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. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-12-22 21:30:59 ( v t e ) Writing: 15 December 10:01 (-7 days left; 350%) Publishing: 16 December 10:01 (-6 days left; 600%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-12-22 21:30:59.
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	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

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

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]

@Soni: Are you holding WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus for a future issue? It doesn't look complete for publication today...? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complete that, and a future interview segment (from past BOT members), but both of those effectively require a co-writer. Without someone else to work on this with, I think it's better to discard both segment ideas. Else, I can probably complete it in the next issue, roughly Soni (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Yes, I was supposed to help @Soni complete the article, but throughout the last week I never had enough time to do so... and then I even forgot about it, because I'm an idiot.

If needed, though, I can still help you work on two of the sections from that article: the one about the Gaza genocide article, and the one about Jimbo's comments on the page. Oltrepier (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier Let's try to do this then. If we can make it before next deadline, would be good as a "What's up with Jimbo lately" even if it's not the hot news from the last N days. Soni (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier (or anyone else I guess) Do you have an interest in completing either segment (BoT follow ups, Jimbo and Larry)? If yes, I have some free time to work on it in the next couple days. Otherwise I think it's better to discard both pending future updates. Soni (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Yes, I should be able to work on it later today. Sorry if I haven't given you updates in these days... Oltrepier (talk) 08:50, 10 December 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]

Held for next issue – 21:16 mid December? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief YouTube interview with Jimmy Wales, seen in German Wikipedia's Kurier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswRbWyt_pg&t=31s

The walk-out was covered by Berliner Zeitung:

• „Dümmste Frage der Welt“: Co-Gründer von Wikipedia verlässt Interview mit Tilo Jung nach Sekunden

Kind of old. (His user page has said "co-founded" for the past five years, ever since this edit by a long-blocked user: [1]) Andreas JN466 18:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Green has sat down with The Atlantic for the inaugural episode of Charlie Watzel's Galaxy Brain podcast − transcripted here. They discussed the current state of the Internet... and of course, Green once again praised Wikipedia as "one of the greatest creations of humanity". This looks good enough to be covered! Oltrepier (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hank also published a personal video that seems to be triggered by that podcast incident. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ Thanks, I'll definitely give it a shot! Oltrepier (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of on the fence about this one:

• "The hostile takeover of Wikipedia", Ashley Rindsberg, Spiked (magazine)

On the one hand I think contrarian views are good for In the media. On the other hand, I can't remember the last month we didn't have something critical from this same author talking about "state-aligned messaging" and "cabals working on behalf of foreign terror organisations". Views? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say cover it. Given that he makes much the same argument repeatedly, we can note that fact for our readers and keep the item brief. Andreas JN466 23:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As discussed before not too long ago (and documented here), ITM is to inform readers about how we get covered out there, rather than providing reading recommendations about what we consider to be the highest quality reporting. (That said, it's also valuable for ITM to provide context, and if appropriate point out flaws as well). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and thanks Andreas for actually adding the item to ItM. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: or anyone else – this looks a little loony from the abstract that claims to have found "a generative framework in which physical reality emerges from a deterministic computational process on a topological substrate". "Physics, Solved: Rethinking Wikipedia's "List of Unsolved Problems in Physics". It's getting late, but aybe we can have some fun with it? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we try to be pretty inclusive with RR (i.e. not confine it to only peer-reviewed publications or high-quality journals), this really is a bit far out... That said, no objection to covering it for entertainment as long as we make it clear that, umm, physics still isn't solved yet despite the author's suggestions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: I have partially reverted Special:Diff/1325056776. Edits are appreciated in general, but please avoid misleading edit summaries, as well as meaning-changing additions minutes before publication to stories bylined by other Signpost authors.

And aside from process, what's the basis for the affiliation claim you added? E.g. [2] says "independent".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB thank you. It was sloppy and on further investigation, incorrect contribution on my part. I erroneously assumed it must be related, but cannot find any confirmation from their website, or social media. Phrases like "independent" have a technical meaning, but also are used rhetorically, which I incorrectly assumed to be the case. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I know you won't like this, but can we postpone the deadline a little more, please? I'm thinking about November 25-26.

I think it could give us more time to work on all of the pieces more calmly (at least in my case); plus, it would be nice to publish the issue at the same time as the start of the call for candidates for the admin elections. Oltrepier (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, JPxG has currently scheduled it for 2025-11-23 00:01 UTC. While I would support moving it by a day or a bit more to Sunday Pacific time, there is as always a strong argument for keeping it to a time that falls on a weekend for all or most of the team. I also don't think timing the publication to after the opening of that call for candidates is likely to have a large impact (it doesn't seem that running for adminship is usually such a spontaneous decision that our readers are likely to forget about it if they have to wait for two or three days before they can formally submit their candidacy). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB Yes, I mentioned the admin elections just for the mere coincidence, but the truth is that I'd really use one-two more days to make sure I get everything done... : D Oltrepier (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri @Smallbones @HaeB So, what do we think about this? Oltrepier (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to move it by a few days I don't have any principled objection to this. jp×g🗯️ 21:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should remember that its not just a weekend but a major US holiday that some folks take as a 4 or 5 day family centered weekend and won't spend it on The Signpost. Postponing less than a large quantum (e.g. a week) may not work. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Oh man, I forgot about Thanksgiving...

Well, then let's choose the best option for most of us. Oltrepier (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread would make a good argument for thinking ahead when we set the schedule. BTW, a similar problem comes up next month with Christmas and New Years Eve. But looking at what we have so far, I'd say that there are 4 articles (other than From the archives) that have a chance to get done before Sunday, and 2 of those are less than half done. My own masterpiece in Disinfo report doesn't have much of a chance to get done by Sunday and isn't even started, so I should not complain.

My schedule for next week, starting on stormy Monday, reminds me of the BB King song Monday is 100% taken up, Tuesday is almost as bad, but Wednesday I should be able to get some work done, Thursday and Friday will be all family and guests, and the weekend is more or less ok. So maybe a week from Sunday, Nov. 30, for publication? I'll end with my favorite song from BB King. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved it to 2025-11-24 02:00 UTC (Sunday evening US time) for now, which should address Oltrepier's ask at least a little, but also still steer clear of that Thanksgiving week danger zone. Personally I would also be OK with Nov 30. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB Thanks!

I'm fine about both options, to be fair, and at this point, they would allow us to work more calmly on a single December issue. Now, though, I'll try to get my own blurbs done as soon as possible! Oltrepier (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB, Bri, Oltrepier, JPxG, and Soni: OK for this Sunday night, I think I can get the Disinfo report out about Epstein's emails. The problem is just that they are so bizzare that many people just won't believe it, so I've been triple checking everything. After Sunday, I simply can't guarantee that I'll be available until Wednesday - even for 10 minutes. If you do switch to Nov. 30th publication, do let me know, please for the sake of my sanity. If you don't switch, please actually publish on time. Bri, there's lots of stuff for ItM, but I won't be able to contribute more there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'd prefer November 30 since I'm struggling to find more time, as well... Damn it.

Ultimately, though, it's up to you! Oltrepier (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me I'd say publish as soon as my Disinfo report is done (but that's pretty egotistical I know). I'll Put the draft up within an hour, then take a break before finishing it: formatting, conclusion, fact checking (again!), first CE. Think Sunday morning before it's done done. But it's up to @JPxG: to decide when to publish. I will be out of touch Monday and Tuesday. And the complications of publishing later do get worse. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so considering that 1) there is less than an hour left until the updated publication deadline, 2) the only progress over the last day or so has been Smallbones finishing up the Disinformation report, 3) several core sections including ITM and N&N seem still very unfinished, and others (e.g. "In focus" - Soni?) need either nudges to complete them or a decision to cancel them, it seems safe to say that this was too ambitious again.

Given that JPxG said he is OK with "mov[ing] it by a few days" and Smallbones said he should have some time on Wednesday, I just moved the deadline again to 2025-11-27 02:00 UTC. As always, JPxG or Bri should feel free to adjust this further towards the truth based on their availability for carrying out publication. (Personally I continue to think sooner than later is preferable, and that generally we should continue to aim at weekends.)

Myself I'm still aiming to have RR in a publishable state in a few hours, and also to work on some other things for this issue.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. jp×g🗯️ 23:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB @JPxG I've just submitted my article about the latest national convention of the Italian community for the "Serendipity" column, as I originally intended: sorry if it took this long to complete it...

I'll try to work on other columns, as well! Oltrepier (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow burgers, I will try to edit during dinner tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 05:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clearly I'm on deadline updating duty for this issue, so I have interpreted this as yet another move, to 2025-11-28 02:00 UTC (as always, feel free to adjust - also Bri in case he is inclined to jump in earlier). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to get time away from dinner for this and also have a cold; my presence is being requested tomorrow, so unless we are willing to delay until tomorrow night I will have to abscond. jp×g🗯️ 06:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. (Evidently the prior optimism that we would manage to steer clear of the Thanksgiving danger zone was unjustified ;)

I'll again have the template reflect this in form of another 24h shift, unless Bri indicates he could jump in earlier.

All: there are still quite a few copyediting opportunities available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status, which might help getting this over the finish line.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're in EICAWOL territory again.

@Bri: might you be able to carry out publication if other team members help out with approving sections for publication? (as usual, preferably not those that one has been involved with oneself in a major way)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the Disinformation report as ready for copyediting. I will go back, after my mind refreshes, and try copyediting myself again. But that never works completely. I also have my usual problem with the Related articles - Does Wikipedia pay? box. It changes the margins and I can't fix them. Just remove that box and burn it if nobody knows how it works! I'll also try working on ItM, but after my mind is clear. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The margins for Signpost templates are just kind of toast. I had a plan to fix them a couple years ago but I have gotten kind of burnt out on technical stuff. jp×g🗯️ 23:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-08-09/In the media has a place where an image should be but just displaying markup. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The delibker bot (User:CommonsDelinker) fucked it up, as it consistently does for old Signpost articles. I get why this would be helpful to do in mainspace articles, but in Signpost articles it basically always creates problems (e.g. instead of getting redlinks which we can use to replace deleted illustrations, the articles just silently get worse over time). I would support some proposal to set it to not do this on Signpost articles. jp×g🗯️ 20:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the cover page images, aka "piccies" in the draft template. I recommend we look for something other than 2x Jeffrey Epstein. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: I switched the more recent Epstein to an 1876 Tom Sawyer pic. Thanks to HaeB for his copy edits. I have just finished reviewing them and ran into a couple other things I've been thinking about and changed, so those changes should be copy edited.

I added a NYTimes at the end of one paragraph. "(Galbraith) ... served as his in-house publicity director and published a dozen or more press releases at PR Newswire giving her name and work phone for journalists to contact. According to the New York Times, "Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein’s foundations and initiatives in 2012, 2013 and 2014 that included her as a contact."

Probably one of those sentences should be deleted, since they are so similar. I can't decide which.

There's one detail I just noted elsewhere. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the NYTimes quote and just left reference link. Simple enough when I actual think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've managed to add some more material to the column, and now it should be at least in a decent state.

I do not have enough time to write on the new edition of the Wiki Science Competition, which should be the last notable bit missing: can somebody knock the blurb out, please? Oltrepier (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shoot! I forgot about the results of the latest Board of Trustees elections... I mean, for what they're worth, given the double-exclusion situation we covered.

I've got kind of a COI issue preventing me from writing about that, though. Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the N&N column is 75% complete at this point. If somebody else could jump on the two missing blurbs and check the rest, I think we can get it over the line! Oltrepier (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I mentioned a week or two ago that I had a copy of Seven Rules of Trust and wanted to do a book review of it? I'm planning to write something up tonight, but I'm unsure which feature to include it under. Do we have an opinion/op-ed slot free? I think that would work better than Serendipity. I was expecting this to be a fairly non-controversial read on my part until I got to page 47 and that page is enough to make that feature name inappropriate for me on a personal level. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss Hello! Actually, both slots should be free, although I would go for the "Opinion" column, personally...

If you do manage to write a review, we would very much appreciate it! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was the one who stole the "Serendipity" column for this issue... whoopsie. Oltrepier (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: As I said, don't want that slot anymore anyways. This is the aforementioned page 47. Opinion will work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in our previous thread above (and also briefly on our content guidance page), we actually have an existing "Book review" section (previous examples), which would seem the best option for this. And yes, as with book reviews in general, it's not subject to NPOV - you should feel free to express opinions and judgments (within reason of course, and any factual statements should be defensible if questioned). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with HaeB. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll use that section then. Will definitely read some of the previous book reviews before I work out what I have in my rough draft into something ready for publication. It seems like the deadline is pretty close right now? Would waiting about four hours for me to figure all this out be doable? I think I'll be ready by then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving the deadline by two hours to 4:00 UTC should be doable (or might actually become necessary anyway, consider the current article status table) - @Bri and JPxG:? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. jp×g🗯️ 01:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Oltrepier: I finished my book review earlier than anticipated. If anyone wants to copyedit it (or ask me to change anything), please let me know. I'll be online for a few more hours. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the book review to Signpost space. We need to be very, very careful about the account of the Lynching of Horace Maples. Are we sure that Wales was holding it up as an example of something? In the linked Mastodon post showing the book, it looks like he's saying "evil but not antisocial", and I'm not sure what he's framing here. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, evil but not antisocial, but that doesn't change how I feel about the framing of that whole page. It's meant to be a contrast with Wikipedia, see the next page. As I said, I feel like this cheapens the horror of what went on. He could've used an example that wasn't lynching to make the same argument, or at least severely trimmed the existing text to put less emphasis on how everyone involved were volunteers. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good now. This is the sort of thing where it's really good to have an E-in-C to be the decider, but having the conversation here is a good thing for transparency. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to HaeB's 06:44 query. Yes I'm back home and can do the publication script when it's ready but not after 8 PM Pacific or 0400 UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I plan to publish. Note we need copyedit on In the media.

• News and notes - copyedited, ready to approve
• In the media - needs copyedit!
• Recent research - copyedited, ready to approve
• Disinformation report - copyedited, ready to approve
• Traffic report - copyedited, ready to approve
• Book review - copyedited, ready to approve
• From the archives - ready & approved
• Humour - ready & approved
• Opinion - ready & approved
• Serendipity - ready & approved
• Comix - ready & approved

Oh, it would probably be a good idea if I don't approve my sections myself – News and notes and In the media have me on the byline. If another regular Signposter could mark them approved?

I'll check back in an hour or so. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to declare N&N approved except for the story I added to it myself (which btw would have been more suitable for "Technology report", but as correctly reflected in your plan here, its current draft is not ready to be included).

Re ITM, I'm also involved there, but will do some more copyediting shortly - I don't think that step should hold up publication.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll approve your N&N contribution and mine was pretty minor - slash - approved by you. So the thing is marked ready for publication now. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to publish what I listed above at 00:01 UTC regardless of the approval tokens. Please make any final changes in the next 15 minutes. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started. No more editing, please! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of the 1 December issue is done. I'll spot check a few things but the front page looks OK. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of archive and subscriptions looked OK. Watchlist notice was set a few minutes ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to feedback, people are reading and commenting now. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bri! Mailing list posts are done as well. Andreas JN466 01:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackerNews submissions: Opinion, Disinformation Andreas JN466 13:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running the script for the module indices now; single-page talk now works at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2025-12-01. jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just revised the current issue to add two missing piccy image credits [3], and revised three issues published earlier in 2025 with the same mistake [4][5][6]. Maybe the publishing script could check for this? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reuters, Jimbo suggested that Wikipedia is seeking to make deals similar to its arrangement with Google in order to monetize AI scraping, while planning on using technical tools to limit AI crawling. Seems like we're ending the year with a bang, isn't it? Oltrepier (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones @Jayen466 Is this notable enough to feature in the next issue's ITM?

I didn't have any update, so I just wanted to check in... Oltrepier (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a little piece into ITM. Thanks for flagging the story. Andreas JN466 12:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also included Meehan's comments on the same issue from the piece below. (We'll need to arrange article sequence in such a way that readers encounter the news of Meehan's appointment before they come across her comments on that issue.) Andreas JN466 12:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 Thank you, I appreciate it! Oltrepier (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Reuters headline is rather insidiously wrong - these are not "AI licensing deals" like say the recently announced one between Meta and CNN+Fox News, or OpenAI and Disney (in the sense of giving AI companies a permission - i.e. license - to train on content).

Rather, Jimbo is quite clearly referring to the paid API access offered by Wikimedia Enterprise (where Google was one of the first customers), even though the word "Enterprise" is not explicitly mentioned in the Reuters article (a bit of a missed branding opportunity for WMF I guess). And whatever concerns one might have about Wikimedia Enterprise (and I do have some), they do not pretend to sell such licenses about the reuse of Wikipedia content. Nor would the Wikimedia Foundation be able to do that, considering that individual Wikipedia contributors own the copyright to this content, not the Foundation.

In fact, this is (commendably) clarified in bold print right on the Enterprise homepage (https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/ ):

Zero Licensing Fees
Over 99.9% of data available through Wikimedia Enterprise services is under a Creative Commons license, allowing you to put that data to work in the best way for your business.

Again, this is not to dismiss all possible criticism of the kind of content monetization that WMF is actually embarking on with its for-profit subsidiary. (I mean, I wrote a whole article in our last issue that was enabled by ChatGPT *not* yet being blocked from accessing Wikipedia, something that might well change if WMF joins Cloudflare's extremely aggressive anti-scraping scheme, as Jimbo indicates.) But our coverage should not uncritically promote this "AI licensing deals" misconception, and as always part of the value of ITM lies in adding context. I'll try to edit the article now to do that, including adding the link to the full interview that the Reuters article is based on [7] - I haven't had time to watch it yet though, so if someone else wants to check what Jimbo actually said there about this topic, please do (while it wouldn't be the first time that he bungled some wording when talking with the media, my first assumption is that he did not actually say "AI licensing").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also reviewed what Jimbo actually said in the full interview (I found a YouTube version with searchable transcript), and sure enough he was explicitly clarifying such differences and steering clear of "AI licensing" claims. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. Andreas JN466 21:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-genocide-wikipedia

This came in after our deadline. I don't see it anywhere but Common Dreams – American progressive news website – and a CAIR press release, and would expect it to be in more media if it's noteworthy. Probably best to wait till next issue for more evaluation instead of trying to shoehorn it in now. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appointed new WMF CEO. See https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/12/09/welcoming-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-ceo/ I'll see if I can arrange an interview. I doubt a long interview can be done and published before Dec. 21, but should be published before Wikipedia day (January 15, 2026), so I consider the publication day to be extremely important for this. Please let me know when we are going to publish! I also suggest that we publish the Diff piece linked above in the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a "paid editing" tag on Talk:Bernadette Meehan in 2017. This is relevant because the person was selected as new CEO by the Wikimedia Foundation today. Due to this odd connection, I feel that I should probably steer clear of editing on this for The Signpost any further than what has already been done -- placeholder statements about the selection at NaN and ItM. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up. The bio was created by an account which was CU confirmed as a sock along with ~40 other accounts. The sockpuppet investigation has more details. As far as I can tell, the "paid editing" accusation only came up at the SPI, never at the conflict of interest noticeboard. One of the investigators said they thought it was a PR company. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: thanks.

Well, I gotta ask that question!

BTW, for ItM https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/wikipedia-operator-taps-former-us-ambassador-chile-ceo-role-2025-12-09/ , might as well add more links here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Reuters story is what I added to News and Notes a few minutes before you posted here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: et al, I'm still v ery interested in the publication schedule related to this story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good powers of recall, Bri.

For history buffs: Sue Gardner admitted making COI edits to the article about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where she worked at the time, before joining Wikimedia. Andreas JN466 12:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules on MOS:JOBTITLES can be ... wierd. Is it United States ambassador to Chile or United States Ambassador to Chile? The former looks wrong to me and seems dismissive to the importance of an ambassador, who personally represents a nation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've posted a News from Diff article giving details on Bernadette Meehan's appointment. BTW I've got the interview with her, which I think needs to be published *before* Wikipedia Day (January 15, 2026) which shoulkd be a big issue (25th anniversary). I also posted a new version of my Christmas carols piece in next issue. Copy editing should be the only need for the 2 new posts (in next issue). I'll work on In the media tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it looks like I won't be able to do much at ItM, today, probably not even tomorrow. The stuff I did there today looks depressingly bad. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got "Part 1" of the Meehan interview in hand and will post it soon (under Interview), but it's only 360 words. I'll get to ask readers for their questions, which can go in Part 2 . Part 2 should be in the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:53, 14 December 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) 07:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're 19+ hours past the publishing deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it goes. I have a meeting for the next hour and a half and then I will roll it. jp×g🗯️ 21:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the conclusion of the meeting was that I needed to do a bunch of crap. I have marked as EiC-approved the ones that are either obviously ready, or which need only a workmanlike copyedit; a couple of the others I think need enough development that it is not yet possible to exercise editorial discretion on them. If an editor wants to pull those together and publish now, I will not object, but otherwise I will be back only in about eight hours, since I have worked about two shifts in a row hererofore (I get paid an assload now, so this is good, and not bad, as it was at the warehouse). jp×g🗯️ 01:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N&N and RR at least are not close to being publishable yet. Regarding the latter, that's on me - I should get to add the content soon, but feel free to publish this issue without it, considering that the deadline has passed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am alive again, so time to get crackin', I perpose. jp×g🗯️ 11:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't publish News from Diff!!! Since Part I of the interview will be published, News from Diff is now linked multiple times and is superfluous. I will add a paragraph or 2 to In the news on Meehan (link to meta on where readers can ask her questions) and maybe even fill in stories around those bare links in ItM, in the next hour. After that absolutely no promises. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I saved the portrait from the News from diff draft in the header of the Interview piece. If there's nothing else you wish to save, you can simply mark it {{db-self}} and it will be deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bri: Will do! Also, I already put in the photo in interview. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything is basically done; there are only two spots remaining.

• For Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Interview, @Smallbones: do you want to add a part inviting readers to give stuff for part 2, or is it done as it stands now?
• For Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus, @Soni and Oltrepier: This is marked as ready for copyedit, but there are a couple blank sections at the end. Is it then acceptable to cut them?
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report are not going to be able to happen.

I am just checking before publication, since these were marked as ready for copyedit my assumption is there's nothing more that needs to be added but I want to make sure. I have to run an errand, and when I get back I will publish if nobody has any notes here. jp×g🗯️ 23:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 of the interview is done now, with the invitation for readers to contribute questions for Part 2 at the bottom of my introduction. So please publish it as is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some new Recent research content. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back at this now and should have it publishable later tonight Pacific time, but always I'm not offended if this issue goes out without it before that. (Just please don't publish the current half-done version.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "In Focus" can be published. I added some more to the lede, and maybe we can add an "afterword" summarising the overall thing, but the overall article doesn't need the 2 blank sections. Soni (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Thanks! To be honest, I think it could be left as it is, and despite not getting quite there, I think we've still done our best to get it in a publishable state. Oltrepier (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this looks basically fine, but this far into the day I am out of office and I do not really know if the script will barf running from my phone (and if it does it means like two hours of manual cleanup from a phone). If anyone wants to run SPS from a computer now, that is cool, and otherwise I will run it in the morning when I am home. jp×g🗯️ 06:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that, @JPxG!

I originally wanted to add one more story to N&N, but I might as well save it for the next issue, since the column will likely focus on Public Domain, and my entry would be just about that (but it's not good news, unfortunately). Oltrepier (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dry run went OK just now, but I'd rather wait till evening (US Pacific Time) if I'm going to run the publishing script. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am awake; I can run it now. jp×g🗯️ 18:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out, and single-page talk populating. jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo! Thanks jp! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Mailing list posts are done as well. Andreas JN466 21:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]