it does that (since it skips over a bunch of stuff). Conversely, people who do understand how Wikipedia works are pretty well able to read the articles we're linking as sources, or our other coverage, or the discussions themselves. We're not really advancing a thesis on "what it all means", which I think is something that could justify this. We could do that but we currently are not. As it stands, I think we are basically just kind of parroting RfC closes ("The GALACTIC COUNCIL has decided to REJECT your SODALITY!") and not explaining them, which I do not think I can copyedit into something publishable in the next hour or so.

My inclination, since we are so far past the deadlines, is to publish the issue without this and try to work on it for next issue. jp×g🗯️ 19:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Ugh, again?

No, but seriously, now that you've brought up these concerns, I see why @Soni was dissatisfied with the article as it is, and honestly, I have to take responsibility for that myself: I promised I would help him work on the article, but I'm afraid I didn't have enough experience, nor enough time to get it to a state where it's enjoyable for the average reader... Oltrepier (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically roughly why I was not happy with the article as is. Right now it's a ton of repetition from other places, but not enough summarising or contexts for why things matter. It needs more editor work to be useful to readers, in a "Why is Jimbo important to Wikipedia/how important is he anyway" way. Similarly for "Why is the Gaza genocide article in the current state, how can it change further, and is it a bad thing?".

@JPxG I have opinions on why highlighting Larry's lack of involvement with Wikipedia in the last 20 years is necessary. The "Start of Wikipedia" and "Larry Sanger's comments" were designed to highlight that, show how much the projects have grown since, and how Larry has been on a multi decade crusade against Wikipedia without actively being involved. Too many news media equate Jimmy and Larry by just calling them both generic "co-founders". But the article as written does not showcase that as well as I'd like.

Ultimately, good call on pulling this. Soni (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you know, not only am I actually a co-founder (if I hadn't done what I did, you wouldn't be here now talking about Wikipedia), I introduced the neutrality policy to Wikipedia (from Nupedia, where it was originally formulated). I am also the only founder who has written an extended philosophical defense of neutrality as a policy. It's also worth pointing out that, despite having stopped editing Wikipedia (until very recently), I never stopped regularly commenting on and keeping abreast of developments. That's why it was not hard to write the Nine Theses, which is the world's first thoroughgoing reform proposal for Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, totally by coincidence (written today before anyone told me about your article in development), I have written a longer piece about Gaza genocide. Here it is. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll consider your response when we'll start working on the article again, even though it will probably take some more time... Oltrepier (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent both the authors a request to discuss this before publication. Obviously neither Larry nor I have any problems with understanding the NPOV policy, and the current draft doesn't even give any indication that I can see about what mistake we might be making. A discussion is therefore warranted before publishing something with such an inflammatory title - you should be sure you understand my position before writing about it.Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not, we're going to miss the 25th anniversary. So, if someone can copyedit my Op-ed, I'll do what else I can Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've copyedited literally everything else needing it (that was marked as ready to go). Sixteen hours before a whole lot of content needs deleted, because we're not telling people about events they can go to anymore. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody takes care of N&N, I can help you double-check the other remaining articles! Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this huge publication delay is frustrating, as is more generally our inability in recent years to stick with scheduled publication deadlines.

That said, let's not catastrophize about the anniversary - it's not exactly a breaking news event whose sudden occurrence we need to reveal to our readers ASAP, and we already ran a PSA about the upcoming celebrations in the last issue (whose N&N was literally titled "We're gonna have a party!"). Aside from the one-sentence repetition of this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes whose tense needs to be changed soon, what else does a whole lot of content needs deleted refer to?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to do so can follow the manual publishing procedure. I just can't run the pub script due to other commitments. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden: I copyedited your Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. You already have a review from SnowFire, and I encourage to you reflect more on their comments, as I agree with them. Transgender rights is a prime political issue which makes people angry and crazy. I get that the FAR process has failings, but for the article you discuss, I think that your opinion piece is neglecting 0.5-1.5 sentences which recognize the context that billions of dollars are being spent in multiple countries to seat politicians who have transgender rights as a top issue in why people vote for them. The FAR process is not typically at the center of multibillion dollar propaganda campaigns, and I think it is an omission that your opinion piece does not differentiate a supremely hatemongering off-wiki controversy and a more routine evaluation process, for example, lettuce Bluerasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, thank you for flagging this.

  I would even go a bit further and say that adding these 0.5-1.5 sentences won't fix other serious issues with this op-ed. It essentially insinuates that multiple unnamed but readily identifiable editors have been engaging in supporting transphobia (by downplaying of Rowling's anti-trans views) , whereas it looks like at least some of them rather saw themselves as engaging in good-faith efforts to uphold general Wikipedia norms about sourcing standards, the FA process etc. And while I haven't looked into all the specific examples provided in the op-ed, I clicked on this RSN link in the An example of the editing environment around Rowling section (a debate about a particular article from the Journal of Philosophy of Education), and it seems to me that the author's opponents had at least some fairly good arguments there.

  Then there is the tedious WP:HIGHMAINT opener (I wouldn't have another featured picture until November, and nearly gave up on Wikipedia by July).

  The title promises an informed critique of FA reviews in general (The frustrations of featured article reviews), which could be a very interesting topic (I'm not saying that the FA process is beyond criticism). But then it turns out to be about a particular aspect of a particular FA only, where the author disagrees with multiple other editors.

  I'm not against the Signpost running potentially controversial pieces that rub many editors the wrong way, assuming they meet our quality standards (and I have spent significant amounts of time in the past to defend such contributions by others when I thought they met these standards). But I think we should generally discourage op-ed submissions of the type "Recently I was involved in an on-wiki debate that I found frustrating, here are 3400 words on why I was right and good and the editors who disagreed with me were wrong and toxic".

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Igordebraga: are you done with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Traffic report? Can I finalize a copyedit? I already reviewed a bit. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead with the copyedit. Don't think I'll add this week's list. igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed it too. It looks good to go to me but I didn't mark it complete. Bri.public (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bri.public @Adam Cuerden @HaeB I'm late as usual, but I've still managed to knock out the copy-editing on those three remaining columns: N&N, WikiProject Report and Recent research.

  On a side note, I've realized that we forgot to write about Public Domain Day, as we usually do on N&N, but nevermind, I guess: the 25th birthday is undoubtedly the show-stealer, and we can always address every material that has become of public domain on the next issue... together with some not so feel-good news from Italy about PD itself. Oltrepier (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point re Public Domain Day. Obviously it shouldn't hold up the publication process at this point, but if you have time to add something to N&N while we're still waiting for someone to handle that process, I think it would be great to do it now already (also considering that N&N is still very short). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HaeB I haven't, unfortunately... it's already way over "standard bed time" where I live. : D

  But no worries, really: we don't need to rush it when we can just provide a wider and better overview on the next issue. Let the birthday party roll on first! Oltrepier (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. Great. I had this ready on 1 January, and you all pile on on publication day - which you're clearly going to miss, even though I did the work for every other article. Learn to review in a timely manner. I put hours and hours of work into it. And none of you could be bother to look at it until you decided to pull it at the last second. Seriously, fuck you all. I was the only person to have the article ready in time for the scheduled date of publication, and you couldn't even manage the delayed date or the last fucking possible date, nor could you look at the one article that was ready. This publication is such a farce. Make your objections on time, or shut the fuck up next time. "Ready for copyedit" shouldn't mean "This will be ignored until the last possible second".

  Let's say I do revise it? When will it get published, given the schedule of the Signpost? Next month? Next year? The heat death of the universe?

  I am furious at this. You had every single chance to not drop this at the last minute. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And you can't even be bothered to justify it by getting it out before the clock ticked over to the 15th. Nicely done. Why don't we just hold off on publication until Op-ed is acceptable to you? After all, you show no urgency in any other way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 00:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, my comments were on January 8. I get that the above echoing might seem last minute, but there was advance warning that there was possible contention here. For what it's worth, I believe that the above feedback is offered in good faith and in the hope of a better, stronger op-ed. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I trust Signpost editors to know when something is not a good op-ed, and looking at this myself, it is hard to find any fault with what HaeB says above. This is not a good opinion piece; it's a very long complaint about an on-wiki dispute that goes to great lengths to paint the opposition as unreasonable. To the extent it's interesting, it's because of how brazenly chauvinistic it is in favor of your own position in the dipute, and to the extent it's got any chance of avoiding controversy, it's because of how niche a subject it's about and how little it works to make itself relevant to the broader community. Essentially, it reads more like an AN/I complaint than an opinion piece. If we are to the point of getting angry about it, then I'll take my turn, and ask why you have expected the Signpost to serve as a megaphone for something which is so obviously an individual dispute. The saying in the old country, along these lines, was "not your personal army". You knew that's what this was when you submitted it...

  I have gone on about this at some length, but I knew my ass would never have time to be the sole editor-in-chief, and indeed I only signed on this due to there being a second person to handle the role at the time. This is no longer the case, probably because most people in this role spend the majority of their tenure trying to escape from it, I am endlessly grateful to the other editors, particularly Bri who has been pressing out a shitload of issues whenever I've been indisposed (and by any reasonable metric would qualify to be a co-EiC). I also appreciate HaeB who will always be saying shit that reflects very poorly on me but is true (e.g. that I am lazy). I am no longer lazy and shiftless, as I just billed my first hundred-hour workweek, but lazy nonetheless. My apologies and condolences.

  I have published this issue, minus the two ceremoniously spiked articles, and minus any journalistic (or even significant editorial) contribution of my own, which I would have had to trade against billable hours at my job to write — soon I expect my financial situation (and perhaps even that of the company) to improve to the point where I will start taking weekends off as a regular practice, but until then, I would very much like to have some help (as I have been so graciously given). jp×g🗯️ 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Posts to Wikimedia-l and Announce are done. Apologies for being otherwise completely useless this issue. Andreas JN466 18:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I recall, Christophe Henner is called Christophe, without an r at the end. See his French user page and various press articles. Did he mean to be a Christopher for this? Andreas JN466 22:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to be the culprit: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Schiste/what-now&diff=next&oldid=29907271 I'll go change the byline. Andreas JN466 22:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Lots of sympathy, JPxG. Back when I was around here, I was working three jobs and then started grad school. Don't burn yourself out like I did. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion is concerning an unpublished item at Special:Permalink/1332918936 – B

I'm sorry, but I can't handle this level of "no help available - but let's all complain right before publication", followed by joking about it. "Ceremoniously spiked"?! Is there anything that would make this editorial that I spent a week on publishable? Or will any useful feedback on it not come until three hours before publication of the next issue? Because vague complaints about how it presents me arguing that the article isn't good enough for featured article status as correct is a problem when that's how the Featured Article Removal Candidacy closed, so that's the official Wikipedia judgement on it really isn't helpful. Do you actually have a problem with a single fact I bring up? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left clear actionable feedback on the talk page. I am happy to give you more feedback, if I have the bandwidth. That last clause is important because all of us have lives and do not do this full time. In fact, my own section got spiked the same way because we (mostly me) did not have bandwidth to spruce it up.

We can keep discussing specifics about your Op-Ed on the talk page. I think it could be useful, but it definitely needs significant work. Soni (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to take this to the talk page of the article itself, but the feedback you received was not vague, and the feedback is useful. The problem is that the title + thesis paragraph isn't sustained. You say that it's a "bizarre procedure for shepherding an article through a featured article review" but then the entire op-ed is entirely about J.K. Rowling specifically, with no attempt at analysis of the FA / FAR process at all, how it currently works, how it could be different, why it's "bizarre", etc. Which you openly admit to. That's points for honesty, but this completely upends the criticism you've made and the "promise" in the title / opener. This isn't a minor problem. If you want to write about J.K. Rowling and Wikipedia, fine, but say that then. (And ideally take on the tone issues raised by others seriously too, as well.)SnowFire (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to how seriously people can respond to something as outrageous as this. If you're serious when you say crap like "this publication is a farce", then why would you even care if we ran it or not? If you're not serious, then why even say it at all? Abuse for the sheer sake of abuse? jp×g🗯️ 14:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The farce is that you missed the most important deadline the Signpost is going to face in the ten years between the 20th and the 30th anniversary. And that you were absolutely vicious to the person who was running around copyediting and helping everyone else with their articles.

I'm going to quote your words, jpxg:

I trust Signpost editors to know when something is not a good op-ed, and looking at this myself, it is hard to find any fault with what HaeB says above. This is not a good opinion piece; it's a very long complaint about an on-wiki dispute that goes to great lengths to paint the opposition as unreasonable. To the extent it's interesting, it's because of how brazenly chauvinistic it is in favor of your own position in the dipute, and to the extent it's got any chance of avoiding controversy, it's because of how niche a subject it's about and how little it works to make itself relevant to the broader community. Essentially, it reads more like an AN/I complaint than an opinion piece. If we are to the point of getting angry about it, then I'll take my turn, and ask why you have expected the Signpost to serve as a megaphone for something which is so obviously an individual dispute. The saying in the old country, along these lines, was "not your personal army". You knew that's what this was when you submitted it...

People are saying that there's actionable feedback on the talk page. And there is. But there's also a whole attack piece by the editor-in-chief who's the one who decides if it gets published. It's disheartening to have an editor-in-chief who feels like even though your arguments won - the process did not close with J. K. Rowling remaining a featured article - that one should treat both sides of the dispute as equally valid. The FAR determined it was not up to FA status, and the FARC fundamentally failed to rescue it. But the process was painful and awful, and took months. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 07:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said my piece, no-one commented after a couple days, so, I'm sorry, but I'm done. Don't expect me to copyedit, don't expect my help, maybe you'll see me next Editor-in-Chief. Or if jpxg apologises, but I don't see that happening. Not after thinking it was both appropriate to say what he said, and to act surprised and shocked that I was upset after he said it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 07:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on here, but I fully agree with the above that this is not a good piece. As it stands, it's a long complaint about a one-off thing that frustrated you, presented as a widespread phenomenon infecting wikipedia, without any clear point. I understand that you're frustrated, but this really reads like some sort of forum shopping attempt / general venting more than a cohesive piece with a thesis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time to put out complaints. That was before letting jpxg out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, jpxg has basically shouted off about how he wouldn't accept any version of the article. So what's the fucking point in taking feedback? To have him reject it no matter what I do? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri.public I know you're going to punch me through your PC for this, but may I ask you to move the deadline by a few days, please? I was thinking about February 1-2.

I've got an exam on January 28, so postponing the deadline a little bit would allow me (hopefully) to work on those two articles on Public Domain I mentioned last week and help you review the rest of the issue. Oltrepier (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier, JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: I'm sorry Oltrepier, but I can't agree any more to delay publication. We haven't made deadline once in the last two years. The problems with that were obvious in the last issue and it was painful for me to watch. Everybody now delays, no guidance was given when needed. It takes more total individual effort updating, re-copyediting updated material, etc. We've had a procedure to make do when the EiC is unavailable when ((if I remember correctly) Bri, HaeB and myself (if 2 agree)) can start approving articles and then publish.  It will be safe, in any case that we should agree that the work won't get done, say an hour after the first deadline is missed and just start approving and publish then automatically.  No discussion on the cause is needed. That way everybody will know when the effective deadline is, and everybody will get their articles in on time, so we can do away with all the extra work. Of course we need to have 4 articles ready, but that usually is not a problem.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones That's fine, I completely understand it. I'll see if I can still manage to do some work here and there! Oltrepier (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I just want to make sure that you understand that I wasn't aiming at you personally. Almost everybody, including myself, was partially responsible for the way the last issue was produced, you just chimed in a couple of times. I'm just getting tired of it, though I've mentioned it before. There's one basic principle of producing a newspaper, the deadline. It lets everybody from the editor-in-chief, and writers, to the readers know what and when they should expect things to happen. Without a deadline we're all just lost at sea. Folks might want to review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination#Who makes things happen to see what is expected. We're all volunteers, so everybody understands that bad things happen, e.g. tests, health issues, your in-laws stop by. But we've got to get this organized again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones No worries, man! I know how much you all care about making this newspaper as enjoyable and high-quality as possible for the common reader, despite of limited time and real-life issues, so it's perfectly understandable to ask more from ourselves... I mean, I went AWOL myself without letting you know for almost the entirety of last summer, so I'm the first one who needs to take responsibility, really! : D Oltrepier (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am here today. jp×g🗯️ 15:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably publishable though some is still marked waiting for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writing deadline is coming up in four hours. Let's do our best to turn sections over to copyediting by then or soon after. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, JPxG, HaeB, Pine, and Oltrepier: I'll try to finish ITM, and In the news looks like it should be reasonable. That leaves Traffic report and ?. Make the last one Maryana's good bye note from diff. That'll make the minimum of 4. I'm delaying the Disinfo report I'd planned, some new info turned up and ... Somebody should bury the old Op-ed and In focus before they come back again. Digging the car out of a snowbank for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Out. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent! Thanks for publishing. Bri.public (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite a short issue in comparison to the latest ones, but I won't complain about that... thank you for your work and your feedback, guys! Oltrepier (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Mailing list posts done. Andreas JN466 20:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the wait, but I've just published my blurb on the public domain controversy in Italy: I might add a couple more details if I have time, but consider it done and ready to be reviewed... because surely it needs that. : D

I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on the general Public Domain review, but maybe @SnowFire could take care of that, if he can (and wants to). Feel free to recycle the structure of my own article from last year, which should serve the task well! Oltrepier (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might manage to help you guys over at ITM, as well, but I'm quite in a hurry for my exam and anxiety is kicking in a bit, so I'll see what I can do. Oltrepier (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look if you can't do it this year. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire Thanks, it would be amazing! I've left a slot for a dedicated blurb over here, so go for it. Oltrepier (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I am not understanding the potential impact of the change. I have not clicked through to read all the commentary though. Are you able to summarize in one line at the beginning what the impact could be? I think your piece is saying that simple portraits are non-creative and therefore public right now, but in the future this could change. Is this really so? Is there an example category of works in Commons which are now under 20 year copyright, but which are examples of works which going forward could change to 70 year copyright? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Thank you for flagging it: I didn't really know how to open the article, and ended up with an extremely vague introduction... I've updated it a few hours ago, while also editing another paragraph in order to clarify the slight, but significant changes made to the Italian copyright law. I've also retrieved and added a link to a related discussion on Commons' Village pump, which should help you understand the context and the details better. Oltrepier (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly finished up on my side. @Oltrepier and Bri: Do we think we're ready to mark this as "ready for copyedit"? I put in a blurb and title but others should feel free to mix it up. (I could expand with another paragraph of PD arrivals, but eh, I figure the linked articles already do a solid job of that.) SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look just now amd seems to me it is flowing well. Please mark ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the story about the new AI training license deals be a lead blurb, instead of being an "In brief" item? It was kind of a highly-anticipated decision, given previous reports, so I think we should switch it with the ChatGPT blurb, or even the Baby Globe one (unpopular opinion, I know, but still). Oltrepier (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be able to work on it myself, though: my exam will be on Wednesday, and I'm scrambling to double-check (even triple-check) all of my notes... Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, here are two different reports on the 25th anniversary from Italian newspaper Il Post and Avvenire, if you want to include some "international feedback"... for what it's worth. : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This announcement of new customers of the Enterprise API service was incorrectly characterised in some media reports as a "licensing" deal. This has subsequently been corrected in many (e.g. Ars Technica now adds this comment at the bottom:

This article was updated on January 16, 2026 to correct the implication that these deals involve licensing Wikipedia’s content, which remains freely available; the companies are paying for enterprise-grade API access.

A discussion of the announcement (and the misrepresentation in some media) is available on the relevant metawiki talkpage. The key points are that a) Wikimedia content was already licensed in a way that permitted AI usage, and they all already were doing so. And b) Providing them with a 'high-speed' and structured-data feed of Wikipedia is more likely to be able to attribute consistently AND means these companies can pay for their own heavy infrastructure usage, rather than donor's-money having to be used to subsidise their business model.

I've also compiled there a list of links to some of the main news outlets where the story is reported. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LWyatt (WMF) Thanks for the heads-up! Oltrepier (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been addressed now, thanks Smallbones. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: I think there are two editions of TOP25 we can pick up for this issue. I may copy it in myself, or you can if it's fairly soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually planning to use the 2025 Annual Report that wasn't finished in time for 2026's first edition. When I get home I paste what's done (48/50). igordebraga ≠ 21:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could mark this "copyedit complete" but want to give it one more look. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Almost through the copyedit. Can I encourage Igordebraga to look at the phrase a stay in the Marines? It's a little jarring to see that relative to the Corps... if you've ever made the mistake of saying "former Marine" in the presence of one, you know what I'm talking about. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thought provoking item at Times of Israel blogs [1] which contains this passage

At this point, there is nothing meaningful left to do within Wikipedia. The platform is designed to be unresponsive once narratives harden, and engagement drains energy without changing outcomes. The appearance of neutrality masks a system that rewards coordination and persistence, not accuracy.

I found this interesting because it mirrors something we posted recently but from a writer who would probably be described as supporting the opposite side of the IPA issue. Their exposition (expanded from what we printed before) is strikingly similar.

[Admin-imposed restrictions are] presented as neutral conflict management, but they function asymmetrically. They privilege editors already embedded in the system, fluent in policy, and disciplined in the rhetorical norms of "neutrality," while disadvantaging [outsiders] ... Crucially, these mechanisms do not decide who is right. They decide what can safely be said. ... Wikipedia often treats stability as if it were consensus. Stability reflects the moment at which procedural tools have halted further change...

However, this being a blog from a name I don't recognize, I'm hesitant to include. Any thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No replies. Maybe an op-ed by me on why PIA is such a PITA. Bri.public (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ToI blogs are a very mixed bag and really no better than Substack or any other kind of blog. In this specific case, the writer is simply making things up – his assertion that nobody was speaking of "Palestinians" back around the time of King Abdullah's assassination can be shown to be false in five minutes via a Google Books search restricted to pre-1960 results. Examples: [2] [3]. It's not worth covering. Andreas JN466 09:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• AV Club
• Boing Boing
• Engadget
• Ground News
• Hacker News
• Let's Data Science
• Stuff (SA)

A bunch of media coverage has appeared about a "Wikipedia doomscrolling app"? I can't figure out what our angle will be. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+ Gizmodo

I'm the creator of Xikipedia - it's meant to be art/commentary on modern social media algorithms. Though, I'm working on turning it into an actual app (pwa) now. Not a very serious project, but also not a joke. Rebane2001 (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I had 2 or 3 reactions to the story.
  • Why use the Simple English wiki version instead of enWiki?
  • See The 1st In brief mention in this ITM story about Wiki Toc. What's different about this one. We're not here to advertise, but if there were a comparison in the media about the two, it would be worth including.
  • Why did the current sources ignore the old story?
• @Bri, Rebane2001, JPxG, and Bluerasberry: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I used Simple English wiki because it's way smaller - this means the entire dataset can be downloaded and the algorithm run locally, so that privacy can be preserved and the website/app can be used fully offline.

  The main difference from WikiTok is that Xikipedia is algorithmic, that is, the feed adjusts based on which "posts" you like and which you don't. It is not just calling the Wikipedia api to show you random articles. The algorithm is described in the GitHub readme.

  Obviously there are many visual and feature differences as well, but I'm not sure how important they would be to the story. Rebane2001 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebane2001: Is the Progressive web app working now? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that and fully offline support through service workers. Rebane2001 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know if you covered that already in December, but the WikiFlix project has gained some traction in the last few months, first courtesy of TechCrunch, and then on some specialized Italian portals. Is this worth a mention? --Oltrepier (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, looks like a good item for News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something is here but it's behind a PR Week paywall. I wonder what the answer is to "should PR agencies edit Wikipedia"? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted to tell Newsroom folks I will be "mostly" offline this weekend (Valentine's Day), and not available for publishing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword grid and clues are posted if anybody wants to give it a try. I'm not sure if I made the clues hard, or easy. It's hard to tell when you are the creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted most of my Disinfo report, but there is a section left to complete.

• There won't be a CEO interview this issue, but the wait should probably be worth it.
• In the media looks very good, but I may change the top story some. The Times (UK) article would have been ok 6 years ago, but really doesn't depend on the new release of info!
• I love Serendipity
• Crossword has some extra lines in my browser
• Why don't we get rid of that In focus stuff - it can only cause further problems.
• I'm pretty sure I'll be around for copyediting work.
• Enjoy Valentines day @Bri and JPxG: et al.

I'm off for a box of chocolates. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The crossword has been rendering weird for me on some platforms. See my problem report WT:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical#Crossword puzzles are mis-rendering. Even Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-24/Crossword included, the first one that uses new templates. I don't think it's a problem with the code that I used for construction. I mean, it might be a problem with the templates, but not specific to the way that I used them in this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something happened to the sitewide CSS a few months ago that made all the crosswords look weird and misaligned. I tried for a few hours to sort it out at some point, but was unable to make any headway. jp×g🗯️ 19:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones @Bri Just so you know, I've somehow managed to bring News and notes to a state where it should actually be reviewable and publishable. I guess that's the "gifted kid syndrome" kicking in at night... Oltrepier (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones You are right. I've added a reference to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-12-01/Disinformation_report where you covered this already – and in far more detail than The Times – last December. Feel free to make further edits! Andreas JN466 10:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to get RR done yesterday, but it didn't work out in time. I'm still optimistic I can have it publishable within a couple of hours, but feel free to launch this issue without it already (just don't include the current draft in that case, as it would be too meager). Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• done copyediting for Feb 16 I cleaned in a few pieces, and would do more if not published tomorrow, but I am done for today. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, HaeB, and Oltrepier: and all other copy editors. I'm done with all but the last couple of paragraphs on the Disinfo report. It's an important and sensitive article, so it's important not to add anything or change the meaning of the text while copy editing. Anything that makes me feel uncomfortable, I'll have to revert (seriously). JPxG, could you let me know when it's been approved for publication. I'd like to take one last look and then let you know. Any idea on the actual publication date and time? In any case, the last section will be completed in an hour. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slim enough issue it can just be today. I'm working on it presently; will be back to office in a short bit. jp×g🗯️ 01:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes out in this issue, it should of course be linked in the ITM Epstein piece as well. Andreas JN466 01:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The link is already there and I just now changed it to the right date
• Oltrepier's copy edits look fine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the link from ITM to your new piece. Now added (also as a redlink with today's date). Andreas JN466 09:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones: edit special:diff/1338592821/1338671457, still checking Bluerasberry (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: In the second half of the article you quote some emails. It is possible to direct link to these emails in Jmail. Is it your editorial choice that this article not provide jmail direct links to those messages? I found them in jmail by searching for text strings, and I think you captured enough information. I see reasons for linking and not linking. Can you confirm that you thought about this, and decided to not link? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Yes, this was my editorial choice to leave out some links, but it was a difficult one. I simple don't want some people's names or email addresses to be exposed if I don't think that they have a (major or minor) role in the scandal, that the link would expose them to public humiliation that might happen if thousands of readers without thought just viewed the link. So why include the quote? It is hugely important that Wikipedians know what Epstein was doing on Wikipedia. There is a tradeoff here and I think I've complied with the policy of not linking to material that defames or outs blps or wiki editors. So how can I include any links? No defamation or outing in the link. I know it looks odd at times. And if folks like you can use the quotes to track down the email... well that's a whole lot less than if I put in the link, and what you do to research in a public database is just not in the policy. Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I went through the same thought process. I know we try to show sources, but this topic is already overwhelmed with a tangle of database links, and for the messages you quoted there the insight that readers have to gain from clicking through is probably only seeing the evidence that there is no insight to be gained by looking more.

Thanks for talking this through, I support the omission. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report

If it is better to give other editors time to review this, then this article could be delayed no problem. I have a report here which is text and link heavy, but I did write it in first person. I have a conflict of interest here as it is about meta:WikiCite which I do as Wikimedian in Residence at University of Virginia School of Data Science. If there is any question that this needs review, then delay, but I think I made this clearly from me.

If publishing does not happen tonight then I will work other content at the submission desk tomorrow. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it copyedit complete but thought a little feedback might be in order. My head was swimming by the end with the various moving parts - database engines, citation initiatives, and all that. Maybe a little more up-front orientation for ther reader would help. I think you said at one point that wikidata was effectively frozen – explaining how and why might motivate more attentive reading of the remanider of the report. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: Again, the delay in publishing detracts from the value of the articles. With a couple of exceptions that are clearly noted, we're ready to publish. Let's do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to publish now. There is some strange script error that's not letting me run it, will try to figure out what is wrong. jp×g🗯️ 07:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to compose an issue with only one article: Comix is fine by itself, so it must be an error caused by formatting in one of the articles. jp×g🗯️ 07:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one until I get the error: Comix fine, ITM fine, N&N fine, Opinion fine, Crossword fine, TR fine, disinfo triggers it. God damn it, if it was the crossword or something I could just postpone it but this one actually matters. I guess I will go find out what is going on. jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

looking through the source and there was an email address in an email transcript with angle brackets around them, changed them to HTML entities for first debug attempt and it composes fine now. HOLE IN ONE BAYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE OHH YEAH jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Published, feader reedback at normal link, etc. jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list posts done. Andreas JN466 14:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't think we've ever had a CWE 94 event during publishing before. LOL. Good job JPxG! I'll probably be more present for the next issue. Bri.public (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted an essay for publication in the Signpost. User Bluerasberry was kind to let me know that I needed to add a relevant template and format it for the post. However, it is my first time posting, so could someone please assist me with the process? Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for contributing "The pursuit of a button click". It would probably be suitable for an ad-hoc essay type contribution, I think; looking at the content guidance, perhaps In Focus, Usually a submission from a Wikipedia editor or group of editors that focuses on a current specific feature or process of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or concern of the editors that does not fit into Op-Ed, Special Report, or any other regular rubric. What do other Signposters think? If it's accepted, I can take care of Signpost formatting, don't worry about that part. Bri.public (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, I started a draft for an article about the community deciding to deprecate archive.today, here. Mitchsavl (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good for a Discussion report, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on the article (which still will need extensive copyediting), would you be able to provide feedback on it so far, and if you think that it should be included in the next issue, move it to a relevant subpage?

Because of the significant impact of this change, and the amount of attention it has drawn (from the media, and various editors, with the RFC page having over 30 thousand views and 200 participants,^[1] that it may be good as a short standalone report, separated from the other discussions. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Mitchsavl (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]