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

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SuggestionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SubmissionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-11-27 00:39:52 ( v t e ) Writing: 26 November 02:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Publishing: 27 November 02:00 (1 day left; 5%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-11-27 00:39:52.
October 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	November 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30	December 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correction, it was a group effort; I put in a bare link [1], Smallbones expanded it to a proper bulleted item [2]. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds great (and since we've had a few discussions about journalistic standards in context of the last book review(s), let me say that since this book is already published, seems clearly of interest for our readers, and you plan to disclose relevant COIs like having gotten a free copy, I don't see any such concerns this time). If you need inspiration regarding the format, previous Signpost book reviews can be found via [3]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/wikipedia-founder-wales-wants-big-tech-pay-training-ai-2025-11-12/, Reuters (video interview + transcript)
• https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/wikipedia-founder-on-his-friend-elon-musk-finding-truth-online/, The Spectator (UK) (podcast)

Planning not to cover this further in issue 15, but will keep a list of links to prominent media above in case there is a change of direction. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Well, we could always write a brief note about it. Oltrepier (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: In my view, this was not ready for publication when it went out. Now, that's largely on me, and since the publication deadline had passed, I wouldn't have begrudged you for simply leaving it out of this issue. But as you chose to include it with just the draft of this single story basically as-is (which wasn't even yet marked as ready to be copyedited), it should be noted that its author had explicitly asked for feedback on this draft (not a bad idea, given the somewhat sensitive topic - scrutinizing the flows of significant amounts of money and criticizing the failures of various grantees); I do hope you gave it a thorough review before publishing.

As we didn't get to cover any research publications in this issue, I'm repurposing this talk page section and the above linked to-do list pad for the upcoming issue.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point - while the author has responded there already, JPxG, since you vetted and published this piece, you may want to take a look at that feedback too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Morning. Going through the suggestions now, I see a bunch of shit slid off the back of the page even though it wasn't actually closed with {{done}}... ugh... some of that I resurrected to the main page but some of it probably is just lost. I am going to go through there and the submissions, see if there's anything long-pending, and then process the articles.

I have two RfA debriefs in the pipeline but they're not ready presently, so perhaps they will run next issue. jp×g🗯️ 20:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Smallbones I'm about to knock out N&N, then I'll try to finish copy-editing some of the sections. Oltrepier (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came back from a busy weekend. I may have time now. Are we considering publishing In focus? Only i seemed to be writing that, but too many of us agreed that covering Jimbo and Gaza was important Soni (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it marked ready for copyediting, so I did not want to throw it in. Presently, I am making final preps to run the issue. jp×g🗯️ 12:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni I can help you add some details about Jimbo's comments on the Wiki article, but for the rest, I don't really know the aspects you would like to cover more... Oltrepier (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Soni Well, I guess we can save that column for the next issue, then... Oltrepier (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier Basically I was aiming for it to also be an explainer on NPOV/How Wikipedia consensus works. So a general "How RFCs generally go" and maybe a short para on the article's history itself (if pertinent) was what I was aiming for Soni (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Right, if you'd still like to publish it, I'll help you get it done in the next few days! Oltrepier (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier I have some time now, and think it's a good article to pivot into the recent walkout interview if needed. Would you work with me on the In Focus? I would benefit greatly from some help here Soni (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Sure! I haven't had enough time to add anything, yet, but I'll make sure to do so in the next few days! Oltrepier (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I actually did it without fucking anything up or having to postpone the issue. jp×g🗯️ 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And feeder readback link. jp×g🗯️ 12:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I started this Opinion draft in May 2024, and kind of forgot about it. It will need a refresh but is it an interesting potential piece? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it involves AI, that's a long time ago, I'm not sure these particular examples remain very interesting...

That said, the basic idea is intriguing. How about systematically examining some particular examples from WP:AIVOCAB? (also given that this page was repeatedly featured in the media and in in the Signpost recently)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @HaeB Sorry for the late reply, but this sounds good! Oltrepier (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For the next issue, I was planning to ask people from the organizing team of ItWikiCon 2025, which has just been held in Catania, Italy, to write an article about how the convention turned out.

I feel like it would be a good occasion both to report on local Wiki communities and highlight the work these people have been doing to promote communities in Southern Italy, since this WikiCon was just the second one ever hosted in the area (after the 2023 one in Bari) and the first one on an Italian island.

@JPxG, Bri, and Smallbones: Let me know what you think about it! Oltrepier (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, we should include more regional conferences and such in our coverage. I have been generally skipping them all in N&N because it's unlikely most of them will be of general interest, so it'd just be a list each issue. On the other hand, an in depth feature would be great.

I will point out that I hope we do reach out to most large conferences though, not just the ones in Global North. Soni (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni To be fair, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to feature a short list in every N&N column...

Anyway, thanks for the feedback: I'll try to get the article done soon! Oltrepier (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way it generally works is that, once every six months, I spend half an hour in the appropriate mood to write these. So I had a bunch in the staging area. But earlier this year there was a while where we just didn't have any, because I'd be completely gassed from work, and didn't have an additional ten minutes every issue to spend pulling stuff out of the staging area and into blank draft templates.

Anyway, I was in the mood today, so I put together a huge grip of them; there should be about twenty issues' worth of fully prepared draft pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Comix, all of which can be put in an issue simply by moving them to /Next issue/Comix before publication. I have found that people seem to like them more when they're a little on the cunty side, so I was somewhat more liberal with the swearing. jp×g🗯️ 09:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do like when people who aren't me submit comics, so with those I intend to jump the queue. jp×g🗯️ 10:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Thanks, they look great by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Comix14 works for me for the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:12, 18 November 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: [4]) 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]

@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]

@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]

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]

I'd like to run "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …" as a "from the archives". The reason is the Epstein emails. The old article tells what happened in on-Wiki and a bit on what happened in the real world. The emails, which I'll probably put in Disinfo report, will show what Epstein et al were talking about and planning at the same time. So there's a good set of causal links: Epstein plans causes changes on Wiki which affects the real world. Is the deadline up top correct? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:23, 18 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]

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]