Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-12-14 22:20:18.

The Signpost currently has 5623 articles, 704 issues, and 13701 pages (4476 talk and 9225 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 17 (2024-12-12) · Purge

issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)

Articles and pageviews for 2024-12-12

Pageviews for 2024-12-12 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Traffic report	Something Wicked for almost everybody	177	177	177	177	177	177	177
Opinion	Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing	314	314	314	314	314	314	314
Op-ed	On the backrooms	380	380	380	380	380	380	380
News and notes	Arbitrator election concludes	328	328	328	328	328	328	328
In the media	Right-wing politician opines: "Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial"	375	375	375	375	375	375	375
In focus	Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?	300	300	300	300	300	300	300
Disinformation report	Sex, power, and money revisited	316	316	316	316	316	316	316
Arbitration report	Palestine-Israel articles 5	369	369	369	369	369	369	369

Previous issue: 2024-11-18 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2024-11-18

Pageviews for 2024-11-18 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Traffic report	Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college	528	770	1018	1018	1018	1018	1018
Recent research	SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"	445	636	786	786	786	786	786
News from the WMF	Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024	404	557	689	689	689	689	689
News and notes	Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases	1175	1760	2458	2458	2458	2458	2458
In the media	Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names	975	1362	1793	1793	1793	1793	1793

Articles and pageviews for previous issues/years

20:16 Arbitration report and In the media

We might need an Arbitration report in the upcoming issue. Here is the opening statement in a new case request.

There is ongoing coordination of off-wiki editors for the purpose of promoting a pro-Palestinian POV, utilizing a discord group, as well as an EEML-style mailing list (Private Evidence A).

A significant participant in the discord group, as well as the founder of the mailing list (Private Evidence B), is a community banned editor (Private Evidence C), who since being banned has engaged in the harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors (Private Evidence D). This individual has substantial reach (Private Evidence E), and their list appears to have been joined by a substantial number of editors, although I am only confident of the identify of three.

The Discord group was previously public, but has now transitioned to a private form in order to better hide their activities (Private Evidence F). It is not compliant with policy, being used to organize non-ECP editors to make edits within the topic area, some of whom have now become extended-confirmed through these violations. In addition, it is used by the community-banned editor to make edit requests, edit requests that are acted upon (Private Evidence G).

If the arbs accept the case, this means the private evidence was compelling. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly (probably) related: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative this may be about the off-wiki coordination that the case opener refers to. Pirate Wires says In dozens of cases, the group's edits [on ARBPIA articles] account for upwards of 90% of the content on an article, giving them complete control of the topics. I don't think The Signpost has covered this at In the media and it seems newsworthy to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, one of our Signpost pieces is listed in a "to-do list" screenshot included in Pirate Wires. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Please send me a link or the screenshot. You might have noticed that I don't do Israel-Palestine stories. The whole topic is just beyond me, as in I empathize with and disagree with everything all three sides do in the matter. In fact I haven't even figured out who or what the 3 sides are. You're on your own on this! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: See Special:Diff/1253862786 which helps explain the odd namespaces/article histories involved. It's easy to mistake an investigator for part of the TfP group if you don't see this. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ITM item, see also a discussion in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group with some possibly useful context and links (in particular, regarding the paywall, someone noted there that I think you can circumvent the paywall by just using incognito mode and visiting via the Twitter link, but in any case there's a free copy here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BeneiYisraelNews/comments/1gbrqr5/soft_paywall_how_wikipedias_prohamas_editors/ - although the former doesn't seem to work for me).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there are 5 votes to decline the case and zero to accept. This will certainly get dumped. Still, it might be worth a brief note somewhere that the request happened, and there was a lot of community pushback against a case with so much off-wiki private evidence. Opinions on covering this at News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agrees, seems worth covering with a brief explanation that helps readers understand why it was filed and was (or will likely be) declined. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter

An open letter has been created regarding the ongoing case in India. It might be worth mentioning in News and Notes if it gets a lot of signatures. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support having this published—either by moving the page to The Signpost or transcluding the page into the report, to avoid having multiple places where people can sign—in 'Community view' with no commentary; just the letter and the signatures, nothing else. Svampesky (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with moving a community page to be part of the Signpost. The letter is not a Signpost initiative. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion with link to sign it is a more appropriate option. Svampesky (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've got 9 days until the next deadline, so we can wait on this to see what happens. The stress of putting out a quality paper every 2-3 weeks is enough for me. At best somebody should just note on a Signpost article talk page that the page exists and link it. I've thought about putting out one "Daily update" page as part of the overall Signpost, but it would be very difficult to do properly and to staff it. Otherwise, wait 9 days! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most signed petition in Wikimedia history is meta:Community_open_letter_on_renaming, barring the Wikimedia Foundation from renaming itself to "Wikipedia". That one has 1015 signatures and ran for months. This petition currently has 930 signatures and has been up a week. It is shaping up to be the strongest community consensus statement yet. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've borrowed the text here by QuicoleJR and Bluerasberry to start an item at News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 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 fourteenth 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) 02:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a golden opportunity to include "spinach and llamas" in the blurb. Maybe?? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 Traffic report

@Igordebraga: Not to be super nit picky, but was "Oh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!" Teri Garr's line in Young Frankenstein, or Madeline Kahn's? Or both? My memory fails me. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan says it first, Garr says it later. igordebraga ≠ 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes, at first I thought it was just Khan, but then a fuzzy memory of the repetition came to mind. Thanks! I need to see that again (and again and again). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elections, Arab Americans

@Igordebraga: Please consider: regarding this edit, should "the Muslim community" be the only descriptive term for certain voters, used in the most edited articles? Arab Americans are majority Christian. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: For your awareness, this passage has not been changed. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I typically copyedit the traffic report with kevlar gloves on anyway, so this will be addressed. jp×g 🗯️ 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 In the media

Help wanted! I really don't want to be the only editor on this. Especially for the "genocide RfC" item, it's hard for me to present some of these issues neutrally. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dumping some links here for people to consider whether they belong in the upcoming issue. These came up in a Google News search. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 Opinion

~~Reserved.~~ Unreserved. Svampesky (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: Thanks for contributing. Please be advised the writing deadline is less than 30 hours from now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy with IRL commitments, but I had reserved the column for someone else, who has since withdrawn their submission. Svampesky (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 writing deadline

Writing deadline is in about 30 minutes. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little thin for this issue, although publishable. I have some dust bunnies I can put into an Opinion or Humour, which gives us what, five or six? jp×g 🗯️ 07:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a submission. jp×g 🗯️ 07:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back in a few hours and able to run. jp×g 🗯️ 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, there is a big goofy thing about the joke column. I think it is condign that, if stuff is submitted after the writing deadline and tehre is disagreement about it in the newsroom, the issue cannot be held up on its account, and we can sort it out afterwards. jp×g 🗯️ 23:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this should be enough content to publish already. However, ITM and N&N still need quite a bit of polishing and fleshing out (or removal) some of some placeholders (Soni just added a few to N&N). As mentioned above, I'm also working on RR and should have it in publishable form by the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've had very little progress since on ITM and N&N - I would encourage anyone interested to just jump in and spend a bit of times to resolve some of the open items (most are clearly marked). My ETA re RR is now in about 4 hours from now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took some lunch hour to close out the sections best I could. Possibly ready to publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1] another reporter pinged WMF but I'll assume there was no reply. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that HaeB declared RR ready "if need be", and I made a copyedit pass. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16 Humour

Should be deleted, or perhaps be made into an opinion page with a ton of additional work. There is no humor in this, not one line that I could see. It's about a real article and real criticisms of the article. If I could make any sense of this, it might be simply the author's misunderstanding of how science works, but in any case it's not humor. @HaeB, Bri, and Svampesky: can anybody find 1 line here that is funny? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it shouldn't be submitted as an opinion piece since it's not my opinion. Secondly, it's not a critique of the article itself; it's directed at those who voted to delete it, in a non-offensive manner. In any case, I'm really busy, so there's my submission, and it's up to @JPxG whether he wants to publish it or not. The attempted humor is that its written as a tabloid-style exposé screed. Svampesky (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a real article, yes—it's submitted to be published to a newspaper, a publication which covers current events. The humor column of a newspaper should cover news events in a humorous way. Svampesky (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to take some time to look at this. It was confusing to get to the point where I realized that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity is not a joke. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a workday so I can't spend too much time on this. But I think Smallbones has a point. Either it should be a humorous article about a fictional situation, or an opinion article about a real situation. This straddles the fence and it leaves this reader uncomfortable. It also opens questions about what our editorial stance should be vis-a-vis US politics and "anti truth" matters, but that's probably another discussion.

Final edit on this (I hope): Just to make my position clear, I think this could be a publishable Opinion article, but it needs to be clear that the AfD and PRODs really happened. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, but this should not be published as an opinion piece. Let me clarify that the content doesn't reflect my position—I don't think it's worrying that scientific consensus dominates Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still puzzling over how to present this. Especially since the POV in the article it is explicitly not Svampesky's opinion. Would it help to have an obviously fictional author name in the byline, linked to User:Svampesky? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind having my name in the byline, as long as it's published in the humor column. When someone tells a joke, it doesn't mean it reflects their POV. Svampesky (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't write about a real world situation with 2 groups of people who seem to be acting in good faith and just make stuff up about them. For one, at least one of the groups will say that you are just making stuff up about them. You can't just lie about your fellow editors. And your response will be "It's just humor"? They'll likely respond "where's the humor?" So I'll repeat my question now so you don't have to answer it again. "Can anybody show me 1 line in there that's funny?" You are right about one thing, @JPxG: can decide whether to publish it. There's no reason to discuss it further. If he does clear it for publication, both of you will be facing a "mob with pitchforks". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humor plus inferred connections to U.S. politics. What could possibly go wrong? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of connecting it to American politics. I only wrote it because the issue seemed thin on the ground. I'm still struggling to see any connection, but if that's the case, publishing a humor column from the POV of those who are angry that scientific consensus dominates Wikipedia might be a current thing to joke about. Svampesky (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky, Smallbones, and Bri: As this was submitted past the deadline, publishing it would require resolving disagreements between multiple people and iterating over copyedits, and we are currently looking at a potentially historic actual on-time release of a Signpost issue, I am going to postpone this. jp×g 🗯️ 23:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're so back

20:16 published, on time somehow. It is a bit thin, and I am chafed that I did not have time to throw my epic musings in the mix, but it is what it is. The price of freedom, or whatever.

Single talk page for all the issues at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-11-18. Should make a watchlist notice request tomorrow.

Posts. jp×g🗯️ 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job again, team, especially on our compressed schedule (which I'm glad we stuck to): here's -> a handwritten robot letter for you to add to your brag file. I have already responded to a reader's comments on two articles about stuff that I feel could have been handled with more active staff. Not sure what to do about it but maybe it's time again to say "help wanted". Have seen some similar replies at various SP talkpages as well recently. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting comment about Wikimedia in India

Summary

The Wikimedia Foundation is not going to talk about anything related to Wikimedia in India at this time, even if it is unrelated to this court case. Many people in Wikimedia community of volunteers in India are - in my view - afraid to talk about either routine Wikimedia organizing in India or comment on the ANI court case.

What to do with this information

The Wikimedia community repeatedly directs The Signpost editors to get support and comment from the Wikimedia Foundation. The information here is the complete answer to that community request. I consider WMF communication on India-related issues closed now. If any community volunteer wishes to insist that the WMF say more, then such people can contact the WMF themselves while linking to this update, and try to convince the WMF of whatever they like.

There is interest in getting journalism from community members. Here is some documentation about the challenges in doing that.

All this information establishes journalistic diligence in trying to reach out, and justifies The Signpost continuing its r reporting in the absence of comment from some key stakeholders.

Wikimedia volunteer community

First, I wrote to the Wikimediaindia-l closed, subscription only mailing list with this message. I am copying here even though the email is archived, because the mailing list is closed. https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/HJSMT5QSDR3VTPJJMJAT4QGFMB5VLH3M/

Lane's letter to the India mailing list

Hello Wikimedia editors in India, My name is Lane. I am an editor for The Signpost, which is English Wikipedia's community newspaper for Wikimedia news. In the last issue I organized some articles about the Asian News International Court case. You can read those at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2024-11-06 In particular, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/In_focus

I am writing now to ask for submissions for additional journalism. I request two kinds of articles: one, if anyone would like to write journalism with community reactions to the court case, then that is welcome. Separate from that, this court case brings attention to the Wikipedia community in India generally, and if anyone would like to talk about this while the world is looking and interested, then now is a good time. The Signpost is a community volunteer publication so it helps us if you can organize your own submission, and then bring a draft for us to review. Submit drafts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions . If you have general questions for the editors then ask at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom

If anyone wants to submit or publish something privately or confidentially, then you can email me or have a friend forward your message to me somehow. I say this because Wikipedia editors are getting sued right now, and I can understand that some people with views to share may not want their Wikipedia name or offline identity out there. Your perspective is still valuable though.

From a global Wikipedia community perspective, here are interesting questions to answer:

Who are the community groups and individuals in India who edit Wikipedia?
What are some of the major accomplishments of Wikipedia editors in India?
What are the biggest challenges for volunteers in India?
What support would editors in India like from either other volunteers or the Wikimedia Movement?

For people interested in the court case, here are some questions which may be interesting:

How is the Asian News International court case affecting volunteers in India?
What questions would you like The Signpost to publish, in hopes that anyone - such as other editors, external legal commentators, or anyone else - could discuss or answer?
How would you tell the story of this court case? In The Signpost, I tried to tell the story as a person in the United States, but is there someone in India who wants to tell the story?

Thanks! Publishing happens every two weeks, so there is not a real deadline, as we will always be publishing an issue soon. However, this is a hot story right now, so if you want maximum interest to your perspective, publishing end of November or mid December is ideal. Next publication may happen in 2-3 days which is too soon for a long story, probably.

best wishes

I have some responses to this. No one volunteered to talk publicly by their name. All respondents were private and cautious.

Wikimedia Foundation

I wrote to Wikimedia Answers <answers@wikimedia.org>. This is a Wikimedia Foundation communication channel for general inquiries. They said that they would not reply to the following email because of active legal issues.

I think there are no reports to share about Wikimedia's activities in India. Like, of all the projects there over years and of all the money invested, there are no public facing reports. What I was hoping for was something like for every US$1 million spent or for every year that passed, then someone would take an hour to write a one-page outcome summary. Nothing of that sort exists of which I am aware, and I should be aware with the effort I have made to find it.

Lane's letter to staff

Hello Rachit,

My name is Lane and I am an editor for The Signpost. I presume that you saw my articles about Asian News International. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2024-11-06

Let's leave Asian News International versus Wikimedia Foundation completely aside. I have no questions about that.

However, in the context of the attention on the Wikimedia community in India, I am writing to ask you for comment for The Signpost.

Here are some questions:

Can you recommend the most recent published overview of the state of Wikimedia community projects in India? If I describe the activity in this region, then what should I read to find things to report?
What is the most recent published WMF strategy for program or community development in India? I am aware that things may be revised, but what was the last plan for the future?
Can you recommend any Wikimedia community representative in India who would be generally available to me to talk about wiki community in India? Again, I do not need to talk about the court case.
Are you interested in being interviewed for Signpost? We do not have capacity for very in-depth journalism, but if you would meet, then I would like to talk with you. If you like we can negotiate some questions in advance, or you can suggest some topics of interest and I can direct your focus by email in advance. If you would meet, then here is my contact - https://calendly.com/bluerasberry

thanks for your attention

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I'm getting this last part right. The WMF official responsible for foundation-community communications for the region, who has "Communications Specialist" in their title, won't say a word about their activities in any respect, including simple questions like what's a good overview of your work that I can review, because of the ANI-vs-WMF case? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, that is the stated reason, and that is the key insight and interesting takeaway from the response.

I can only guess, but here are some more plausible reasons for not answering:

That WMF staff person is not a Wikimedia community member, so does not speak for the community. I am not sure what they do, but perhaps they organized a WMF/Google partnership, and perhaps they hired Instagram influencers in India to talk about the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising campaign. What they do may be more about talking with people outside of Wikipedia than anything about the wiki community itself.
The WMF truly does not have summary documentation or a communication strategy on its investments in India. If such information existed, then it would already be published, and either I or the Indian community would know about it. Also, I know the state of United States WMF programs, and they are not reported for my home region, so I am not surprised that they are not documented for India either.
The Wikimedia community in India is very anxious about Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and has the belief that the WMF is non-compliant with this regulation. The popular interpretation of this law that I hear from volunteers is that people in India are not supposed to accept nonprofit funding except through an FCRA-compliant organization registered in India, and that organization should be a Wikimedia India organization but that does not exist. I set up meta:WikiProject Bribery to document some stories I have heard that people who receive money from the WMF get government official visits asking for bribes due to not being appropriately registered. I have no idea what to think of this except that whatever the situation, FCRA makes people anxious.
Volunteers in India who do outreach or community organization wish to be invisible at this time, regardless of what they are doing. If WMF produced a report of basic community activities, then due to political and media attention right now, typical random volunteers whose projects were the subject of discussion could get hyper attention. For example, if a volunteer hosted a casual meetup one time for 20 people, then due to media frenzy, it is possible that media sources treat that as an official Wikimedia Foundation program in India, dox the organizers, and generally misunderstand what it means for wiki volunteers to meet, i.e., for a photo walk or library book scanning event.

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article to be copyedited

I've a first version of my new contribution to the Signpost : User:PAC2/Signpost Opinion1. Your feedback is welcome. PAC2 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the submission, PAC2. Is this ready for publication? If so, it can be moved to 'Next issue/In focus'. Svampesky (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I would be happy to have someone copy editing the article before publication. PAC2 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and copyedit it. Are you planning to add anything else, or is it ready for publication after the copyediting? Svampesky (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Unless you ask for more details, it's ready for publication. PAC2 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17 Opinion

Hi all. I was asked to write an opinion by Svampesky and have just realised that since I've never written for Signpost before, I have no idea of the etiquette, formatting or process. I've dropped it in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion - but please feel free to delete / format / reword or whatever wizardry you do as editors. If there's anything you need me to do, let me know. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the submission. There aren't too many rules for opinion pieces, but I'll sort out the formatting. Svampesky (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17 Op-ed

Searching through Signpost archives, the page name should be in sentence case as 'Op-ed' and not 'Op-Ed', so this should be noted before publishing. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed is ready for copyediting and the transcript can be found here.
Thank you for allowing us to republish the essay, @Tamzin. Would you like to select a cover image for the column? Svampesky (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it happens to be freely licensed, I don't see how I could not pick File:HobbyTown USA Oshkosh interior under construction 2002 (The Backrooms).jpg. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Next issue/Op-Ed to the submitted Op-ed, which might have been a bludgeon. Update the article status table picked up Op-ed and listed them both, so I removed the redirect. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17 Disinformation report

I've started the new Disinfo report at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report. For some reason the template for it had disappeared, but I recreated it (sort of). It doesn't show up on the Newsroom page, but it does on the current issue page. But it doesn't have a 20:16 comment page. The report is now just 4 sections of revisited articles. There will be at least 2 more sections. Comments, and even preliminary copy editing are welcome. I do intend to write more disinfo reports, so I'd appreciate somebody recreating it in full Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok now and appears on the Newsroom page. I may have one mor section at the end by tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting report, @Smallbones. I've slightly copyedited to have a more neutral tone without substantially changing the text. Svampesky (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to tone it down a bit, but I think you actually did the opposite. For example, when somebody like Epstein or Maxwell has been convicted, you don't have to be so careful about saying "alleged" or "apparent" etc. And when a declared paid editor declares that they have been paid (as in the Vivek section) it's better to say "declared" rather than "claimed". "Claimed" might be interpreted as indicatating that you don't believe the declared paid editor. I do believe him - in part because of the timing a year before Vivek became a presidential candidate - and even stronger because Ramaswamy later admitted to having his team clean up the article. BTW, the standard Joe job warning is in there, covering everybody. I do this in every disinfo article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the copyedits:

Jeffery Epstein's paid edits -> Edits that claimed to be associated with Jeffrey Epstein
Ghislaine Maxwell’s apparent edits -> Contributions that appear be come from Ghislaine Maxwell
The Signpost article showed that three apparent undeclared paid editors, plus one very aggressive declared paid editor had edited the article about Greg Lindberg. -> The Signpost article reports on three editors which look like undeclared paid editors, plus one very aggressive editor had edited the article about Greg Lindberg.
The Signpost reported that he apparently created the articles Matthew Whitaker about himself -> The Signpost reported that it appears that he created the articles Matthew Whitaker about himself
User:Jhofferman, following Wikipedia's rules, declared that Vivek Ramaswamy paid him to edit the article about Ramaswamy -> User:Jhofferman, following Wikipedia's rules, claimed that Vivek Ramaswamy paid him to edit the article about Ramaswamy.

The subjects being convicted of crimes has no relevance on whether the Wikipedia edits were made by them or their associates, and since there is no definitive proof, responsible journalism would be careful not to make claims—or the appearance of claims—in Signpost-voice. I admit that I haven't reviewed Jhofferman's edits, but if they were consistent with typical paid editing, it would be safe say 'disclose'. But if editors are aggressively removing negative information, it could easily be an attempt to embarrass the subject, especially given that it was during a political campaign, so should opt for 'claimed', as publishing the claim that they paid someone to do this would err into defamation. Svampesky (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing my copyedits, I've found a few grammar and wording errors that will need further editing, but the overall intention should be clear. Svampesky (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to restore the copyedits that were reverted since I don't want to enter into an edit war, but another one I just made removed 'Another criminal' in line with WP:BLPSTYLE and neutral tone.

Another criminal, Greg Lindberg, was convicted in May and is now awaiting sentencing. -> In May, Greg Lindberg was convicted bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and is now awaiting sentencing. Svampesky (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New CSD: T5

Noting that WP:CSD#T5 now exists. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template subpages

SerialNumber54129 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17 News and notes

Administrator elections debrief

Does anybody want to volunteer to do a review of Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief? The discussion seems to have wound down a bit. A writeup could take some time, or it could be more off-the-cuff. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 20:18

It might be a good time to discuss whether folks will be around to help put together an issue at the end of the month, which coincides with several holidays observed in English speaking countries. Also, if it is happening: should there be some specials considered for an end-of-year edition? Maybe JPxG will re-vamp the December 28, 2021 Deletion report, huh? And, say, Smallbones's Xmas Eve 2024 Gallery wasn't bad, either. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Bri: you got me off my schedule and I had to listen to every one of those songs again. It was missing something, so we can publish this again (on the 23rd or 24th) if I can add Cool Yule, by Louis. The last issue of the year has always been my favorite. Let's do it. Now back to work. @JPxG: please remember that the disinfo report for this issue is quite important. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to set the timer to the 3rd Sunday of December per Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 35 and Smallbones' reply. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17 In the media

This looks like a big story to me, but it's completely over my head. My solution - just write up what I know and ask @JPxG, HaeB, Bri, and Jayen466: what you guys think should be done with it. Maybe put it at the top of the column, declare it to be a revolution in something, whatever. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax and WMDE announced a new product Wikimedia Deutschland Launches AI Knowledge Project in Collaboration with DataStax Built with NVIDIA AI DataStax

WMDE plans to make Wikidata’s data easily accessible for the Open Source AI/ML Community via an advanced vector search by expanding the functionality with fully multilingual models, such as Jina AI through DataStax’s API portal, to semantically search up to 100 of the languages represented on Wikidata. To vector embed a large, massively multilingual, multicultural, and dynamic dataset is a hard challenge, especially for low-resource, low-capacity open source developers. With DataStax’s collaboration, there is a chance that the world can soon access large subsets of Wikidata’s data for their AI/ML applications through an easier-to-access method. Although only available in English for now, DataStax’s solution provided a valuable initial experiment ~10x faster than our previous, on-premise GPU solution. This near-real-time speed will permit us to experiment at scale and speed by testing the integration of large subsets in a vector database aligned with the frequent updates of Wikidata
- Dr. Jonathan Fraine, Chief Technology Officer, Wikimedia Deutschland.

An earlier presentation gives further details.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some background info at Retrieval-augmented generation. It's a lot to try to explain. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already covered this very briefly in the current issue's Recent research (search for "Wikimedia Deutschland"). WMDE folks have been talking about this project for about a year already (including at some conferences and about three months ago in the "Wikimedia AI" Telegram channel, where they provided some valuable additional background in response to questions from community members).

It's an interesting topic that deserves fuller coverage at some point. I have been inclined to wait with that until they actually release a product. But if someone wants to do a longer writeup already, sure. Just keep in mind that these press releases are still only announcements of plans and partnerships; our coverage should be transparent about that.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll just change the word "product" to "project" at the top of the "In brief" section. Then I'll ask anybody who wants to change the write-up to go ahead, or let JPxG to just delete it. I'm completely agnostic on this: I don't know enough about the topic to know if the write-up is any good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is a lengthy Kurier discussion about this general topic: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#KI_und_Wikipedia Andreas JN 466 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it (also did a quick search for "Wikidata" in that section), could you point to the specific part you are referring to? (or if you meant "there is a discussion about AI", well, there have been tons of these over the last few years across the movement; an incomplete list of starting points: meta:Artificial Intelligence)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated time of publication?

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: While I haven't done much digging, it looks to me like there will be 6 articles this issue. In the media is essentially ready, I'll put the Disinfo report in basic copy editing posistion in about 20 minutes, but want to add a bit more if publication is being held back. I'd appreciate good copy editing there by you folks. So there is a big difference to me if you publish in three hours or 24 hours. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight is impossible, since I am about to sleep and then go to work; I will review what we've got at breaktime tomorrow and when I get home we should be able to roll. jp×g 🗯️ 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be out of contact starting soon, through Sunday, probably will check in quickly on Monday, but won't be really able to contribute much more to this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently copyediting User:PAC2/Signpost Opinion1 for 'In focus'. Svampesky (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where we stand on this issue

It looks like we have 7-8 publishable articles ready to go except for piccies and final review by @JPxG:. ~~I'm quite surprised, but I don't think we have enough news for News and notes. We can publish without it - it's happened before.~~

News and notes - results from WP:ACE are in. I copied over the minimum results but can't do the rest. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the media - IMHO pretty good. The WMDE tech thingee is not within my expertise, so since there's plenty of text already in Itm, I'd personally remove it.
Disinfo report - just fine as is
In focus - I have some questions on formatting (e.g. tables) and think it could be better with earlier editorial guidance, but that is water over the bridge now. I really do like it for its simplicity (in the best meaning of the word) and might suggest something of a series coming from this.
Arb report - short but useful
opinion and Op-ed - ok
Traffic report - ready to go, but you might want to review my replacement of the text of #8 in the lower section, with text about the same article in the higher section.

I'll be with family and unavailable until 0:00 UTC. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was ready to finish copyediting but I apparently have to go move a bunch of goddamned boxes in an hour because the days off change randomly and nobody can be bothered to update the schedule more than a few hours in advance. I will see what I can do but I think I need to sleep. I am supposed to have two days off in a row after tonight, which is what's normally called a "weekend", except in my case it is completely unpredictable when it happens and how long it is. jp×g 🗯️ 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holding strong at "not scheduled for tomorrow". jp×g 🗯️ 08:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I go in at, well, in twenty hours -- will have this issue out during the morning/afternoon then, so about 12-13 hours from now, which is 2024-12-11 20:00 UTC. jp×g 🗯️ 08:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be available for writing today. But there's movement on the private Arb case and one editor has been banned. See noticeboard announcement. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to run the publishing script, but for some reason it repeatedly failed. I do not have time to diagnose the error; I am currently using the same version of SPS.js as has been used since April. Everything is ready to be published. @Bri and Smallbones: if you want to publish, please go ahead and do so, as I must leave in ten minutes. jp×g 🗯️ 05:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, if debugging is necessary, that in my case it created the issue page, then did initial processing on about six of the articles and then randomly hung (twice in the same place). SPS.js doesn't have detailed enough console logging to go any more granular than that, at least not that I can tell. If nobody has figured this out by the time I get off work and get home, I will try to add some logging to the script and figure out why it is hanging -- my guess is that one of the articles has some formatting that's off in a weird way and is triggering an edge case bug. jp×g 🗯️ 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the manual publishing today but not earlier than 2100 UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JPxG and Bri:. I'd guess one possible cause for the publication hangup might be having both an "Op-ed" and an "Op-Ed" stories. On "Disinfo report", I was surprised to see Jeffrey Epstein's pic is going to be displayed on the contents page. He's only mentioned in passing in the article and I wouldn't like anybody to think "All those other people are like Epstein" - absolutely not!

I'll suggest File:Gautam Adani 01 cropped.jpg or really any other closeup of Adani. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the current 'In focus' report was in the userspace of the author, one of the Signpost footer templates transcluded Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. I'm not sure why this happened, and it could be related. Svampesky (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pencils up please! I'll begin in about 30 minutes. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: The issue seems to have been only half-published- the main page lists 5 blurbs but the Single page 8; the single page version wasn't actually created til I added the template, and all the articles still have the draft template at the top. --Pres N 21:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you looked at it part way through manual publishing. Manual publishing takes a while. I just finished and am about to announce it. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: you probably know this already but the single page has the correct articles in it plus the draft headers; and the main page has all the stories from the November issue, not from the December issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. I'll wait to announce via mail list until it looks good. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: The main page looks good. The Single-page is off. It loads and will take you to the article you click, but it's a separate page for each article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. There was already something there, probably from the aborted publishing script run. I overwrote it manually. The mass message was just sent out. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff, like the single page talk page, needs Wegweiser to work properly, which is on my github but I am planning on setting it up to be Toolforge-triggerable (e.g. like {{database report}}). jp×g 🗯️ 10:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ran, and comments page can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-12-12. jp×g 🗯️ 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of unfinished tasks remain: announcement via mail list, and mass message on meta. I think we use a Signpost account for the former, and someone with meta mass-message-sender permissions needs to do the latter. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting this issue out! Please be aware that User:Bri/Signpost_publication#Manual_publishing_process is outdated and the currently maintained version of those instructions is here.

Case in point: The mailing list announcements are routinely done by Andreas now (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About#The Signpost team), using his own email address because we seem to have lost the credentials to the wikipediasignpost Gmail account.

Regard, HaeB (talk) HaeB (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the thanks, and I intend to fix some of the docu-woes for next time. jp×g 🗯️ 10:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18 Op-ed

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18 Newsletters

The inclusion of newsletters will be a valuable addition to The Signpost. They will promote the creation of newsletters and allow readers to discover parts of Wikipedia they may not have been aware of previously. They should be sorted from earliest publication date at the top. Some newsletters don't have dedicated pages, so section translcusion can be done with {{#section-h:PAGENAME|SECTION}}, if anyone wasn't aware how to do it. I collected the newsletters from Template:Newsletters, but some are not listed in the template. I've also wrapped <nowiki> tags in the newsletters that haven't been published yet. Svampesky (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]