Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Wrong publication date in page names

@JPxG: Looks like the script used January 10 instead of January 12 throughout (examples: [1][2]), various self-flagellations [3] notwithstanding... Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I modified the script to do this so that it'd be the January 10th issue i.e. the anniversary -- issue dates being separate from actual release something that used to be done a lot when publication was done manually typically when published by an American who would name it e.g. the "14th" even the UTC date was the 15th. I don't know if it is best practice; I have noticed a lot of magazines will send out the April edition halfway through March or vice versa. Probably something that should be done infrequently though. jp×g🗯️ 23:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

issue dates being separate from actual release something that used to be done a lot - was it? When?

I'm pretty sure that most newspaper websites which use dates in article URLs don't do that (e.g. the "2024/01/24" in this URL pretty reliably tells you that this NYT article can't have been first published on January 26). The conventions around month labels are different, yes.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Timer

It says that there are 5 hours until deadline, yet the production bars are like 5% and the writing/publishing bars have contradictory data. I'm going to just assume that the due date is wrong (and the timer, clearly), but is this a timer issue or Wikipedia issue? (Or just a misinputted timer)? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The timer only understands whole-day increments. 5% of the 17 days from the last issue to the writing deadline is ~1 day. It's working right. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Help

To be fair, I also have no idea how long it takes to whip up an issue. You guys need any help with a specific topic? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The standing invitation for help is over that-a-way. I'd say for the upcoming issue, we always can use help with copyediting. At this time we don't have anything only have a Traffic report draft marked "needs copyediting", but if you check back at WP:Newsroom, other things should start lighting up soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Just wanted to make sure contributions were allowed. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bombard you, but I'm not sure how to navigate the signpost article template. Here for my article in progress. I don't see any boxes to put text in the article itself... Maybe I formatted it wrong? Should I be editing with source rather than visual? Thanks in advance! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you are starting a story for an upcoming issue. I'll continue this discussion on your talkpage... ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: Alternatively, you could consider starting out by writing up one of the unfinished items in News and notes (look at previous issues to get an idea about the usual format), or suitable tips from the Signpost's suggestions page (example). "In the media" is generally speaking also a good section to contribute smaller items to; the one for the upcoming issue is already done though (in contrast to "News and notes").

Bri: I may have mentioned this before, but that "Quick start" page is quite unhelpful in suggesting that creating an entire separate story ("news" or "opinion") is a good way to start out as a content contributor. (Especially in current times where there seems to be no shortage of opinion contributions of varying quality.) It's a much better idea to start small by helping to write up items in N&N and ITM, and tending to the Suggestions page; this is how many of us (certainly myself) started out. I may take a stab at rectifying that after this issue is out. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :D UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

HaeB, I think it could use some work too. Probably we should at least flip the order, so the more quotidian tasks come before writing a whole new column. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Random ping

@JPxG:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-2 News and notes

Looks like this might be the section that's most holding up publication at this point, with only three short items done at this point (I just added one from the Suggestions page).

CCing Jayen466 who had added two of the placeholders links to cover and thus might be best positioned to flesh them out (no obligation of course).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: I should be able to sort the first article myself, as well! I prefer not to touch the second lead story, because I'm not familiar enough with the subject... Oltrepier (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, day job interfering. :/ Thanks for taking on the Saudi story, User:Oltrepier. If someone could take on the child protection story, I'd be grateful. If not, I'll do a very brief thing this evening, simply saying the WMF has published the thing. (Haven't even read it yet.)

User:HaeB, did you see [4] and [5]? Google has provided a (not very helpful) answer to the Wikisource issue (Google does not index Wikisource). Might be worth a mention as well in N&N but you know more about this than I do.

I'll also do the annual reports later today. Andreas JN466 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB and Jayen466: Ok, the first lead entry should be ready to go! Oltrepier (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

N&N should be publishable now. Andreas JN466 20:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-2 WikiProject report

@Shushugah: Do you need help with your article? I've noticed that you haven't submitted the full interview yet... Oltrepier (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Offering congratulations

The Signpost wishes her all the best. Congratulations Katherine! @Smallbones @Frostly, I find statements like this (which crop up in the Signpost from time to time) a bit unjournalistic. They express a sentiment, which is a type of opinion (even if widely held/innocuous), within a non-opinion space. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sdkb, thanks for catching this. I'm supportive of removal if Smallbones concurs. — Frostly (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought of The Signpost as a small town newspaper. We're first and foremost part of a community - of say about 30,000 people who contribute over 100 edits a month (but there are also lots of people who live on the outskirts of town). We're lucky that we have this community and at the same time we can still aspire to reach an international audience. In the media, IMHO, is a journalism review rather than a straight news slot. It's always had some opinion in it.

Now we typically offer congrats to new admins, contest and award winners (e.g. WLM, Wikipedians of the year), new arbs (with thanks to all candidates). And thanks to people who have run big projects (e.g. Wikimania). Our community can be terribly confrontational at times, but we realize that we're all in this together. Every successful newspaper has its own traditions and character. There's nothing wrong with occasional thanks and congratulations. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense as an approach, since we also tend to e.g. have some snark at really bad journalism about Wikipedia. Is there a description of "In the media" in the Signpost's about section that documents this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance has a rather wordy one, which does indeed mention that in ITM one should try to add value wherever possible by providing context or relevant details from an internal perspective.

Inasmuch as they serve this purpose of adding value for the reader, I agree with Smallbones that informed opinions are fine in ITM, although it is certainly possible to overdo it. And separately, we should keep expressions of opinions as "The Signpost" to a minimum - boilerplate congratulations don't do much harm, but contributors who feel tempted to write something like "The Signpost hopes Trump doesn't get re-elected" may want to consider attributing that to themselves instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones@Sdkb Did we ever write anything about what precipitated Katherine's departure? I have heard that it was involuntary (but rumours are rumours). However, –

• the wording, votes and timing of this board resolution and
• Victoria's comment here (even though she wasn't on the board at the time)

would be consistent with that, as would the large severance payment and her being at a loose end for a bit afterwards.

As for congratulations, I don't mind those either. It's a friendly touch. Andreas JN466 13:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Smallbones: well put. I have zero problems including well wishes to someone who has been a highly visible part of the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In general, although I do agree that it's important to be restrained in editorial proffering of opinions outside the opinion pages, I think it's within the bounds of propriety for us to wish Wikipedians well in their job search, offer condolences when they die, congratulations when they live well, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Easy CSS image crop

I think this might actually be worth an article. The old CSS image crop template is so complex to use that just having something that will do all the calculations is enough to make it so much more user friendly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is anything going on with publication?

I might even ask for an hour or so delay. @JPxG and Bri: please let me know via email if anything is up! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm waiting until 9pm eastern for some news, and I really do hope that we can publish about that time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm giving up for tonight. I may have something a bit more about 11am eastern tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd much prefer that we publish ASAP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm around, but I was hoping to hear something from JPxG before rushing in. Let's evaluate tomorrow. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

OK with me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. @JPxG: If you still anticipate being involved with the publication of this issue, it would be good to weigh in here now (and also to update the deadline template, where I have just provisionally moved the publication deadline to Jan 30 20:00 UTC per the above). Otherwise let's assume Bri will carry out publication this time.

Everyone can still help out by going over the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, take care of any still missing "copyedited" checkmarks, and also weigh in on "final approval" if there are any tricky cases. We should assume that Comix, Arbitration report, WikiProject report, and Web report will not be part of this issue.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like JPxG has started grooming articles for publication today. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Combing and brushing them. I will be here to send it out, although I apologize for contributing more or less nothing for this issue. jp×g🗯️ 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good timing. I've gone as far as I can with the article. 16:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've completed copyediting for the last two columns (N&N and Traffic report): feel free to give them a double-check, if needed! : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There is a new publishing script that JPxG and I decided I should run for this issue, after he marks pages "ready to publish". I've been using an older edition of the publishing script that has become obsolete, and it's always a good idea to make sure that the tools do not have some unexpected dependency on the user environment. In other words, confirm that we have two people who can actually publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. (FWIW, the "new" script is already mentioned in our process documentation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Script.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone: is User:Cremastra/crossword supposed to be in this issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It is marked as "unreviewed" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Crossword, so technically speaking the answer is no - although if someone were to quickly review it and move it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Crossword, why not.

I marked it approved and moved it to the next issue space. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apropos, there are quite a few other pending submissions at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions that are a several weeks old and haven't seen a reaction yet.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ready

@Bri: All the articles are signed off on. It should be good to roam now. jp×g🗯️ 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Starting... ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No errors on simulated run, using the new script. Proceeding with real publishing in a second... ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, it finished. I tried to follow the order of columns used in the last several editions, maybe we should have a guide for that?? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I know there's different ways to view reader feedback, but I still use this "related changes" hack. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thank you to both of you! Andreas JN466 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 19-25 Opinion

@Smallbones Just one more note: your blurb on the latest issue and Molly's video got me thinking about a suspect episode of plagiarism I might have fallen victim of a few months ago, as a soccer team likely copied and translated an article I had created to announce the signing of that same player.

While I didn't have strong feelings about what happened at the time (and I don't have them now, either), I wonder if it might be interesting to write about my own perception of this issue in the "Opinion" column... Oltrepier (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Should I take your thanks as a "yes"? : D Oltrepier (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG @Smallbones I've finally managed to upload my article, so it's now ready to be copyedited.

I really struggled to write a proper conclusion, so the drop in quality towards the end might be significant, but I hope people will still be able to take home the main message (and a good laugh)! Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bri: Is it too late to ask you if you can try to generate some pics for the article via DALL-E, please? For now, I've gone for Ackman again, but I fear it might become a distraction, considering that I just give him a quick mention at the start of my article... Oltrepier (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Could give it a shot. Got any starters for image concepts? I was thinking maybe a student copying from another student's test...? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Good! And maybe the student who is getting copied might have the W of "Wikipedia" on his/her shirt... : D Oltrepier (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  An AI generated image of a student copying another student's work (trial 1)
  DALL-E 3, prompt: Bri
• 
  An AI generated image of a student copying another student's work (trial 2)
  DALL-E 3, prompt: Bri
• 
  An AI generated image of a student copying another student's work (trial 3)
  DALL-E 3, prompt: Bri
• 
  An AI generated image of a student copying another student's work (trial 4, manga style)
  DALL-E 3, prompt: Bri

All of them look pretty good to me. At first the Manga one looked "too angry" but it may be the best way forward. #2 kinda grabbed me at first glance, but I'm not really sure why. Maybe it's the most realistic. #3 is not far behind. And nothing wrong with #1. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bri and Smallbones: I've got a feeling that DALL-E just loves Korean people... : D

Jokes aside, though, they all look stunning!

I would discard #1 because of the non-sensical text right under the W on the girl's shirt; the slight problem I've actually got with #3 and #4 is that, in both cases, the girl who is supposed to be copying is looking at the other student, rather than their home-work. That being said, I would go either with #2 (my favorite) or #4, so feel free to choose! Oltrepier (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I eventually went for #4, as you suggested: thank you so much for your help! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bro in the second one is leaning in for a little more than just copying the answers lmao. We should keep this one on file for if there's ever a yaoi scandal jp×g🗯️ 03:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Wait, did I do something wrong? Oltrepier (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. I think JPxG is just saying (jokingly) it would not be appropriate for an American workplace. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, these programs have a real problem with fingers. They just can't get them right. Andreas JN466 10:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Views for 20-2

Has anyone got the pageview stats for the latest issue? I'm curious to see how it performed! Oltrepier (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Go way up to the top of the page and expand the first light green bar. Recent research R00LZ ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Sorry, I didn't even notice it... Thank you!

Interestingly enough, despite not being so viewed in comparison to other articles, it seems like my opinion piece has received a good response, so I'm happy I've been able to spark a discussion. Oltrepier (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What I've been able to piece together from pageview stats over the last year or so is that they're basically noise. I mean, they're meaningful in the sense that we know which of our articles are being read the most, but there doesn't really seem to be much correlation between view count and writing quality, or headline quality, or even the subject of the coverage -- by far the most relevant question is "did this get posted on a big social media site or not" ;^) jp×g🗯️ 03:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now overtaken by Smallbones' Disinformation piece, which made it to the Hacker News front page yesterday. Andreas JN466 10:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, Disinfo got 30,000 views in the last day. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In the media -Azerbaijan tech

I'm not sure I have enough for this, or whether we should publish it. The topic just has a smell to it. That's all I want to say. Any advice appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Essay in a few weeks?

Hi! As I recover from my illness I've taken to working quietly on User:Ixtal/Analysis on administrators' activity. I should finish gathering all the necessary data to finish the tables and related graphics in the next 2-3 weeks and was wondering if I could share the results through the signpost. I realized some years ago we didn't have much data on the admin activity from each cohort of admins and that limited our understanding of past admin activity levels as well as our ability to forecast the future status of adminship. I'd like to get some eyes on the finished report as I'm sure other editors will be able to derive better insights from the data, so sharing it here would be very useful. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ixtal, I love the idea! I think that it's great to have more data-based reporting in The Signpost. Once you're done the full table, I definitely concur that it'd be great to have a more detailed writeup (min 2 paragraphs) analyzing the data. Best, — Frostly (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, data mining with Quarry, I like it! Looking forward to the conclusions to be drawn ... do you think each cohort will be most active the year they are elected, then dropping off over time? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too early for me to say anything to that respect but I'd hypothesize that to be the case. I only have complete data on 2007 admins and near-complete data on 2006 admins and they quickly drop off in the 3-4 years after adminship. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-2 Disinformation report

90% of the article is a transcript (to be handled as a quote - copy editing would be counterproductive. The quality (or lack of it) of the written text is part of the story) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-01 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). 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) 06:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This should be publishable now if need be, although another pair of eyes for copyediting wouldn't hurt. I am still working on a review of the toxicity paper discussed here last month and some accompanying analysis, which may or may not be ready by the actual publication time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Mixed up Newsroom section transclusions (again)

@Jayen466: FYI, I'm reverting your changes to this and another section heading. While you were completely correct that these sections concern the RR and N&N sections from the issue 2 of volume 20 (rather than issue 1), the weird way in which the transclusions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom are set up requires them to carry the previous issue's number. (Among other things, your edits made it appear that a "Recent research" section has been envisaged for this issue, which is not correct.)

This is yet another instance of the entirely predictable and indeed predicted confusions resulting from this not very well thought out new Newsroom setup, see previous discussions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it was pretty thought out, seeing as this is about the fourth or fifth discussion about the specific detail of which volume number should be denoted in the section headings -- it's not clear what the next volume and issue number is going to be prior to publication. It doesn't exist yet. Adding 1 to the number would produce wrong results if it were done prior to an issue rollover. If you want, I can add "plus one" to the end of every section heading, so that this issue will stop being brought up. jp×g🗯️ 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the template now creates and parses sections with "The issue immediately after XX-YY" in the title. jp×g🗯️ 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Vami

I can't say I have the time to do Vami justice in an obit, but I'd like to at least mention Vami's very voluminous list of birds. Vami approached me some years ago, knowing that I quite like birds, and proposed this list of bird articles which were FA's in de.wiki, but not en.wiki. He had wanted to take them to FA with me. I'm sad to say I never got around to any of them, because I always thought "I can do it later." Well, later hasn't come. I think the best way we can remember editors is to carry on their work, so I strongly invite people to take up the projects which Vami was working on and see them through to the end. I certainly intend to take these birds through, and would love help from any bird editors to make that a reality. If any of you editorial types want to include this, edited as much as you'd like, in the obit, it'd be certainly appreciated. Vami was a really nice and cool kid, and he's very dearly missed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

More -

• User:Vami IV
• all wikis
• Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2024

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-3 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). 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) 01:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

About the 20-3 issue

Hello! Do you need help completing or reviewing any of the columns?

I'll try to go through the short entries over at "In the media", at least! Oltrepier (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think any help is welcome at this stage, Oltrepier! Please do whatever you can. Andreas JN466 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm too involved to report on it, but WP:RFA2024 seems like something I'd expect the Signpost to cover. Sdkb ^talk 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

About 7 articles are basically ready

@JPxG and Red-tailed hawk: the following look ready to me. But there really are no copy editors this issue, so I shouldn't do the original writing or formatting and light copy editing and then the final copy editing. About 7 articles should be ready

• Disinformation report
• In the media
• Gallery
• Serendipity
• Traffic report
• News from Wiki Edu (please don't forget it this time)

I don't know anything about crosswords, but

• Crossword looks done

I don't see much of a future for this News and notes so I think it's best to just leave it out,

fiddle with the pix for the landing page and publish what we have and give everybody at least 13 days until the next issue.

You're not going to be able to create anything that's missing by your self in any reasonable amount of time IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can pitch in on copyediting the things Smallbones wrote. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Got the Disinfo report & In the media, and some miscellaneous changes elsewhere. Sorry, that's all I can do tonight. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't have the time to commit to doing copyediting; I began reviewing a GAN yesterday and I'm in the process of updating the article on the Super Bowl. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have beefed up "News and notes" and think it now has enough content to be published. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much, HaeB. Work ... Andreas JN466 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have some severe reservations about the Wiki Edu piece, and I was in error not to mention them last time. Essentially, the article being discussed is rather concerning. Of course we don't expect student editors to never make mistakes, and some amount of copyediting and formatting is to be expected from others; but the article they wrote is a heavily promotional vanity piece, to the point where it resembles COI/UPE. The fact that a student wrote this for college credit, to me, almost seems worse than if they'd just been paid to post a CV on Wikipedia -- it indicates that we are instructing people to write like this. I mean, here:

His academic pursuits reached a pinnacle when he earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Oregon in 1964.

[...]

Smith, who holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry expressed his ongoing commitment to Delaware State University as trustee emeritus. He plans to stay engaged with the university and continue attending board meetings in a non-voting capacity, expressing his desire to support Delaware State University's growth and evolution. Reflecting on his time as both interim president and board chair, Smith highlighted the need for effective communication and a shared understanding of goals between the university president and the board for successful decision-making. Smith's years of working at Delaware State University led the university toward continuous progress, positioning it to become one of the leading HBCUs in the country.

There have been controversies in the past with promotional articles about academics, and specifically with Wiki Edu: my understanding is that, rather than malice, this type of behavior is simply so ubiquitous and expected among professional academics that it just feels normal to them. At any rate, I don't really feel comfortable running a piece in which we straightforwardly endorse this as a work of art. I don't really know if this is something that can be resolved by copyediting, without essentially gutting it and writing a different article in its stead. jp×g🗯️ 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Not surprisingly, I completely disagree with you. This was written by a college freshman (it's pretty hard to call him an academic in his first semester) not writing in his first language, probably his first few months outside of Egypt. I don't know the reputation of Rutgers-Newark and I don't want to put it down in any way, but at least technically it can be called an inner city university. Now, I recall my first semester at University without any of those difficulties; the author of the Wikipedia article seems to have done a lot better than I did.

If I recall correctly, only about 2% of Wikipedia editors in America are Black vs. about 12% percent in the US population. And we have nothing else in The Signpost related to Black History Month. Smith, the subject of the Wikipedia article, is clearly notable. A Black from Memphis, TN earning a PhD in the 1960s and getting a job at DuPont - the top chemical company in the world back then, maybe still today - and then working there for 40 years rising to Vice President of Research - yep that's quite an achievement. What I see in the original article related to your complaint is one peacock term "pinnacle" which would have been better expressed as an "accomplishment" or "achievement", but that's just one word. The final paragraph is not a major flaw either, it's a difficult thing for many people to write an article without a conclusion. It's more repetitive than promotional. Finally I think you are wrong in your criticism of Wiki Edu - who else is reaching out to new editors in any similar way. Don't expect perfection, and please don't bite the newbies.

What was it that attracted me to this article? It's really simple. The simple joy expressed by "I felt like it was a piece of art that I kept looking at". I still feel that way when I write a good article, but I'll guarantee you it wasn't with the first article I wrote on Wikipedia.

I think you've still got time to put it in this issue. Please do it. It's a good article, and it doesn't break any rules. Perhaps it may be controversial with some folks - so much the better.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I see that I'm 45 minutes late for getting it in the regular way. And you are more than a full day late, didn't ping me, didn't even show up before the deadline. But don't worry, you can still put it in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean the kid. He didn't do anything wrong: he was doing what the professor said he should do, which is what students are supposed to do. They aren't supposed to know everything (otherwise why would they go to school?)

My issue is that this seems quite similar in nature to a previous incident, where some combination of poor training and bad communication led to students being roped into writing bad articles, which got the axe, and after which everybody got mad online.

My concern here is that, when he took a class that purported to teach him how to write Wikipedia articles, it seems to have instead taught him how to write speedy deletion candidates, and then a bunch of people signed off on this for some reason. Sure, maybe the guy is notable, but the notability is not clearly commensurate with the volume that was written. In short, I don't know what our answer is supposed to be when someone reads this and asks 'but the article was extremely bad, why are you bragging that people got a student to write this and then approved it'?

As for the delay in editing and publishing this issue, that was my fault and I apologize for it.

I would write more here but I will have to sleep first jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-Signposter here). That WikiEdu article is indeed a really bad advertisement for their program. The instructor and the WikiEdu advisor failed the student and Wikipedia. It was flagged at Wikipediocracy and I made two sweeping edits fixing it up: the first fixing extensive repetition and a lack of specifics, not to mention burying his primary claim to notability, his interim university presidency; the second adding another honor and more sources. (The original article was a disservice to the man.) I've been waiting for you to publish the item in order to write a comment. Since the item didn't get published, and is a republication of an in-house blog entry, the kindest thing to WikiEdu would be to not publish it to further cement their bad reputation on-wiki. Alternatively you could write an independent article on the failings of WikiEdu, in which the trumpeting of this article would be just one example. As a news and commentary organ associated with Wikipedia, I think you shouldn't be simply republishing other projects' blog entries anyway, but I'm not a Signposter. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"(Non-Signposter here)": That can easily be changed, Yngvadottir! I think you are pretty well informed on all the topic areas we cover, and help is always appreciated. Just chip in whenever you feel like it. Best, Andreas JN466 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Andreas, but I would be very bad at it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Post-publication (issue 3)

As usual you can see user feedback on the issue with this link that I created. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

20-3 News and notes

@HaeB What about moving your entry on the US Supreme Court hearings to the top of the column? To me, it looks like the most eye-catching bit of news... Oltrepier (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to move it! Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

20-3 In the media

Hello! I just wanted to bring you a bit of news that likely didn't make it to the yesterday's issue: After Midnight incorporated a wiki-race from Snoop Dogg to the Great Depression in one of their quizzes from the show's latest episode!

It might not mean much, but I thought it was still pretty funny! Oltrepier (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Who was working on the Scottish Parliament situation? Oltrepier (talk) 12:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to know, because I can try to expand the entry a little bit, but it looked like @Bri wanted to double-check the news independently... Oltrepier (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please go anead with it, I will be short on time to contribute. If you mean the TODO there, it was actually inserted by Red-tailed hawk. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Right, thank you for clarifying.

I'm planning to get it done this evening (watch out, Italian GMT here...) Oltrepier (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bri: The article should be ready now! Sorry if it took so long... I should note that I've managed to retrieve all of the mentioned edits on Alex Cole-Hamilton's page, except for the last one. I can't find anything about the edits on Michelle Ballantyne and George Adam, either. I guess I'm just too tired at the moment...

On a side note, I've got a feeling that this story is a very strong candidate for one of the next "Disinformation reports": God only knows how many MSP articles could have been touched by those IP users. Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

MSP = Member of Scottish Parliament, not "mainstream press", that threw me for a second! Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Obituary

I just wanted to make sure the Signpost was aware that photographs of Vami_IV contributed by his family are available in commons:Category:Vami_IV. Courtesy ping: Bri. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I came to say the same. Another image to use would be the rose design that he made and carried on his talk page in memory of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024

Hey, thought I'd throw it out there – if someone's doing a piece at WP:RFA2024 (probably something worth covering in terms of project/policy news), i'd be happy to talk about it on the record to help round out the piece :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup

I noticed the next edition of The Signpost comes out soon. Was wondering if there'd be any support for me writing another article on updates of the WikiCup like I have twice before? I'd be glad to make it an annual column if anyone supports it (kind of liked doing the past two articles). Thoughts? @JPxG: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Delay

I see that most of the started articles for this issue aren't in copyeditable state, so I think it would be condign to put off the publication for a day (or maybe a little longer). jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG I agree, it would help us work on them a little more calmly... Oltrepier (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will see to get RR into a publishable state within the next six hours, and should also be able to help out a bit with N&N and/or ITM.

Looking at the other blue links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status:

• Traffic report looks ready to be copyedited (CCing Igordebraga to confirm)
• WikiProject report has substantial content already but also lots of placeholders - Shushugah, would you prefer this to be postponed to the next issue?
• Tips and tricks and Obituary still consist mostly of Lorem ipsum and should probably be postponed or removed
• News from Wiki Edu seems problematic per the discussion above
• Web report is an inscrutable draft that was last edited in December and should probably be moved somewhere else or be deleted to avoid confusion

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, please do postpone my WikiProject report, I will ping again new/existing contributors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Adam Cuerden: Are you still working on your respective columns? Oltrepier (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had a ton of paperwork regarding my dad's death. Next issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden I'm so sorry, I didn't know about it... Oltrepier (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't seem that CaptainEek was planning to work on the obituary, based on the thread above (which probably would have been better placed on the suggestions page).

Overall it looks like we should go with N&N, ITM, Traffic report and RR, only. (RR should be publishable now, after Bri and I had to wrestle a bit with the rather unwieldy Nature paper, but could still use some copyediting. The former three still haven't been marked as ready for copyediting and also lack titles and blurbs.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB Oh, I messed up, sorry.

To be honest, I could have write a brief obituary myself, but since I never got to know Vami personally, I'm afraid of just "phoning it in" and sounding dishonest... Oltrepier (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Any progress regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report since last month? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's a need for more articles for the upcoming edition, I'd gladly writeup a report in the next few hours on the WikiCup (first round just finished), like I did a few months back, if there's any interest. @JPxG:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Would there be any interest in me writing something up about it for this edition? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for JPxG (who is currently tasked with making the final calls on such questions), but it sounds like a good idea to me! Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 You've got my co-sign, as well!

On a side note, has anyone had any updates on Wiki Loves Monuments? Oltrepier (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The organizers came out with a big announcement on February 26 informing the world that ... "we approach the highly anticipated announcement of the winners of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2023" ;) I would check the social media channels mentioned there if you are looking for future updates. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

OK - will make sure to write one up in the next few hours. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, HaeB, and Oltrepier: Wrote it up here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiCup report. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some quick copyediting. The layout is still messed up due to an apparent bug in the series template (also in this earlier story) - CCing JPxG as he appears to have looked into that template most recently. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I worked around the series template bug. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good now -- I don't know exactly what's going on, layoutwise, with the sidebar templates. I haven't had time to check it out; I am a little burned-out on Signpost technical maintenance, so it may be a while, and in the meantime perhaps we just need to have the repeated end and start templates (unless anyone else can fix what's going on there). jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, I am going to start going through now and making ready. jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nap and we roll. jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG Wait, I'll try to take over the obituary real quick! Oltrepier (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Right, now the obituary should be ready to go, as well. Since I never got to know Vami personally, I was afraid of doing everyone a disservice, so I just used sawyer-mcdonell's note and gave him writing credits. Please let me know if it's still OK. Oltrepier (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the credit! I'll add that @AirshipJungleman29 copyedited & reconfigured it at my request, so I'd request that he be given some credit too. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Sawyer-mcdonell Sure, I've done it just now. Thank you for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Lovely! sawyer * he/they * talk 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Issue 2-04 publication

Since JPxG has said he's making ready for publication, I want to suggest people go pencils-down ASAP so we can get this thing out the door. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That "start going through now and making ready" announcement was made over 20 hours ago, followed by no pertinent edits yet. I am very very unconvinced that team members making further edits in the meantime is the main hold-up here (btw, I see you made some additions to N&N yourself right after posting that "pencils-down" suggestion here).

Generally speaking, as we have discussed several times here over the last year or so, the problem is the lack of reliable deadlines (this issue was supposed to be published over three days ago). They just won't be taken serious if the EiC just sits back and waits for everything come in, then swoops in days after the supposed publication time to edit heavily and make decisions (and late-adds his own stories without a chance of them getting reviewed by others). Rather, one needs to be actively involved in the run-up to the deadline, e.g. by following up on stale drafts or providing feedback when asked. Both of these tasks had to be taken up by others in this section, and if it helps we could think about devolving that role more formally (in any case I would like to already highlight Oltrepier's great work on curating this issue).

Apropos, it would be good if the next issue's publication date could be set to a Sunday again per our usual custom.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @HaeB, although I did what I did mostly out of my natural selflessness... mixed with self-annihilation. : )

But jokes aside, I think all of the articles we agreed on publishing are actually good to go now; I've only left Vami's obituary un-ticked, because I wrote it myself, so I thought another pair of eyes would only improve it before giving it the final green light.

By the way, I take advantage of this discussion to let you know that I won't guarantee you to be able to contribute as much to the next few issues, due to real-life priorities (mostly study priorities). Sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call it devolution. In the ancient times of 2022 tasks were divided to some extent (e.g. the editor-in-chief and publication manager were separate people). There was also one issue a month instead of two. Then for a while there were two editors-in-chief, and overall more manpoower available for writing and editing, and this swell of momentum was at the time the main impetus for moving to two issues a month. Well, now there is one EiC, who is me, and no publication manager, and it is somewhat difficult to find time for editing and formatting and publishing the whole thing as well as shepherding articles through the editorial process. Some of the stuff you've mentioned, I don't really know how to avoid. For example, if I publish articles marked for publication without editing them at all -- some of them from this issue were marked as ready for final approval and still had lorem ipsum at the start -- it will just look bad, and if I let stuff get published that's too edgy and spicy and unsubstantiated we will get dragged to ANI and our articles nominated for deletion and our editorial control eroded further (I am willing to fight these battles over stuff that is newsworthy and of public interest but not for, say, throwaway off-color remarks about the length of fingers -- we know how that went last time). If I just omit articles from the issue that aren't ready and don't add to them, it is sitting back and doing nothing, but if I complete unwritten articles by adding stuff to them (or write my own) it is swooping. I postponed publication of this issue by a couple days because none of the articles were close to ready, which is being late. At any rate, I have not contributed a piece of original reporting in multiple months.

I would very much appreciate if someone were able to help out with the publishing process.

I think that, if nothing else, the technical work has made it a lot easier to do this (the newsroom automatically displays all the articles without having to be manually edited every time, there's an automatically updating calendar in the deadline template, the deadline template itself is far simpler and easier to use, the draft templates give better help for article and image formatting, the publishing script/tagging script/draft templates/display templates now allow images without excruciating hours of manual formatting) -- so, while it still takes time, it no longer requires someone to go elbow-deep into the task beyond knowing basics of wiki markup.

I've mentioned here once or twice that the faster schedule has proven somewhat difficult, and that there would probably be less stress if we moved back to monthly publication, and it didn't seem very persuasive. Nonetheless, I think that for the next issue I am just going to set the date to three weeks from now, and if we manage to figure out something that allows an issue to be released two weeks from now that's great -- otherwise I do not think it's worthwhile. jp×g🗯️ 05:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-4 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). 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) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing this [6] is on your radar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't, thanks for the heads-up! On first glance it doesn't quite seem to be in scope for "Recent research", e.g. because it is not an academic publication, so I think "In the media" might be the best section for it. Depending on the publication time of this issue (cf. below) I might be able to do a brief writeup if nobody else beats me to it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Vami IV last FAC

Last issue contained a moving obituary from his colleagues to Vami IV. On 5 March 2024, Boundary Fire (2017)—his final Featured Article Candidate—was promoted. Here is the FAC discussion, which saw Volunteers Premeditated Chaos and Guerillero shepherd the piece through the closing stages of the usual robust review process to achieve for Vami the final, finest accolade a Wikpedia writer can earn.

Acta est fabula, plaudite.

——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The last good place

Just came across this study yesterday. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, we covered it extensively in November already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We got mixed up on the publication dates – the online journal had published a year ago, but the print edition ran it just last month. Therefore I included it again in the Recent research draft thinking it was new, but fortunately HaeB noticed. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Interview with WMF leadership

I have a draft at

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Interview

@Smallbones and Jayen466: Thanks for helping to coordinate this

Details:

1. This article links to the unedited draft video interview. If needed, I can have that unedited version in Wikimedia Commons within hours, and it is shareable as is. I do not expect to have an edited version uploaded till end of month.
2. I did this interview as a Signpost journalist. I would appreciate anyone calling out if that seems inappropriate, and if rather this should be from me as an individual community member.
3. The tone of this interview is giving a platform to WMF to say what they like. To me, the community interest here includes 1) confirming that the communication channel is open 2) providing the editorial service of linking to name-dropped concepts 3) curating links to background information not mentioned 4) hosting a comments section for anyone to react and 5) publishing this in the record as a collection of conversations on this topic, which could be useful when there a need to cite everything discussed on this topic till now.
4. I appreciate anyone checking to add more links or more cited sources that I may have missed.
5. I appreciate any feedback on this interview as a precedent for getting video interviews into The Signpost. I or anyone else could do more, if this format works.

Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this yet but adding new media formats to The Signpost beyond pure print seems like a healthy and good direction for us. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bluerasberry,

Thanks for this. I was wondering if you want to include some further sources at the end? Such as:

• The latest Fundraising Report 22/23 (I think you are currently linking to the one from the year before)
• Preparing Together: Updates on 2023 English fundraising (follow up post from the ABC for fundraising that you already have)
• And maybe 7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia as well as Love Wikipedia? Get to know the nonprofit behind it? These give a good background overview for readers
• You can also always link to our meta page where we are happy to engage with anyone who is interested.

Hope this is helpful. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): Thanks, they all fit, I added them all. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This issue

Somewhat large backlog to get through, which I will take a crack at tomorrow. Somebody has mentioned that there hasn't been an arbitration report in some time, so I will try to get something written. jp×g🗯️ 10:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Will the arbitration report have something to do with the comment at AN: It's no surprise that the environmental modeling software company with four Wikipedia articles is the one that has a Wikipedia admin on its payroll.? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added a story to N&N which should make it into a viable standalone section. ITM isn't quite yet, though.

Given that only "Interview" and "Humor" appear to be without major content gaps at this time, I think it is safe to assume that the updated deadline is not realistic either, so I just went ahead and tentatively moved it a bit further (JPxG, feel free to adjust to the actual intended publication time).

I'll aim to have RR publishable by that time, and hopefully I can also contribute a bit more to ITM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be on a plane in a couple days, and the couple weeks after that I will be on the same computer (but with a comically tiny screen). My hope is to spend most of tomorrow working and packing, and I don't know how much of an impressive arb report can get done between that and everything else, it might be kind of thin gruel. Some things that need to happen still:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Submission proposal: Op-ed on Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Designing a new community wishlist
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Progress on the plan: How the Wikimedia Foundation has advanced on its Annual Plan goals

I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue; they have to get moved into articles and formatted properly (and piccies found). If someone could help out with this I would experience extreme pleasure (I will apologize for taking care of these extremely late on my own behalf). jp×g🗯️ 10:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue - can you explain your assessment more in case of the third piece? I don't see any content in the linked submission (User:JWheeler-WMF/Designing a new Community Wishlist).

Also, not to get into wider discussions about balancing opinion and journalistic reporting (or independent coverage vs. advocacy by interested parties), but four (or 3.5) different WMF-authored pieces in a single Signpost issue seems quite a lot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

last night i offered to help out with the Signpost (via discord message), but i'm not sure where to start, or what would be most helpful... anyone have any suggestions of things that need doing? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media links some news items that still need a (possible quite brief) writeup, and (as discussed above), this could too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

i can definitely try my hand at blocking down some summaries for In the media :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

i've written a blurb about Lucy Moore/women on Wikipedia (although i wasn't sure what to put for the subtitle), and added the sources about alleged anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia mentioned at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2024#March - i haven't written a blurb or anything for that topic though. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! I added one sentence. Someone still needs to find a catchy subtitle for each.

Two other recent news items that seem worth covering in ITEM if you're interested: [7] (see also our earlier coverage: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/News_and_notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject), [8]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

i recall discussing the roads wiki fork with other editors on discord - it's something people are interested in. i can write a little something about both! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HaeB and @Sawyer-mcdonell - I hope that I am posting in the right place and tagging the right users; if not, please forgive me. ;) My question is whether it is possible to include more caveats about the World Jewish Congress (WJC) report that is covered in the In Brief section titled "Accusations of bias"? The Foundation takes allegations of bias on Wikimedia projects seriously, so several staff have reviewed the report. They found that the WJC report makes a number of unsubstantiated claims of bias on Wikipedia. It lacks adequate references, quotes, links, or other sources to support its purported findings. Further, the report misunderstands Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as well as the importance of anonymity for user privacy on Wikimedia projects. Thanks! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

having read the WJC report myself, i completely agree with the WMF's conclusions here about the poor quality of the report - as a very new contributor (mentioned above) i'm unsure of the best way to include such caveats, so i'll ping @JPxG (who himself added to the blurb) for some more input. i also wonder whether it might be better to move this to a full story rather than an in-the-brief blurb? currently we only have 1 lead story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly room in ITM (and other Signpost sections) to include context and informed criticism about the covered publications.

I just made this into a full story, taking Lauren's note above into account and adding other context and links to previous related coverage.

@LDickinson (WMF): thanks for the input, and generally speaking (i.e. without having formed a conclusive opinion about this specific report myself) it is great to see the Foundation pushing back publicly against shoddy research and defending Wikipedia against unfounded bias accusations. (As you might be aware, we too have been doing this at the Signpost at various times, including for some pretty egregious examples.) My only feedback would be that criticism of such faulty research is even more useful (for our audience and probably also for the criticized researchers) if it is concrete and substantiated itself. Are the reviews by WMF staff that you mentioned public, or could they be made public? It would be great to be able to link them in our story.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@LDickinson (WMF) Out of curiosity, has the WMF published any comment/response to the WJC report somewhere? If not, do you intend to? For the interested, I used it as a ref at Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and another editor added some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HaeB, @Sawyer-mcdonell, and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for updating the write-up to include the Foundation's assessment of the report. I’d like to add an important point: The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia. We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ). We are committed to further examining any additional information shared about or related to this research. Could this be included in the story?

As is our typical practice, we will respond to any relevant media inquiries with our assessment and comments on the report, rather than posting a public statement. Thanks again! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure how much our readers would benefit from reading through generic PR truisms like The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia (I mean, it would be quite surprising if *discouraged* such research). I know that these have value in other text genres like press releases, but the Signpost, like most journalistic publication really, usually tries to focus on the actually newsworthy information.

As for We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ): As a general statement this is likewise commendable but not very newsworthy. However, if included in this story, many or most readers may, not unreasonably, perceive it as an insinuation that this "strong recommendation" was not followed in case of the present report. And that brings me back to my above feedback about your earlier (already included) statement, which I don't see you addressing: Criticism is more valuable if it is concrete and substantiated (after all, unsubstantiated claims was one of the problems you raised yourself about the WJC's criticism of Wikipedia). So which policies and best practices did Dr Lir violate concretely in her report, in the Wikimedia Foundation's assessment? Again, I'm not against calling out researchers' failings and am not defending this report. But we do have some responsibility about what kind of negative statement we highlight and publicize in the Signpost. And sometimes academics who have made mistakes hit back aggressively instead of addressing valid criticism (see e.g. this very extreme recent example, smaller versions of which exist in many places), so we need to be prepared to defend this coverage if needed.

By the way, the FAQ you recommend is essentially unmaintained, and horribly outdated in various parts and incomplete in others (notwithstanding the very commendable efforts of one staff member back in 2021 to fix several other parts, as a side project at the Wikimania hackathon). E.g. related to the policies and best practices part, it makes no mention of the WP:NOTLAB policy that enwiki instituted in 2017.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @HaeB. I take your point. Stated plainly, I’ll refer back to my first note: The report lacks adequate references, quotes, links, or other sources to support its purported findings. While we take claims like these seriously, we found them to be unsubstantiated. Without adequate sources and adherence to our standard research guidelines, it’s difficult to comment further on their veracity. LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Were you still going to write up the UCoC item you added to N&N? Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• I am going to head out in a couple hours, and that is probably the last time I'll be online today. So far it looks like we have most of a usable ITM, traffic report and N&N, a couple light columns (humor and comix) and an interview due to be uploaded in full on the 28th. I don't see anything for recent research; I had hoped to have more time for a discussion or arb report but did not. I think that it might be better to hold back for a day or so; if we just ran on the 28th we could probably have a full RR and interview as well as enough time for a discussion/arb report. jp×g🗯️ 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the update (but, broken record, please also have the deadline template reflect such information for the benefit of everyone contributing to this issue; I just tried do to that myself, again).

  It sounds like you were saying that we won't publish before the 28th (UTC?) in any case because of that interview. As always, I'm committed to not have RR become the bottleneck that holds up publication, I'll now aim to have it in a publishable state in about 24h, which I assume will still be well before the new actual deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  To highlight a few other still open tasks besides those discussed above, in case Sawyer-mcdonell or others would like to chip in on those:

  • Copyediting and drafting headlines, as per the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status. (The lead story in N&N has actually been available for copyediting since Sunday already, but I hadn't marked N&N as "needs copyedit" yet since some other draft items there are not yet done.)
  • Fleshing out or removing the remaining missing items in N&N and ITM

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  i can definitely work on those! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  speaking of headlines, i'm not sure i'm familiar enough with how we do headlines to be confident in that - i looked around for some kind of guideline about it, but couldn't find any. i did do some copyediting & fleshing out, though. i think the graphs story for N&N is pretty well-written, from the perspective of someone who is not very technically-inclined; i could start something for the UCoC story if no one else has something cooking up. also, are we thinking there will just be one main story for ITM? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Re UCoC, we haven't heard back from User:Jayen466 since the above ping, so yes, it would be great if you could start writing that up (a brief item instead of a full story would still be better that nothing).

  There isn't really a guideline about headlines as far as I'm aware. So I would just say go with your sense of what you might find most informative and interesting as a reader yourself. (Some current team members love to indulge their personal sense of humor with these, but we're getting some reader pushback on that.) In N&N, NightWolf1223 has already helped us out in the meantime.

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  sounds good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @HaeB@Sawyer-mcdonell Thank you both very much for your work on this. I've added a link to the user comments to that section, added a Wiki Loves Monuments section and added the affiliates' annual reports to the In briefs. News and notes should be publishable now. Andreas JN466 15:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  lovely! the WLM pictures are great :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Lots of progress since yesterday but we still have quite a few checkmarks missing in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status, and it seems nobody has yet followed JPxG's invitation above, more than three days ago to help out with the submissions (see things that need to happen still) . Perhaps Sawyer-mcdonell is interested in trying out their hand on these as well? As mentioned above, I'm skeptical about running all four at once; my vote would be to focus on the first two only (the NPP update and Maryana's op-ed); the annual plan one seems unfortunately a bit outdated already and the wishlist one consists of lorem ipsum so far. Also I'm myself behind with RR, but will have something publishable in a few hours.

@JPxG: Regarding the graphs extension piece: I'm fine with splitting it out from N&N now that we have other content there. But I think "Technology report" would be the best rubric for that, will move it there if you don't mind. (It's actually where I had intended to put this in the first place, before deciding to use it to fill the void at N&N instead ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is good. I also agree about not running too many of the WMF submissions at the same time; I think we could run the Maryana one this issue and the NPP one the next (or both in this issue) and leave the rest. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

i can try transferring the Maryana op-ed to the actual op-ed section & maybe give it a little copyedit ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An update and new deadline

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I should be able to help you all again for the next issues, starting from next week!

Speaking of new issues, when is the next deadline going to land? And, most importantly... why did the Deadline table got so angry that it started zapping green laser? Oltrepier (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Since our cadence is now first Sunday and third Sunday of the month, I set the next issue to 21 April, jumping over the first Sunday which is only 1 week from past issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I commit to completing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. If I don't get more participants, I will fill in more trivia/look back at some of the accomplishments/other quirks of the Wiki Projects and their early days. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am also back from the shadow realm, as of today, and will be trying to follow up on a bunch of stuff that has gone undealtwith the last while. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Next "In the media"

@Bri and Oltrepier: Would the "blind faith" part not go under Recent research, since it was discussing a study? QuicoleJR (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR I didn't add it myself, but I agree: it would serve as a nice opener to the RR column!

@Bri By the way, I think the entries about the ban lift in Pakistan and edit wars on articles about San Francisco politicians both have lead story potential: I can try to work on and expand them in the next few days, if you'd like to! Oltrepier (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if you did that! Consider expansion of ITN items a "go" at any time in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Good find, and yes, feel free to move the coverage to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research. Let's make sure to cite the study itself too and not just the media article. In any case I added the paper to the usual to-do list for RR, which otherwise still needs to be updated with new publications; I hope to do that within the next two days (we are bit short-staffed this month). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note here that the Pakistan thing [9] is from last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy, 2023. Thanks; I removed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I've finally got the job done for all the lead stories I committed to: sorry for the wait... I've already noticed that Smallbones is working on the Ruviki article, so thank you for that! On the other hand, while working on the San Francisco story I realized how little I know about US political divisions (as a foreign), so apologies in advance for any kind of blunders; plus, I feel like the ending I wrote is pretty weak, so feel free to improve it, as well... Finally, the After Midnight entry should be already fine, but another pair of eyes is always welcome! Oltrepier (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Request assistance in staging report of WikiConference North America

I submit this for publication in the next issue.

• User:Bluerasberry/signpost_wikicon2023_draft

The conference was in November 2023, but just this month I got a collection of conference videos published, and also the event photographer uploaded their images in February.

I have some conference organizers reviewing this right now and I am not ready for copyediting, but can someone stage this with the Signpost markup, or give me a suggestion for how to do that? I could do it with brief instructions. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I can set up the skeleton of a WikiConference report for you. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The article status roster has a blue "Start article" button for you now at WikiConference report. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have looked at your draft first. It looks like it's already in Signpost markup. Do you just need it moved to Signpost page space? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Assumed this move is what was really wanted, so I did move it to WikiConference report. The page is listed in the article status roster. These links might be useful later:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-14/WikiConference report
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/Special report

The latter (2023) is the latest Signpost article I could find that is just about any WikiConference; the former (2015) is the latest titled "WikiConference report". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, everything is now as I wanted it.

Yes, I wanted this moved to Signpost page space for publication in the next issue.

It is unfortunate that only two WikiConferences are covered here, with one of these in India and the other in the United States. These are annual by region in a few places. I will discuss with others. Whatever the case, I am happy to present this one this time. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls - re:K.Maher

@Bri and JPxG: Bri often reminds me not to feed the trolls; I'm afraid that I take the bait much too often, e.g. in January where I defended Maher after she was trolled upon the announcement that she was being named CEO of NPR. She (and Wikipedia) are being trolled again now that she's assumed the CEO position. I think I'll remove a 2 liner about Maher in ITM from Bri, because I think it's just trolling. But please feel free to put it back (anybody), if you consider the following.

• 3 days after KM took up her new role, Uri Berliner, longtime NPR editor, published off-NPR, a strong criticism of NPR as being super-liberal. No surprise here, but almost nothing to do so far with KM or WP.
• After strong reaction from NPR staff to Berliner's piece, KM suspended him (based on off-NPR publishing policy) for 5 days without pay. Berliner then resigned. Nothing to do with WP.
• Fox, NY Post, The Federalist (website), City Journal (both right-wing publications) came in with trolling based on KM's past statements (mostly at WP) or old social media posts. So far -it's just the same stuff as January. I don't see a need to feed the trolls again.
• But there is one interesting accusation - the accusation that WP took orders from the feds to censor right-wing content in the 2020 election. IIRC, we covered that a month or 2 before the 2020 election, and have done so since. It's an old puffed up story.
• So I don't see where there is anything new here, with one possible exception. Larry Sanger is interviewed by City Journal, with a follow up by Fox. No, that's nothing new either. But ask me for links if you want to go ahead (but I won't write it myself). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Oltrepier: just removed your new version (once I got over there). I do think others as well as @JPxG: should weigh in also. I don't think that we should be saying that Wikipedia secretely censored right-wingers during an election when we know that they were very open about needed procedures for countering known disinformation (via the community). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Here is one mention linked to from ITM on [10] in November 2020. Me feeding the trolls is in the January 31, 2024 ITM. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    @Smallbones No worries at all! I just tried to expand the blurb with general bits of information, to be honest... Oltrepier (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is the point of ITM if you choose to ignore outlets that don't support the political Left? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Chris. Thanks for responding - I do think we need to have some agreement on how to deal with this one, and you know you are always welcomed here. I think in general I do take conservative sources seriously enough to respond. The question is when to say seriously - they're going to far and just trolling. One example here is The Federalisat (website). Their second major criticism of Maher is that, while she was WMF CEO, the article about them was nominated fro deletion. Seriously. (The first major criticism is the BS about WMF taking orders from the feds during the 2020 elections. Then there is Fox seriously saying that NPR is just off the chart left-wing. You do understand that FOX is off the chart right-wing. Enough for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we go wrong when we characterize sources as left or right wing and then determine trustworthiness based off that. It used to be that a reliable source was an entity that had paid reporters and an editorial board, regardless of slant. We can attribute statements to the outlet and let the reader decide. Was Katherine Maher one of many "tech people" who met with US Government employees to squash some online activity? Maybe. I don't think Signpost needs to uncritically re-state what The Federalist says, but perhaps just mention that because she is now the CEO at NPR and WMF is on her resume, outlets like Fox are drawing conclusions about leftist institutions and the people for whom they provide care and feeding. I'll agree that outsider outlets often mis-characterize what little editorial impact a WMF Executive Director has on en-wp articles short of OFFICE actions. If Signpost feels like it has to cater to an audience of leftist editors, that's a separate problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You did note the afd was in 2014 and Maher became executive director (CEO was later) in 2016? Fwiw, my view is, since it's in the media, mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

My edit summary here, when adding this item, was with the knowledge that it will be a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" decision. I think a brief mention that there is some controversy involving our ex-CEO, related to her actions while nominally in charge of this project (yes I am aware that nobody is really in charge), would be appropriate. I think we're smart enough to do this without either embracing, or dismissing, those making the allegations. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think I'm being out voted here, so I'll accept that. I strongly urge @JPxG: to take this under his direct control and spend 2 or 3 hours going over what I think will be a 2 or 3 line story at the bottom of the page. It is imperative IMHO that we do not suggest that we believe that feds took control of Wikipedia's 2020 election coverage, when we have no evidence of that. I also believe that we cannot in any way disparage KM in any way in the story. The Signpost coverage at the time of the election included Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/News from the WMF (and 2 press stories from before the election that I mentioned in the comments there) and it's pretty clear that the WMF talked to the feds about possible disinformation campaigns, but not much if anything beyond that. FaceBook, Twitter, etc. also seem to have been involved, but this has been covered in many other places (was one called Twittergate right after Elon Musk came in?) Perhaps @GorillaWarfare: can comment here since she was mentioned in one of the stories. As for advice on how to write it. Well there are lots of old saws and cliches. Don't mud wrestle with a pig. Don't get into a pissing match with a professional pisser. Which all seem to say "keep it short." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A short line to acknowledge this campaign against Maher seems fine, I suppose. It seems in the past day or so it's growing to support the usual complaints about Wikipedia (or "Wokipedia", in Elon Musk's parlance), which could be mentioned — though I'll be surprised if it develops into more than the usual whingings on Twitter. There's certainly a lot of misinformation going around that could be debunked for a non-Wikimedian audience, though the Signpost seems a poor venue to reach such an audience. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep it light, keep it bright, keep it... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are a couple possibilities here: some of them are embarrassing for Maher and Wikipedia, some of them are embarrassing for Maher, and some are just goofy. Here is the actual quote from that Atlantic Council thing:

1) We took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation, coming into not just the last election, but how we supported our editing community in an unprecedented moment where we were not only dealing with a global pandemic but a novel virus, which by definition means we know nothing about in real-time. And we're trying to figure it out as the pandemic went along.

2) We really set up, in response to the pandemic but also the upcoming U.S. election as a model for future elections outside of the U.S., including as number happening this year.

3) The model was around how do we create a clearinghouse of information that brings the institution of the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in order to be able to identify threats early on, through conversations with government, of course, as well as other platform operators to understand what the landscape looks like.

This follows well in the fine tradition of vague corporate buzzwords, such that it could mean any number of things, and I think to even understand what the hell it's supposed to be saying (to say nothing of what it actually is saying) requires several years of attentively (and perhaps unhealthily) paying attention to extremely online politics nonsense.

I suspect there is no way for me to have a comment about this without saying what my actual opinion is, and I'm pretty sure my actual opinion has something in it to piss off everybody, but there's no way to move forward unless I just come out with it -- so here it is:

This seems like the same general type of thing as the events prompting Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Disinformation_report (perhaps even regarding the same events). Broadly speaking, at any given time, there are many people attempting to fuck with Wikipedia articles (either for the lulz, or out of anger, or out of political/religious/etc zealotry) -- this has been happening nonstop 24/7 since the year 2001, and we have pretty robust features in place to deal with it and figure out what the truth is, or at least figure out what a decently-written mostly-neutral encyclopedia article on a topic should look like. People on here will regularly spend entire weekends reading through dense and obscure texts in order to determine what the deal really is about something. I personally spent a few hours figuring out whether an uninhabited 20-foot-wide strip of dirt in the middle of a river was called "Dynamite Island" or "Powder House Island". You could call this "being an obsessive nerd", or you could call it "fighting misinformation", and either would be technically correct.

Secondarily: the idea of "misinformation" (i.e. people saying and believing and repeating stuff that is either incorrect or disingenuous or total BS) has been around for quite some time, the phenomenon itself has been around for as long as humans have communicated using language, and there is no partisan aspect to this whatsoever. In the broadest sense, anyone who writes or assembles or distributes correct information is fighting against incorrect information.

Thirdly: starting some time around the middle of the 2010s, we had this politician who achieved remarkable success and rose to the rank of President of the United States, and had an astonishing capacity for talking out his ass (astonishing even for a US politician at the national level which is really saying something); between this guy and some other guys (male and female) and the general omnipresence of algorithmically-amplified social media websites as a source of (or at least presentation medium for) news stories, there exists a phenomenon where large swaths of political discourse are literally just fiction that came directly out of somebody's ass. Well, maybe this was always true, maybe not, that's a wholly separate discussion, but it is indeed the case that there exist a lot of posts online which are both a) about politics and b) wildly incorrect. Hell, it is even sometimes the case that c) the person making the posts knows they're wildly incorrect and is posting them anyway for the sake of having a negative impact anyway.

Anyway:

The present saga involves the part of the saga where, starting some time around the middle of the 2010s, these concepts were incorporated into a sort of operational and philosophical framework that was used in a couple different ways. On one hand, people used phrases like "trust and safety" or "misinformation and disinformation" to refer directly to the boring scutwork that people like us always did to distinguish between fact and fiction -- list of common misconceptions my beloved -- and prevent people from pushing an agenda -- WP:SPI my beloved -- and deal with the background noise of abjectly godawful sludge that every big website ends up having to deal with (like LTA harassment and doxing and gore videos and ISIS propaganda and child porn and etc etc etc).

On the other hand, these buzzwords (they did refer to a real thing after all) were also quite commonly used as a crude bludgeon by nakedly partisan hacks, a dizzying panoply of policy wonks, thinkfluencers, pundits and think tanks responsible for a massive cavalcade of often imbecilic and occasionally authoritarian takes about how we just needed to find somebody who was smart enough to decide what was true and false, and then [et cetera -- long rant excised]. I think that by now, this type of stuff is mostly on the downswing, which rules (certainly we are past the highest fever-pitch crest of it). But it was indeed the case that there was (perhaps still is) a kind of sleazy intellectual undercurrent of what if we gratuitously undermined press freedom for the unspecified-but-trust-me-bro greater good. Well, at the Signpost we are (I believe the words I'm typing are physically stored on a disk in California) the heirs of a culture of free press whose centuries-long tradition was based firmly on vociferous independence, a noble and sacred tradition of freedom in thought and speech running nearly uninterrupted from Voltaire and Rousseau through Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine through Upton Sinclair, Rachel Carson, Neil Sheehan, Daniel Ellsberg, and countless hundreds of brave souls through to the present day who put their necks on the line to say the truth, and left us better off for it. It's true that the people who wrote the First Amendment and gave us the foundation for this tradition had "conversations with government", but if I recall correctly, these consisted of them saying "kiss my ass" and the government trying to shoot them.

Now, with all of this in mind, I will begrudgingly admit that think tanks and pundits and Congressional lobbyists are probably not reading the Signpost alongside their morning coffee and biscuit at Beltway Bob's Burgers and Bill Signings, so maybe it doesn't matter a hell of a lot to the important big people what we have to say about anything, least of all not what the lady who NPR hired to be in charge of NPR and who happened to some years before that be in charge of the organization that hosts Wikipedia thinks about whether or not the Donald is a "freakin cheeto" or etc. But I do think that it is condign for us, as whatever we consider ourselves: Wikipedia editors, obsessive nerds, citizens of an international World Wide Web, the unofficial-but-also-only keepers of record for the largest and most diligently-updated reference work ever assembled in history serving as the unofficial-but-also-only comprehensive encyclopedia of the human species -- I am damn proud of all of them for what it's worth -- to be able to respond in some way to claims and implications that impugn the foundational integrity of our project.

That is to say, if random nonprofit executives genuinely are having secret conversations with random government bureaucrats, and what's said in these conversations is used to inform content decisions on Wikipedia, well, this sucks. It sucks even more if the content is political in nature, and the nonprofit executive is someone who has strong personal opinions about the political issues in question, and also we're not allowed to know what the conversations are or what is being said during them -- the best-case scenario is that these comments are a sort of vague handwave, and these conversations never really amounted to anything substantial, and they didn't culminate in any action being taken, and so the whole thing was some kind of empty political posturing. That is to say, it was a bizarre contortion to make it seem like the WMF was colluding with the government to influence the content of Wikipedia articles... when they weren't. This really doesn't make any sense at all, so I am not inclined to believe it for any reason besides it apparently being true. I cannot even begin to fathom what might motivate somebody to think this was a good idea: all the disadvantages of having people think you sold out, without actually getting the check. The only thing I can come up with is that in the year 2021, there was some kind of notion floating around the nonprofit-thinktank-pundit-clickfluencer wonkosphere where having the government decide what posts people could read on the Internet was seen as being really smart and cool, and it made you sound cool and "with it" to claim that you were part of this process, even if you weren't. Well, whatever: the understanding I have here in 2024 is that basically none of this stuff being alluded to actually happened in a real sense, because the Wikipedia editoriat would have rightly raised absolute hell in a handbasket if it had, and there's no sense in just rolling over and saying "okay sure whatever" when people accuse a volunteer project which has busted its hump for twenty years to achieve neutrality and independence (and done a pretty darn good job) of being government shills. It doesn't sit right with me and I feel like we should at least say something.

Anyway, this is what the case seems to be. What do you guys think? jp×g🗯️ 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The WMF has, in my opinion, been pretty transparent about the various things they've been doing with respect to disinformation. As for "zomg, WMF people meet with government bodies", my response is a resounding "well, duh". If various government entities are going to do anything policy-related with respect to the Internet, they would be foolish not to meet with people from massive platforms like the Wikimedia projects; and, conversely, if the WMF wants to see responsible policy, they would be foolish not to participate. Then, of course, there is the routine and hardly secret coordination between various teams at the WMF and law enforcement type groups, as a part of T&S challenges that come part and parcel with running a prominent site that hosts user-submitted content. My understanding regarding the activities the WMF undertook (and continues to undertake) with respect to disinformation is that they are focused on supporting the editing communities in combatting disinformation — not themselves intervening in content decisions or community activities. See the explanation of the Disinformation team at meta:Trust and Safety/Overview, for example.

I've not seen anything that suggests that there was some mustache-twirling collusion between government groups trying to control a narrative and the WMF, nor any suggestion that the WMF has in concert with them or independently tried to influence content. Having seen the suggestions that Maher "is CIA" because she traveled to Tunisia or served on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board (which I've seen characterized as "working for the State Department"), this reads to me as conspiracizing rather than anything real. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that the pathos to her weekly >hello world was cobbled with the best of extensions. Sharing openly and freely of one's own intentionality always seems retrospectfully risky, all things conceded.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment might be of interest: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#What's_going_on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue immediately after 20-5 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). 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)

@HaeB: I didn't forget about you, I promise... Since we'll likely delay publication for one-two days, I'll try to help you out a bit! --Oltrepier (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)