Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-07-22 21:07:49.
June 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30	July 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04	August 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01

The Signpost currently has 5569 articles, 696 issues, and 13555 pages (4414 talk and 9141 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 10 (2024-07-22) ·

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

Articles and pageviews for 2024-07-22

Pageviews for 2024-07-22 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Obituary JamesR -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 News from the WMF Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 News and notes Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 In the media What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Humour Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Essay Reflections on editing and obsession -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Discussion report Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Crossword Vaguely bird-shaped crossword -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

Previous issue: 2024-07-04 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2024-07-04

Pageviews for 2024-07-04 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Traffic report Talking about you and me, and the games people play 365 486 546 546 546 546 546 Special report Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board 716 939 1298 1298 1298 1298 1298 Sister projects On editing Wikisource 544 666 724 724 724 724 724 Recent research Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps 845 1142 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 Opinion Etika: a Pop Culture Champion 427 567 627 627 627 627 627 Op-Ed Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections 627 817 869 869 869 869 869 Obituary Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan 406 523 576 576 576 576 576 News and notes WMF board elections and fundraising updates 653 982 1142 1142 1142 1142 1142 In the media War and information in war and politics 631 811 860 860 860 860 860 In focus How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators 973 1235 1339 1339 1339 1339 1339 Humour A joke 533 706 770 770 770 770 770 Gallery Spokane Willy's photos 262 354 397 397 397 397 397 Discussion report Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna 6782 7057 7152 7152 7152 7152 7152 Crossword On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares 331 431 488 488 488 488 488 Cobwebs Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn 354 469 505 505 505 505 505

20:8 Disinformation report

I'm going to replace the piccy on this one ... having an individual's portrait below the title "disinformation" probably won't fly. The same term never appears in their biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

See the discussion over at the Submissions page, in particular [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

With regards to issues raised:

• @JPxG you said the article concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece - I think you're mistaking me for somebody else and would like clarification on that, I joined after he left and there is no ongoing dispute - I nommed an AFD for a POVFORK of his that quickly passed 8-1 (the 1 being an editor who encouraged him to write it) in a week in January this year and openly state so in the article.
• You said Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. - which really confused me: this is a disinformation report piece on how a professional quack used WP to promote WP:FRINGE views, attack his opponents, edit with COIs, and sockpuppet. He is notable IRL for his anti-trans advocacy per multiple RS, and this was an investigative piece about how he used WP to do it. ARBCOM ignored evidence of issues with his editing and didn't give him any real sanctions (just an IBAN, which he still ignored with socks). What do you believe I'm leaving out and where should the focus be?
• @Bri, perhaps the image of Clarke Institute of Psychiatry could work?

Being real, I poured over a dozen hours into researching and writing this collaboratively because I've wanted to write for the signpost for a while and really enjoyed getting to work with y'all in the last issue and thought this would be the perfect piece to kick off pride.

I take great pride (pun unintended) in my writing and my ability to factor in constructive criticism so I'd deeply appreciate being given the chance to respond to specific issues and update the article so it can be signpost worthy by this issue if that's possible. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you are extending the discussion to this page instead of continuing it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia (where you had already posted a lengthy response to the same editorial decision by JPxG earlier)? This is veering into WP:BLUDGEON territory. I have followed up with some further remarks on your user talk page.

getting to work with y'all in the last issue - not quite sure about the precise meaning of work with y'all here (I for example wasn't involved there at all). But it's interesting that you bring this up, considering that concerns were voiced there already (by SashiRolls, an editor not involved in the discussion about your current piece), e.g. about fact-checking and your decision to insert yourself in the Signpost's journalistic reporting on the deletion debates about your own essay. May I also that remind you that this apparently highly controversial essay is still slated to run in this Signpost issue. So it's not exactly like your views in this area (WP:GENSEX, which you had previously been topic-banned from and are still under various restrictions for, in particular regarding articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed) are being censored by the Signpost.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm out for the evening and want to briefly reply.

• I tried to summarize rather than extend the discussion here, particularly my main point that JPxG seems to be operating on a case of mistaken identity.
• Y'all in this case meant the signpost as a whole
• Sashirolls raised issues with the draft before I was involved, called my edits addressing their concerns an improvement and more NPOV, noted some remaining concerns, and I addressed them.
• I don't believe I am being censored and don't object to the piece being declined, I'm just trying to figure out 1) was that because of the mistaken identity and 2) is there time to fix the piece and outstanding problems in it before the issue's published.

My apologies, I didn't mean to bludgeon, just trying to clarify the process because I'm unused to it. I appreciate your candor and advice, and will reply to the message on my talk page tomorrow. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: thanks for that link. So if the E-in-C already said the high-res picture of an individual under the headline "Disinformation" is a bad idea that makes two of us.

I think part of what makes the picture itself such an issue for me is its personalization of the dispute. It's as if to say "this *particular guy*, right here in this picture, is creating disinformation". Rather than, here's an examination of the phenomenon of (potential) disinformation through the lens of this particular back-and-forth. I'm OK with the latter, though it might be borderline OK-ness.

To resolve the picture quandary, first I sought something that shows the search-for-truth image somewhere in Commons. The closest I came up with was File:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg, and it didn't hit the mark for me. Both because of the excessive graphic business, and because it seems to imply the truth is a constant that one can just measure a position against, instead of recognizing the importance of the process of conducting the conversation to discover a consensus position. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read the linked comment by JPxG in full, in particular the "declined" on top. I understand we are not going to run this piece. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @HaeB, Bri, and JPxG: getting it right is better than being hasty without consensus. Publishing the current issue is the only concern for now but I would like to support YFNS in revising this article for resubmission to a future issue of Signpost. I can be off the mark with my enthusiasm to support LGBT+ pieces in June as pride month, but I still feel that there are elements of good disinformation reporting here.

Here is what I request of you all -

• Put a burden of duty on me to collaborate with YFNS to meet any standard you set, then reconsider the submission in a future issue. I suggest some improvements below.
• Recognize that YFNS is a Wikipedia editor of about 2 years. There was some misunderstanding, and I can vouch that this user came years after the 2013 ArbCom ruling, and was not part of that.

Here are some improvements that I can arrange -

• Any of you veto any concepts in the piece that make it too complex, and we will get a shorter focused article
• I can get other volunteers to confirm fact-checking of claims and sign off
• I can get someone with editorial experience to sign off on appropriate tone for the voice of The Signpost
• Anything else you suggest

I am not asking for pre-acceptance, but I would like to support YFNS in taking another chance at submission with a plan for improvement. Thanks. Also, thanks for your sincere and thoughtful reviews. You are making the right calls and are all great collaborators. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I felt the most egregious thing in it is there's a sort of 'compare and contrast' between 'see this person was bad and got away with it' and 'but this other person wasn't as bad and didn't get away with it'. So figure our what is the central thesis of the piece, and focus on that. If it's that Cantor 'got away with it' for too long, maybe it's worth checking in on every time someone tried to bring Cantor to one of the drama boards. Did people raise COI/SELFPROMO concerns? If not why not? If yes, were these ignored? What policies existed at the time?

If it's a general piece trying to do a general history of antitranswhateverism activism on Wikipedia, then you can't single out Cantor, and have to look at other antitranswhateverism activists on Wikipedia and see if those got sanctioned too, and in light of what policies, keeping in mind that we don't usually ban people for viewpoints, but rather for behavioural issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I was planning to do a part two on current examples of anti-trans advocacy/misinformation (the thesis of which is they're better handled these days, but funny enough are prone to cite Cantor and his colleagues) while this one was supposed to be Cantor specifically since he's notable for anti-trans advocacy IRL, was half of an ARBCOM case, and was a prolific editor for over a decade.

People did raise COI/SELFPROMO concerns all the time across various drama boards, I mention a lot of it in the piece but could try and find more. He was occasionally lightly sanctioned for it. I'll find details on how the COI policy changed, but he very definitely broke it as "Marion", then continued to go after his opponents while disclosing his COI, but was also caught socking to COI edit for years.

I'll take out more of the comparison/contrasting, but I just checked and only ~1/12 of the piece discusses James. The scope of the sexology case was specifically James' and Cantor's interactions/general behavior so I worry cutting out further mention of her could take away context. It's hard not to compare and contrast how the same committee passed out such disparate sanctions to the two people the case focused on. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: Forgot to mention it here, but I rewrote and resubmitted the piece - it's relisted on the submissions page under Disinformation report take 2 (apologies if I'm supposed to start a new section here instead of notifying y'all in this one). Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

20:9 In the media

Hello! I just wanted to point out a very interesting article from Il Post about the difficulties encountered by newly-registered Wikipedia users during their first contributions, and the tips they can take advantage of to improve and keep their confidence up.

The article was written by Viola Stefanello – who we already cited on the Signpost before – and it's very interesting and informative, especially considering the context of a seemingly ever-shrinking base of users and admins on this platform. It also cites a recent video tutorial by Molly White and contains several brief interviews, including to Wikimedian Marta Arosio and admin Sannita.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to add it myself, but it should make for a pretty engaging lead story! Oltrepier (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB @Jayen466 Maybe, we could even kill two birds with one stone and mention this into the Special report I originally suggested, even though it's quite an ambitious task... How do you feel about that? Oltrepier (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier I think it could work either way – if it's in ITM, you could add a link to your Special Report there, and vice versa. We would actually have an issue that mentions Italian Wikipedia in two segments!!!

But if the content ties in well with the Italian ArbCom story and adds a valuable extra perspective – well, then go for it. We could still put a little note in ITM regardless. Andreas JN466 20:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466 Sounds good! However, I've got pretty snowed under with some real-life priorities at the moment, so I think it's better if I back off slightly from my ambitious plan, and just work on the "In the media" piece for now (it should be the "lighter" blurb of the two, anyway, both topically and in terms of workload).

Sorry about that... Oltrepier (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again for being so late... I should be able to work on my ITM blurb from Tuesday afternoon on. Oltrepier (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466 and JPxG: On [third] thought, I've decided to focus on pushing my original idea through for the next issue, since I've had quite a hectic schedule in real life as of late; plus, the ITM column for this issue already looks quite filled up, so let's not make it too bloated. I hope this isn't a problem... Oltrepier (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB and Bluerasberry: On a side note, I've tried to copy-edit your lead blurb and incorporate some links and elements, so I hope I've done a good-enough job. By the way, I think we should just delete those sources and videos left at the bottom: the article already seems in nice shape, and leaving all that material would just cause confusion, in my opinion...

Offering addition for ADL piece

I'm not on the byline for the upcoming issue's "Wikipedia editors deem Anti-Defamation League unreliable on Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and think it's best to keep it that way. But wanted to note: Jewish Insider has a piece just posted yesterday, titled "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia", with this quote: "the exchange, which took place in an online community dedicated to editing Wikipedia articles to better reflect a pro-Palestinian narrative, offers a glimpse at how ideologically motivated actors operate behind the scenes to shape the knowledge shared on Wikipedia". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, just from the JTA agency two days ago: WMF responded to their inquiry and "did not address the content of the letter [from Jewish gorups asking WMF to override the ADL decision] but appeared to reject its very premise". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Thank you for flagging it, I've just incorporated the response into the blurb. Oltrepier (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing

There's a piece in Entrepreneur.com just published, titled The Hidden World of Wikipedia Page Creation Services. It's being discussed at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. I scanned it and it looks like possibly an advertorial. I don't know if we should keep covering this sort of thing. On the one hand it keeps our readers aware of the phenomenon of paid editing. On the other hand I don't know if we want to direct traffic to this kind of thing, in principle. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw it and gave it a pretty good tour. Maybe next month, it's too late for this issue. I might go down to its non-office nearby. It could be a straight scam, rather than paid PR, but its apparently Indian not Pakistani. If so, maybe we could contact the US Entrepreneur, which is a partner in the Indian edition. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Movement Charter Ratification vote

Different people describe the meta:Movement Charter in different ways. My own view of it is that it contributes greatly to justifying who will decide how to spend the the upcoming US$billion in Wikimedia revenue.

The big public ratification vote for the Charter will run from 25 June to 9 July. I started a draft article on the vote at

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes

On 10 June the drafting committee published the final version of the Charter. I posted to the Charter talk page asking for community reactions for publishing in The Signpost.

• meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#Request_reactions_to_Charter_for_Signpost_newsletter

The April 2024 Wikimedia Summit produced a list of dealbreakers which attendees demanded that the previous version of the Charter must fix, or that they would recommend against ratification. I was an attendee there. Summit organizers set up a simple gradesheet for anyone to use to mark yes/no on whether the revised Charter addressed those deal-breaking problems. I am seeking for someone, or ideally a group, to come to consensus on grades for the revision.

• gradesheet for Summit versus Charter

I generally have this story under control but if anyone wants to help coordinate, especially by reaching out for community comment to anyone who will speak up, then please join. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Requested feedback from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikimedia_Movement_Charter_ratification_vote!_How_should_we_spend_a_billion_dollars?. I also requested help from the Wikimedia Summit organizing team but not sure what processes they have for collecting or soliciting feedback. I just thought they may somehow have plans to collect something. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

For your information: it was only the core Charter text that was published early. For a complete understanding, be aware of the publication/update of all supplementary documents still coming up on Monday June 18th. Ciell (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) (MCDC member)

@Ciell: I know you are on the drafting committee. Can you also get me brief comment from your committee on the extent to which you recommend ratification? Are you unanimous, to what extent do you feel that you fulfilled the dealbreaking demands, how would you interpret a "no" vote if it came to that? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this, Bluerasberry! Andreas JN466 20:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• At Portuguese Wikipedia, pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Sobre_a_Carta_de_princípios_do_Movimento_Wikimedia_(13jun2024). @DarwIn, Joalpe, and Danilo.mac: thanks for writing. The criticism I see here is common, including over-representation of wiki community organizations, lack of representation for individuals who have no wiki organization membership, lack of capacity for managing community governance in any case, and WMF remains out of bounds of accountability. Anyone else can read and interpret this for themselves; this is me using machine translation and making sense of it in my own way. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for ping me. Just to reinforce here what I said in Portuguese Wikipedia, I strong disagree that affiliates members can occupy an vote for both the 12 positions for "Wikimedia community at large" and the 8 positions for affiliates, that would make affiliates over-represented and non-affiliates volunteers under-represented, those 12 positions should be only for non-affiliates volunteers. When voting people should be asked if they consider themselves as non-affiliate an vote for the 12 non-affiliates positions or consider themselves as affiliates members and vote for the 8 affiliates positions in the global council, no one should be able to vote twice. Danilo.mac (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Bluerasberry, thanks for the ping. I'll leave here an adapted version of the notes I've left at the Commons Village Pump, which is kind of a resumed version of what we've been discussing at the wiki.pt Esplanada:

  • The Charter refers some "community leadership" as the accountable body for each Wikimedia project, without defining what it means (the whole community, some specific members?);
  • Charter rules over all Wikimedia project policies, but not over those of the Wikimedia affiliates and the WMF;
  • Charter leaves WMF out of the Global Council (community + affiliates), as an independent body at the same power level;
  • While the whole community, including affiliate people, get to elect 12 seats out of 25 in the Global Council, affiliates themselves get an additional 8 seats for themselves, which I consider a severe and totally unjustified unbalance of power towards affiliates - which not uncommonly do not represent anything but themselves and have their own agenda, and commonly have at least some degree of these problems;
  • In general, this Charter seems to treat onwiki communities as the underdog of the Wikimedia Movement, when in fact they are the core of the whole thing, where all starts and where almost all Wikimedia funding comes from.

  I don't think this is acceptable, and will certainly vote to block this charter. I advise you to read it carefully, and eventually vote to block it as well, as I don't see how this could favor our community (community here meaning any Wikimedia project I participate in).

  Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@DarwIn: Here I am editor and I plan to report what you say and your recommendation, but The Signpost is not going to make a voting recommendation in its own voice. I really am not sure who will comment or what they will say. The points you write here are easy to understand and valid, relatable criticism to the Charter. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry Absolutely. I think this is the first time I write here, so I just voiced my opinion in a rather informal way. Use it as you please an how it fits better (and if it fits at all).

Btw, the "you" above is not really you, Bluerasberry, but the community at large - it's the collective you. I apologize if I passed the wrong idea 😅 Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Note the board will likely reject the Movement Charter anyway:

• m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft

--Andreas JN466 12:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany has thrown its weight behind the Movement Charter: m:Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland’s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees Andreas JN466 10:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for attending to this. The current charter draft has lots of rough edges, and yet is designed to make amendment almost impossible. It is not ready for ratification. It primarily needs to define something flexible that we can refine as it starts to take effect.

A refrain by drafters in the past weeks has been that it is "safe to try", but I find that not to be so. (Given our fondness for rules-lawyering and the siren song of policy creep) In particular:

• It makes amendments extremely onerous: for any change, first one has to get 50 people to come to Meta to support the idea. Then the change has to be written up and translated and presented for a global ratification process just like the initial Charter ratification process: with votes by communities and affiliates and WMF. No changes of any kind can be considered until an initial Council is voted in and formalizes these processes.
• It delegates a lot of power to affiliates with few checks and balances, without addressing either the potential double-counting of affiliate members in governance, or the challenge of the Affiliates as a bloc being made up primarily of small, informal user groups which were not intended to be units of governance.
• It mandates that the new Council must do four difficult things (without specifying how, or how that will be funded, or how elections will work), which means those participating will have a huge workload immediately and little spare time and capacity to polish the rough edges and build trust and collaborative energy with other parts of the movement. We've already seen a smaller version of this problem affect the MCDC itself: because it felt that it was given an enormous task that could not be shared, its members spent thousands of hours working mainly behind closed doors, and did not build a great deal of trust and shared purpose with the broader community which the charter and a council are meant to represent.
• It proposes a far-reaching transfer of decision-making from one small group (the WMF Board + executives) to another (the Global Council) without providing for a transition, or articulating exactly how these will work together or how to ensure the new equilibrium is more equitable. There is some hand-waving about how this is obviously better, but even the fairly limited checks and balances of the WMF that have developed over time make more explicit provision for equity and consultation and responsibility to editors than this definition of a Council.
• It invents a few new terms and concepts, and states a somewhat arbitrary selection of our shared values, as though they are foundational, unchangeable aspects of our identity and work.

I'll try to write up more coherent thoughts tomorrow, but these are quick thoughts. – SJ + 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I drafted a Simplified charter as an example of a cleaner foundation to work from. It highlights up front the problems being solved, limits itself to the simplest declaration and definition that could address them, and avoids bureaucratic jargon. It offers a bit of motivation without overstating how much it can speak for the movement re: shared values. And it is humble about the need for change in the early days of starting up something as complex as a global council, accepting that details and foundational documents will need revision before trying to ratify a static version meant to last for years or decades.

Unlike the MCDC text, which was never meant to be edited even while in the 'drafting' stage, this is a wiki; readers are welcome to edit to your heart's content. – SJ + 18:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

moved from #20:9 News and notes:
I have added an endorsement to the article, which was unsolicited and received off-wiki from one of the drafting committee members. We didn't discuss whether this would be part of the article, so bringing it up here for discussion, if necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
end of moved part HaeB (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it pretty odd, considering e.g. the work that Bluerasberry had already to solicit comments in public, that this committee member reached out in private (or what does "off-wiki" mean?) to "the Signpost" to have their personal opinions featured at much greater length than any of the other Wikimedians that are already in the draft.

And besides process, given the complexity of the matter and the limited space afforded by a N&N story, I think we should be focusing on summarizing the most important arguments for and against this charter draft in a factual manner, rather than reproducing such vapid PR-like statements at length. (E.g. he starts by praising their own work "a vital step toward a more decentralized, diverse, equitable, community-driven, and resilient Wikimedia ecosystem" - I mean yes, these would all be good things, but what are the specific reasons why should our readers believe that this charter actually achieves that?)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Bluerasberry asked me directly for a comment for the article, so I gave him one. He subsequently went offline for a few days, and as it was nearing publication time, I shared it with Bri instead. Obviously I didn't ask for it to be featured at any greater length than the comments of others. My comment was not particularly about this charter text, but about a charter as a means to decentralization and greater community empowerment in general (hence the highlighting of the "try again" option), the premise of which seems to have been questioned by the WMF board liaisons' letter.Pharos (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pharos: OK, thanks for clarifying that this may have been unsolicited only from Bri's perspective. (In that case it might have been a good idea to mention that context when contacting him.)

And I suppose that re-reading I do see some more concrete arguments especially when read in context with some other comments that we may include (e.g. this unique opportunity for change will fade away without your continued voice). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a story that is both important and difficult to write, which may be a reason why it is still a very unfinished draft right now. While Bluerasberry got us started with some good material earlier this month, he hasn't edited since June 26; there also doesn't seem to have been a followup on SJ's June 25 comment above.

To help move this forward, some thoughts on how we may want to approach this (speaking as a Wikimedian who has not followed the charter process closely over the last couple of years and is not among the small subset of the volunteer community who was eligible to attend the above mentioned summit where apparently a lot of important recent discussions about the draft took place - both of which I think is also true for the vast majority of our readers).

I think it would be great to be able to read:

1. A brief, non-exhaustive recap of the history of this effort (many folks might not have heard of it since it was first announced in , or not at all).
2. A brief, non-exhaustive list of the most important concrete changes that the charter might bring, to help readers decide whether they should be interested in spending more time into looking into this at all (keeping in mind that the vast majority of them will probably not have done so for the past several years while all the drafting and deliberation was ongoing among the small part of the movement engaged with that effort).
3. A summary of the most important arguments that have been put forward for and against the charter, in its most recent form that is now the topic of the vote (in a factual manner, as mentioned above, and steering clear of vacuous opinions like "it is awesome because it will make things super equitable" or "it is terrible because it will make things super inequitable"). I think we should be interested in informed views from the editing community in the sense of volunteers who are not (primarily) involved in formal movement organizations, both because they will not have been represented at the summit and because there are apparently concerns (not sure how accurate) that the charter may reduce the influence of the editing community (or communities), see e.g. Charter rules over all Wikimedia project policies above.
4. Ideally, 3. should be accompanied by informing our readers of the interests (and possibly conflicts of interests) that may drive various movement actors who have proferred these arguments. To pick one that may be obvious to many but not all readers (and thus still worth pointing out), the WMF would appear to see a significant decrease in power from the charter in some areas (not that should be an excuse to dismiss the concerns listed in the WMF board liaisons' letter). But also, I understand that WMDE might have a lot to gain financially from the (even if it does apparently not include everything the chapter argued for in this "Special report" we gave them room for in 2022, where btw we could also have done a better job of informing readers about the underlying financial interests).

Not sure how fully we can achieve these goals without delaying this Signpost issue further. But Bluerasberry appears to have already made some headway re 3. in the draft, and also had covered some other aspects in the previous N&N (in a story somewhat prematurely titled "Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification begins"). I think we can and should crib from that previous liberally at the risk of some repetition (e.g. Risker's comment there seems worth repeating to explain why and for what purpose the vote is being held now). However, it also left some clarity to be desired (e.g. it created the impression that WMDE might be opposed the latest version, whereas Andreas has since informed us above that it has actually thrown its weight behind it.)

I can take a stab at some of that later today (PDT), but should also finish up RR (one of the other items holding up this issue). JPxG please give note how much expect to work on this too, and when. (Bri said he is out for today.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @HaeB. Note that there are a couple of related items in the Kurier. In addition to the main story in the left-hand column with the WMDE note at the bottom WMDE first announced its shift in stance on 17 June in the right-hand column of the Kurier. Andreas JN466 07:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@DerHexer and Martin Rulsch (WMDE): If we have missed anything or you have any other comment please let us know! Best, Andreas JN466 07:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Wikimedia Germany as the second largest movement entity endorses the Charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees That's okayish. There is no legal entity called “Wikimedia Germany”, usually I go with “Wikimedia Deutschland (Germany)”. Beyond the own endorsement of the charter, the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland asks the WMF BoT to also ratify the charter (i.e., not to follow the recommendations of the two liaisons). Maybe the latter is worth an addition. — “Represented so far: Germany and Central/Eastern Europe”, afaics, Poland has added their scores. Best, Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) PS: @Nicole Ebber (WMDE):

Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look! Apropos, I went through some material already but won't get to complete this tonight; also we haven't yet heard back from JPxG and I would like to avoid duplicate effort while jumping late into the breach here, in case he wanted to spend time on this too. Relatedly, I would suggest we do not need to invite lots of heavily interested parties here to massage the Sigpost's editorial process that late.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I will do my best to figure out what a good and responsible article on this looks like, which I think will likely be the main undertaking of this issue (the rest of everything seems pretty well put-together at this point). jp×g🗯️ 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(OD)@HaeB, Bri, and JPxG: I really think we need to do a good fairly *short* section on the charter. Not to write something on what may be the key step in movement governance would be journalistic malpractice. Writing a long piece with long quotes would just continue the major problem with the charter and the process. It's been too wordy without saying anything solid or operationally clear. We desperately need something that real people can understand without an overdose of jargon and hedging. So let's just be clear and short. I really like HaeB's 4 points above. The key points, within that framewark that I'd emphasize

• There's broad agreement that something should be done to decentralize some WMF functions, which will take some power, some control over money, and even leadership away from the WMF and give it to the Global Council.
  • But key details are missing.
  • If it's supposed to be an operation document, it's very poorly written.
• The WMF board would have to approve the charter and is being advised not to approve, so the charter is not likely to pass as is.
• There will be power shifts within the community (that's the whole point), likely favoring country chapters, pretty much leaving out the online language version communities.
• Diversity *guarantees* are essentially absent
• The bright side is that comments are being accepted with votes.
  • Since the voting issue is likely "not this version", the important thing the community can do is vote and give brief practical comments.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Assistance requested - Wikimedia Foundation board elections

I need anyone but me to cover the meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024 because I am standing as a candidate.

I covered this in the past, and I would not want anyone to expect me to do it this time because I have a conflict.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/In_focus
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Op-Ed

Some other reporting

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/News_and_notes
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/Election_guide
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Discussion_report
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-09-26/News_and_notes#WMF_board_election_results

Here are what I think are all the important dates to know

• campaign period June 25, 2024―August 26, 2024
• Conversation with the Candidates (panel interview) August 2024
• Vote launches September 3, 2024 at 00:01 UTC
• Vote closes September 17, 2024 at 23:59

Some of this is relevant in the next issue.

For questions and to get comment, ask meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections committee. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG and Smallbones: I've added a separate section with a list of candidates and links to the community questions the candidates have now answered to N&N. (I've incorporated the existing brief note from HaeB.) The page is getting rather long though. I wonder if we should be put Smallbones' section on the movement charter (thank you!!!) on a separate page, as a Special report. Andreas JN466 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG and Jayen466: I saw Andreas's addition and liked it. I'm not against the whatchamacallit being a Special Report. It should work just like that old cross your heart thingee - just lift and separate. But I do think we should publish, certainly before the fireworks start! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Improving The Signpost

Firstly, regarding deadlines, I believe a significant shortcoming of The Signpost is that the editors themselves set the deadlines. There is a reason why teachers set the deadlines for students. It would be preferable if an uninvolved editor were responsible for setting these deadlines. I'm looking forward to contributing to future issues, and my hope is that The Signpost becomes a periodical, published on a regular schedule (such as on the 1st and 15th of each month). Readers know when to expect the new issue, and subscribers can look forward to their subscription template being updated on those two days. Contributors will also know these deadlines and work to them for their submissions.

Secondly, we should take further measures to boost morale. I suggest featuring a piece on the Main page (possibly a big suggestion, but I'm throwing it out there). This can be a new one or one from the archives. I don't know how the main page works (at all), I strongly oppose the idea of editors nominating their own articles, or anyone affiliated with The Signpost getting involved in this. Svampesky (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's say you are in charge of 'the deadine'. What happens if the DEADLINE arrives, and half the articles aren't copy edited? Do you publish anyway? Do you sack the writers and hire new ones at the very competitive rate of 0$/hour? Do you demote them?

We're volunteers here, the Signpost isn't an assignment.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not much of a critic, but it was more about boosting morale. During my time as a reader, I wasn't particularly aware of The Signpost. I try to write my pieces for those outside the Wikipedia community. If we, as a community, collaborate to showcase our work, it may encourage others to participate for the deadlines. Perhaps I'm being overly ambitious... I think the Main page integration is something we should work towards. Svampesky (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, it seems that The Signpost used to be published on a regular schedule. What was the atmosphere like back then? In 2019, for example, it was published on the last day of each month. Svampesky (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It kind of was, and it kind of wasn't. I am glad you mentioned this, because otherwise it would be another useless piece of information stuck in my head and of no use to anybody, which may be of some interest now. Some months ago I was going through the old revisions of the main Signpost page (to extract the subheadings out and store them in the module, which had previously just been lost forever after the page was overwritten each issue). Well, I figured I could just get a list of publication dates, then take the largest diff for each day, and then that would be that day's issue -- but not in the slightest. In reality, they seem to have almost all been somewhat late, ranging from one day to several days (the "date" of publication, i.e. the part of the URL that has the datestamp in it, only occasionally being the actual day on which an issue was published back in the days before SPS.js). jp×g🗯️ 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

On the broader issue of publishing intervals, I wrote about it at some length in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_team; there's even a big graph of publication intervals over time. Basically, there was a weekly publication schedule from '05 through '16 or so. During 2016, publication slowed down a bit, and in 2017 it ate shit entirely for several months (there was nothing at all between February and June). The current schedule of publishing every three weeks is, depending on perspective, either a bold step up from running once a month or a cravenly retreat back from running once every two weeks (which we did a fairly adequate job of through '23 and part of '24). I must say, though, publishing every two weeks was quite arduous -- like Headbomb says, it would often be the case that we'd hit deadline and not have any articles. (not just that there was a bunch of stuff that needed copyedit/expansion, there would be straight-up nothing in some of the drafts besides lipsum).

At any rate, on the bright side, I think this is one of the fullest issues we've had in a while, in no small part due to some of the more recent additions. I think that if this energy can be sustained, it bodes well for the paper. jp×g🗯️ 13:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll look at all of this later. I'm pleased that these suggestions (including blue-green user links) have not been perceived as the difficult-newbie telling everyone what to do, but I'm still not going to self-declare myself as the Peculiarity writer on the about page. I have several ideas prepared for upcoming issues. If I can write something good, my next piece will focus on the UK politics. An election is happening today, and I plan to write all my political pieces after. I'm not much of a critic, but I can provide suggestions. I have some notes with ideas that could help with engagement. I don't think anyone at The Signpost should get involved with Main page space; instead, we should continue our efforts and wait for an someone uninvolved to suggest it. I can also offer a non-Wikipedian-reader perspective, as I was only mildly aware that The Signpost existed. Are you able to see the page views from logged-out vs logged-in? Svampesky (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just hard to reconcile with the day job sometimes. We all have to juggle work and other commitments along with Signpost deadlines. I actually think we are muddling through quite well at the moment. Andreas JN466 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm consolidating all my thoughts here: User:Svampesky/Ideas/Signpost. Please feel free to add it to your watchlist. I prefer not to make too many suggestions outside my userspace. My knowledge is limited on technical restrictions and the time required for implementation. Svampesky (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's get serious about the deadline

We have to have a real deadline in order to

• let readers know when we a coming out. People want to know when there is new material to read, without checking 2 or 3 times a month
• let authors know when to actually submit their work. If you don't have a real deadline, people will often wait until just before the time when they think you'll actually publish. In my experience, having a deadline is the only way that newspaper production is organized. It's a waste of contributors' time not having a deadline. If JPxG is going to show up for the first time after the deadline, so too will the submissions, but there won't be any any copyeditors around, or any chance to get early feedback on an article. In short it isn't a production process, it is just chaos. "News" is time dependent. If we want to have news in our newspaper, the news writers have to know when it is going to be published. (I'll have more tomorrow or Wednesday)
• Just a suggestion, if the eic consistently is 2 days late in publishing, he should just show up 2 days earlier.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support to light a fire under JPxG, who is a very competent EiC. I support The Signpost's mission of being the Wikimedia movement's online newspaper. While JPxG performs admirably to support and enhance this mission when active, his first appearance being after the deadline undermines the credibility of The Signpost and its mission. Svampesky (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Quick comment (as an alum from long ago): You can choose to have releases on a fixed schedule rather than to fixed quality. Then every issue is guaranteed to have a few easy-to-compile beats, basic stats, and a reminder of where and how to submit or discuss the next issue. In that case it's fine to have shorter issues published by a broader range of editors comfortable w/ the mechanics of publishing, even if the EiC isn't available. Experience running the shorter routine issues can be a way to get experience editing. Complex stories that would benefit from more review can still get pushed to a later issue. Since the wiki is not paper you can even include teasers pointing readers to drafts in progress if you want public input.

  And you could choose to, say, color the archives [or even the headers of the updates posted to talk pages :) ] to distinguish routine vs major issues, special editions, &c. – SJ + 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Same. One of the things that has been a problem is that deadline will roll around and there will not be a whole lot ready -- but as Sj says, it's not really the end of the world to put out an issue that doesn't have every possible thing in it. Probably Smallbones is right too, and consistently doing this for a while will stop people from thinking that it will be fine to get stuff in late anyway, and this chicken-egg thing will resolve itself. Well, at any rate: I'll be there. jp×g🗯️ 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, on this note, we went out merely one day late this time, albeit at the cost of not publishing some of the stuff that rolled in after the writing deadline. This of course feels bad, because there is a bunch of crap left over for the next issue that probably could have been ready with a couple hours of editing and checking, but on the plus side it was a hell of a lot less stressful than the typical process, and it was almost not published late to boot. jp×g🗯️ 10:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  In case there are anyone here who don't know what Douglas Adams said about deadlines, it's on Wikiquote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only a simple caveman, and your electronic boxes with words and sounds frighten and confuse me, but perhaps it would make more sense to publish stories as they are ready, and simply send out a digest of completed articles every month? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Epic hrrmery -- some five hours to publication

I have been looking over the stuff in the newsroom every few hours: I note we are missing a couple of things, particularly the discussion report. @Svampesky: any update on that?

At any rate, I have stuff I would like to write, and will not get to -- so it goes. I plan to run it with whatever we've got in those few hours, and if the issue ends up being very thin gruel, I suppose it can just be the thin-gruel issue. jp×g🗯️ 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I finished it yesterday, but didn't want any inaccuracies in the page history. It will be published by the deadline. See Special:Diff/1235504982. I do all my Wikipedia writing at roughly the same time in the evening (which is now). Svampesky (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Reminder for folks who would like to help out with copyediting that you can go through the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status and look for those that are marked "Ready for copyedit".

The top story in News and notes still looks very drafty - @Bri, Jayen466, and Bluerasberry: is any of you planning to wrap it up before the deadline? (to ping the three folks currently listed as authors there)

As usual, I'm aiming to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Y I have the top story in form which appears publishable but anyone else can edit it further. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump_raised_fist_photo @JPxG Svampesky (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, it's almost midnight here so I guess this is a tomorrow task. Imagine being only one day late. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Technology report

I recently got a pop up on my phone browser (Safari) about night mode on Wikipedia. Major new update for the next Signpost. I'll be working on a different piece for the next issue. Is it possible for the page of the piece automatically turns to night mode, even if the viewer hasn't set it up? That would be best. Svampesky (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You can probably use TemplateStyles for this. – SJ + 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Signpost article tagging

It looks like perhaps none of The Signpost articles have been tagged since January. Is there a script that can go through and does this for at least the regular columns? Or maybe it's a problem with Article list maker template, I'm not sure what's going on right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've confirmed tagging has been done, but the list maker is busted. Click newsandnotes at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series#Tags to see: it doesn't have anything after this year's issue 1. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment you made at the technical talk is correct. Tagging is a manual task that is done usually with SignpostTagger. The actual addition of articles to the database is done automatically when I run Wegweiser, but the tagging is just not happening.

At one point, Chris Troutman used to do this, but he has erstwhile been indef-blocked during an intensely stupid drama episode, and does not seem to want to apologize and get unblocked, so I think now nobody is doing it. The bright side is that there is a very big and comprehensive table for all the articles missing tags. It's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical/Index validation -- there's totals for all of the articles missing tags there as well (ignore the 2009 ones, those are false positives). jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Essay

The essay "Reflections on editing and obsession" looks like it sat for over a dozen years unpublished. I'd like to revive it, either as an Essay or as Cobwebs? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought we had cleared all of those out! Yeah, this looks quite good. jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of cobwebs, I was fixing some template stuff and found User:Jorgenev/Minors and Wikiproject pornography, from 2011, which is formatted as a Signpost article but doesn't have the draft template or anything on it. It doesn't seem to have ever been published in full. There was a brief mention at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/News_and_notes but it looks like a bunch of the stuff never made it in. Is this anything? jp×g🗯️ 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's over 10 years old. Whatever relevance it ever had is long gone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

JPxG, should we run the essay Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article instead. I remember this essay from when I joined and I made a newbie error by moving the shortcut around. Is it appropriate for events on Wikipedia from the past couple of days, or is it in poor taste? Svampesky (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The end of an era ...

Just noticed: The current English fundraising emails have a picture of Lisa rather than Jimbo. Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4. Don't know how long it's been this way. I hadn't looked in a while. --Andreas JN466 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Lots of new stuff

coming later Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14 Trump photo for Discussion report
• Also the story of [2] and User:Benpianao800.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA @Piotrus: suggested this and it will be a good one for Discussion report. The talk page has more [[3]] and there's a village pump discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unnecessary_delay_in_publishing_articles_translated_for_$$_by_an_NGO. User:7804j should be interviewed (e.g. via email) He's started and financed an article translation project and pays the translators. Some very good ideas here, something like paid Wikipedians in residence. But he hadn't thought through everything Wikipedian could find fault with. Lots of good people to interview Rosiestep, Ipigott. Piotrus, etc. But I'll be busy on other things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Smallbones for suggesting a piece on OKA!

  I think it can be useful to raise visibility on the initiative (which as you pointed out, has raised a lot of strong reactions from the community that I didn't always expect, both good and bad). I'd be happy to do the interview via email or voice/video call, as preferred. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll take the Trump photo discussion report. If that's okay? I've not been active on-wiki, per IRL commitments. I think I can make something good in the style of my previous pieces, where I try to explain a little bit to non-Wikipedians. But I'll first have to research the actual image policy, myself! Svampesky (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd recommend that whoever does the photo discussion report has at least a little knowledge of US intellectual property law. I saw a lot of erroneous assumptions and interpretations in that discussion, which I skimmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have knowledge on it. I'll make sure to do thorough research on everything. I usually submit my drafts on the day of the deadline, but for this one I'll submit it days before. Svampesky (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Discussion report

I have started research on policies and related matters for the upcoming 'Discussion report' which will be on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp. This report will be crafted in the same style as my previous ones, where I clarify Wikipedia guidelines/policy for those unfamiliar with it, while not over-explaining for Wikipeidans (the main audience). In this instance, I'll be detailing the image use policy (which I'll first need to research myself). Svampesky (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds good. By "image use policy" I assume you mean Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, however, when I mentioned "image use policy", I was referring to Wikipedia's general policies on image use. I have since discovered the specific policy relevant, per my research. It's enjoyable to learn about Wikipedia policy 'on the job', but I will ensure this submission is completed several days before the deadline to refine any details. Svampesky (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Query. I'm reviewing the discussion and making notes on it (there is quite a lot to go through). However, I have observed that JPxG participated in the discussion. Could this be a conflict of interest, as he is the one that decides what is and isn't published in The Signpost? If so, my initial thoughts are that JPxG either pre-approves the piece, or has someone else approve it, ensuring that he has no editorial involvement. Svampesky (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am definitely out of this one, as well as anything about the article, as I decided to try camping out on the talk page with all the AP2 editors during a major ongoing world politics event. Not recommended for the faint of heart. jp×g🗯️ 02:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1235720801. A bot removed the image. JPxG, how should I proceed? Svampesky (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is no proceeding: we are forced to write an entire article about this specific image and not embed the image in it.

  The N in WP:NFCC might as well stand for Nationalsozialistische as far as exemptions and clemency go. Rivers of blood have been spilled over this, with the very silly conclusion that no fair-use images can be used outside of article space, ever, for any reason at all. The only thing we can do is come up with some freely-licensed shit, which is not going to be good, because it's not the specific image.

  In my opinion, it is high time that somebody do something to change this, because it results in completely asinine situations like this one on a regular basis, but that's a 5-month Village Pump RFC that even if passed will have another 4 months of going through Legal. In the meantime I guess we can mspaint something, I don't know. jp×g🗯️ 23:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I found this when researching for the report, WP:NFEXMP. Would the report fall under this exemption? Svampesky (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG and Svampesky: I don't think so. I would suggest we use Template:External media to link to the image. This creates a little box with a clickable link to the image. Andreas JN466 18:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your suggestion. I was unaware of the existence of this template. I don't believe it's necessary in this instance, as I normally prefer to keep the reader within the Wikimedia ecosystem, unless absolutely necessary to provide an external link. I've added this hatnote Special:Diff/1235872493. Svampesky (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

I'll complete the write-up for the Signpost later today. I discovered numerous instances across the internet and social media where the discussion was posted. However, the template was placed because This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful.. I'll mention this in my report. I want to keep the report accurate and not inaccurately label what was posted as 'canvassing', especially since there is no evidence that it was even posted on Wikipediocracy. I attempted to contact the site but received no response. Could someone verify whether it was posted, whether it constitutes canvassing, and obtain the necessary permissions to report on posts from the members-only boards? Svampesky (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13631 -- in the off-topic forum, so members only (probably because it is about the entire shooting and not just the Wikipedia article). The original post is some guy I don't recognize asking about the NFCC tags saying he's never seen them before -- he links the FfD -- casualdejekyll says it fails NFCC#2, which at the time was true. Hemiauchenia concurs. Casualdejekyll concurs. At the time the image totally was just kind of plopped there, and there wasn't any cited commentary or anything -- so I think they were probably right to say this at the time.

People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. Some guy says in his opinion the image is pure propaganda because he's got his fist up. Chatter back and forth for the next page or so. Guy who said it looked like propaganda notes that it's all over the TV the next day, so it really does seem like the most representative picture. Then a couple more people mention tht they've been seeing a ton of news articles about the photo, then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat (that's the subforum it was in after all). I don't think it was really canvassed too hard one way or the other, apart from the simple fact that they mentioned it, and the people there tend to be more liberal than conservative -- but then so do Wikipedia editors, so who really cares? jp×g🗯️ 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've completed the writing and I've emailed and spoke with Midsize Jake/Somey. I'm assuming that I would need to obtain permission from every individual poster to include those details (which I agree with). Additionally, the word count is nearly at its limit. I've kept it general, as there is a lot to cover in the whole report anyway. Svampesky (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A newspaper does not need permission to mention stuff that people said on some message board, with the possible exception of message boards at norad.mil or something (and then certainly not from the message board itself). If it's a website open to the public, on which half of our readers probably already have accounts, there isn't even really an ethical issue. jp×g🗯️ 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. and then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat is such tabloid drivel. I don't think the report requires this information. The only pertinent detail is that it was posted in the thread, after which the template was placed onto the discussion. Svampesky (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was just telling you what happened since you don't have an account, I didn't think 99% of that deserved any mention. jp×g🗯️ 23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I've had all of those conversations in real life for the past week, not really newsworthy! I requested Midsize Jake/Somey to reserve my username to prevent any impersonation, but I don't anticipate using the account. Svampesky (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't believe it qualifies as 'open to the public'. When I attempted to create an account, my registration was rejected because I was on a VPN at the time. I contacted the support email and was connected to the admin. Svampesky (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

They wouldn't even need permission for that, the government could take them to court to try to stop the publication but theres no point at which they would have to ask for permission. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes but the Signpost is not the government; it just tries to play one on Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

PPS it is also a newsletter not a newspaper.Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be advised that this discussion about the putative turning of a stray comment on WPO about Daddy Liberty leading the Secret Service into full-blown canvassing was also mentioned on WPO at 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC). — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't accused WPO of canvassing in the report (or at least it wasn't my intention). I said the Template:Not a ballot banner was placed. This banner functions to deter canvassing. I've written Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site dedicated to criticizing and discussing Wikipedia and scrutinizing Wikipedians. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing. Subsequently, I explained the concept of canvassing and concluded the paragraph with Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred. I don't plan on quoting anything from WPO, as the only pertinent detail is that the template was placed onto the discussion because it was posted on WPO, as noted in the edit summary This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful. If anything needs rewording, I think it's only the at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing part. Any suggestions on how to make this clearer? Svampesky (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is a satirical website, which is at times critical of the various Wikimpedia movements, of poorly written articles, of Wikipedians' sometimes cavalier disrespect for BLP, etc., etc. It is not primarily a site dedicated to, as you put it, "scrutinizing Wikipedians", but you can write whatever you want. As for the Wikipedian obsession with canvassing, it strikes me as a somewhat exaggerated reaction to someone out there in the world pointing in here and laughing at us. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I also did not mean to accuse WPO of canvassing, but it seems that this is how others have interpreted my actions, for which I sincerely apologize. casualdejekyll 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll, how about this Special:Diff/1235769644? I've changed it to be less absolute about the intentions behind placement of the banner. Svampesky (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll, I'll maintain that it was prompted by a post on WPO, as indicated in the edit summary. However, I've made it less absolute regarding whether you were actually accusing anyone of canvassing. Svampesky (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll, I've now recreated the page so the errors won't appear in the edit history when it gets published: User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump raised-fist photo. I didn't know whether I was allowed to carry over Josve05a reflist that was added, so I left it to allow for them to do it on the new page. Svampesky (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what's in the article is basically unimpeachable -- you have done basically nothing beyond mention the existence of the site and the fact that a post was made there, so I don't think there is any basis for complaint, unless somebody is simply malding for an unrelated reason. jp×g🗯️ 02:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You should obviously recuse yourself from any editorial decisions related to WPO, given your very open hostility toward both the website and those who comment there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: As I've said several times, I do not have any kind of hostility towards the site in general, about which I remain ambivalent; this comment is quite out-of-line and I'd appreciate if you struck it. jp×g🗯️ 04:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You may have made that claim several times, but your commentary on-wiki says otherwise. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. jp×g🗯️ 04:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways Not in my experience, at least not in regard to Signpost matters. Andreas JN466 08:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia content must comply with U.S. copyright law

Is it a) only because the servers are located in the U.S. b) only because the Foundation is incorporated in, and operates in, the U.S. c) both? The article presumes a is the case, but I am not so sure. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A commenter on said article has a take on this, actually. jp×g🗯️ 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I acknowledged their input and kinda-sorta CYA mentioned this conversation there as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is a derivative work

Can someone review whether the image falls outside of NFCC, and should be deleted or not? Svampesky (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

its 6 in the morning, i haven't slept in a very long time so i am really not excited about this, and i cannot presently spend another 10 minutes making a second ms paint drawing of stick figures in a way that is guaranteed will not cause anybody to think it resembles the photo that its purpose is to resemble -- if it, even with 90% of the subject of the image obscured completely by scribbles, is a derivative work that includes non de minimis elements of the original photo, we can just overwrite the fucking file with the painting by malevich i guess. i have now made the image be five pixels in each dimension -- there is no conceivable way in which it could ever be argued that this constitues an infringement of copyright -- if anyone wants to scale it down further, perhaps to a single pixel -- a naughty, bad boy single pixel -- please go ahead and be my guest. jp×g🗯️ 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. You've now turned this into protest against Wikipedia's image use guidelines, and The Signpost should be neutral. After having a review, I'm actually in support of these strict guidelines. I also like it how the image isn't in the report to show how strict Wikipedia is. Svampesky (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

it's up to you whether you want to have an image in the article -- it makes no difference to me either way -- i just ask that you not call it vandalism jp×g🗯️ 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'vandalism' that I was referring is the (since deleted) version where you scrawled a giant black scribble over the image. The pixelated version that you subsequently uploaded is not vandalism. Svampesky (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Satire is exempt from the usual constraints of copyright. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fist pump collage

If only we'd had time to create a placeholder collage. There's no shortage of this pose on Wikimedia Commons, it seems to be something he does frequently. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's something everybody does frequently. It's an extremely common gesture, at least in the US. One could make such a collage with pretty much any politician (or athlete). It's like a "high five collage." Levivich (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

I don't agree, Levivich, with the "pretty much any politician" comment. On a somewhat thorough search I could only find one image of the other candidate making the same gesture. "Mayor Pete", zero, and it's hard to even imagine him doing it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is more than one image of Harris doing it: [4] [5] [6] [7] And her supporters doing it back to her: [8] Here's Biden doing it: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Biden doing it next to Harris: [15] Obama doing it: [16] [17] Obama doing it next to Biden: [18] Michelle and Barack doing it together: [19] Barack doing it with others: [20] [21] Hillary doing it: [22] [23] [24] Bill doing it: [25] Bill doing it when he was younger: [26] Search Google images for "[politician's name] fist", there is no shortage of examples on the internet. Levivich (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Free articles to anyone interested: it would be nice to have a writer for the deletion report

@Svampesky, Sawyer777, and Oltrepier: and others who've mentioned wanting to write something before: WP:ORACLE is back up, I am in the middle of setting the schedule for it to run on the same regular basis as before (and did a bunch of overhauls to the code to fix busted/badly written stuff from before). Anyone who wants to write a deletion report should check out the lsat few months (2024 main page, July / june / may / april / march. I do have a skeleton deletion report from some months ago sitting in the drafts somewhere (with the stuff already prepped and sorted out, just requiring writeups for the actual discussions) but by now I think this is pretty old.

At any rate: the way I'd do deletion reports, when I had those as a regular feature, was to go to the monthly pages, click the column to sort the table by most votes, and by largest AfD size (these tend to give very similar but slightly different results). Typically, the top five or so would include at least something of public interest to the wider editoriat. The general categories I noticed were:

• "influencer/meme/viral/youtuber/tiktoker thing".
• "actual politics thing" and "extremely online politics thing" (by 2021 there was already a very blurry distinction between these, and by 2024 I think there is literally none whatsoever)
• "wiki politics thing" e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement, a lot of the stuff with "(4th nomination)" will be this
• "subject which is not inherently wikipolitical, incidentally touches off some kind of recondite wikidrama" (e.g. random articles about tuskegee airmen that just happened to be the location where the gigantic ARS disaster went down... big batch nominations for Olympians/eclipses/geostubs/etc...)
• "thing which is mentioned on an off-wiki site" (viral twitter stuff mostly)

Also, sometimes there are noms in the largest-by-volume category that are not actually that big of a controversy or heavily participated-in, they just happened to have some guy who made the world's biggest source analysis table, or two people cussing each other out in deeply-threaded extremely verbose posts for the full runtime of the AfD, or something.

• July:

• Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign
• Next United Kingdom general election
• Haliey Welch
• Age and health concerns of Joe Biden

• June:

• Barron Trump (3rd nomination)
• Vandalism of Stonehenge
• All Eyes on Rafah
• Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities

• May:

• 2024 Mannheim stabbing
• 2024 Pune car crash
• Tamil genocide
• List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors

• April:

• Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello
• Eric Hovde
• List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (3rd nomination)
• 2024 New Jersey earthquake

• March:

• Where is Kate?
• Where is Kate? (2nd nomination)
• Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)
• List of British Airways destinations
• StoneToss (3rd nomination)

Geez Louise -- "Where is Kate?" has three separate AfDs, all in the same month, all of which are in the top six for that month individually. I ran the Quarry sql to reevaluate the biggest thousand AfDs of all time from 2005 to now, and apparently the third one is #13 by itself (203k). If you combine them all, it's, uh: 319074 bytes, which -- holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever, second only to that Communism one a couple years back. The article about that one was pretty well-received, so this Kate thing might be something, if anyone wants to take it.

jp×g🗯️ 02:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

amused to see Eric Hovde there; his ads have been plaguing my youtube viewing for so long. i've got stuff i'm trying to get myself to work on so i don't want to start something new, but if someone starts this deletion report i'm happy to help expand & copyedit. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Unfortunately, I won't be able to help this time around (apologies for saying this just now, by the way), but thank you for the heads up, still! Oltrepier (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a go at drafting something for 'Where is Kate?' after I finish the Trump photo for the upcoming issue. I vaguely recall the article on her Mother's Day photo. There's a lot of policy around BLP, NOTNEWS and possibly FRINGE that can be discussed. For this one, it would be wise to not name any editors, as both of my previous pieces have been shared outside of Wikipedia; and they might not be familiar with WP:AGF. We can discuss at the appropriate time how we can best protect editors, while being a newspaper that reports on news about Wikipedia. In addition, I would prefer not to have the editors names in the text of the report as that would be indexed by Google. Those are just my thoughts, so I'll leave the final decision to you. I will also need access to the deleted article. I don't think it would be best to restore the article and that could reopen old wounds and was deemed a BLP violation, so is there a way of you giving me access to the all of the revisions for only for that article? Svampesky (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Woot! I think I remember you saying something about this one so I was hoping you'd like the topic. I can send you the deleted text of the most-complete version, but there are about nine hundred deleted revisions, and no way to send multiple of them automatically. I am trying to find out what the actual procedure is on temporary undeletion (I am hearing stuff can be undeleted into userspace but I think this would fill the logs with crap -- the redirect is fully protected so maybe it is harmless to just restore it there for a few days. I will find out. jp×g🗯️ 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, this was really dumb: the third AfD closed delete, someone recreated a redirect, it got deleted with the claim there was consensus against having a redirect, but then it was recreated again and then brought to RfD where overwhelming consensus was to keep, all of which put together indicates to me that there was never actually a reason why anybody agreed that it needed to be a redirect with no history. So I have just restored the damn page to where it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where_is_Kate%3F&action=history - I think it should be fine now. jp×g🗯️ 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Exciting! I remember the Mother's Day photo was back-to-back headlines in the UK for around two weeks. I know the article spoke about a bit more other about conspiracies, and the photo was only a section of it. You will also need to restore the talk page. Is there a reason for that title? It seems in very poor taste. Was that the title for the whole thing or was it moved and that as the final title? Svampesky (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, quickly on holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever. This is only true if you combine the 'Where is Kate' ones, and don't combine the others. The other top ranking ones have 'Xth nomination', so you would also need to combine those to get a true statistic. Svampesky (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of nth nominations at User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest_AfDs. Most of them are spread out across multiple years, though. I don't think any of them are like, three noms back-to-back in the same month. Some of them are kind of weird also (logorrhea notes here):

• List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination) exists... but (2nd nomination) is just a redirect to it. And the base title is a redlink (maybe they were referrring to this one as the base?
• ED has an assload, but they are spread out across like three years: Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) (the big one) is 2008-05, but Encyclopedia Dramatica is 2004-12, Encyclopædia Dramatica is 2005-06, Encyclopaedia Dramatica is 2006-03, Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is 2006-06 (after it is 3rd (speedy keep 2008-07), 4th (speedy keep 2009-02), 5th (speedy keep 2011-01), and 6th (joke nom from Fools '17). Even across all these noms, no two happened within the same month (or even consecutive months).

jp×g🗯️ 12:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Query. According to Where is Kate?-AfD3, the article underwent a 'deletion review'. I'm assuming that's the same as Wikipedia:Deletion review (as the linked discussion is a subpage of 'Wikipedia:Deletion review'), so was the article deleted at some point? The linked deletion review closed with 'no consensus'. Does that mean it was subsequently restored? Sorry for the confusion, but there is a lot of of text to review. I'll come back to all of this and I won't look at this again until after I've completed the Trump photo for the upcoming issue (which also has a lot of text to go though; and I like learning about Wikipedia policy 'on the job'!). Svampesky (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting something that I idly realized just now -- this is more of a cute factoid than anything else, I don't know if it will fit in what you're writing -- but the current size of the FfD section for that image ([27]) is currently 204,174 characters/bytes. The image itself is 18,336 bytes, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. This is really unusual, since files tend to be much larger (hundreds of kilobytes, into megabytes) -- it's just that this file is abnormally tiny due to the extreme image downscaling done for NFCC purposes. jp×g🗯️ 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this later when complete the writing. The cover image should be the photo that's being discussed, intentionally stretched to maintain its low quality to convey how Wikipedia downscales images. Svampesky (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. I'm glad that people who enjoy meaningless trivia have infiltrated with The Signpost. I have included this. I'm going to complete the write-up now and then email it to my friend to verify the accuracy copyright law. Additionally, I'm awaiting response to emails to ensure there's no libellous information in the report or its page history. I can put it on Google Drive, or something. so you can see it on the 'submission deadline', but it will definitely be sorted by the publication deadline. This was a big write up, and I'm pleased with myself that I got it all done in five days! Svampesky (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Related – Republicans pounce

• WP:Articles for deletion/Republicans pounce

This might go well with our recent headline Recent research piece on liberal bias on Wikipedia, the mention of Conservapedia in the current In the media, and related media coverage that doesn't have a mention in In the media, but could: Daily Caller (yeah I know) and National Post. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering 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) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Outage last night?

Last night I had some problems saving edits. I never know what this is about, but in almost 20 years on Wiki, I've only noticed this type of problem say 2-4 times. This morning I noticed news that there had been major problems around the world with airports, health care, etc. apparently caused by an update from a cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/19/business/global-tech-outage If there is any connection with Wikipedia, I'd guess we should lead with it in News and notes. But I don't know the techies to talk to, etc.

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No it was due to phab:T370304. Master s4 was being exhausted. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Josve05a:. So maybe we should have a mention that CrowdStrike wasn't the problem? BTW at https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnk4jdwp49et Elon Musk says CrowdStrike was 'Biggest IT fail ever' says Musk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

WP says 2024 CrowdStrike incident. Section on conspiracy theories coming in 3... 2... 1... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a good section on that talk page Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#Wikipedia with several trustworthy Wikipedians commenting. BTW, we've been scooped by In the news on the main page, as well as by a very large Wikipedia article.

We should go over how to react to a conspiracy theory. I see 3 possible reactions:

• Ignore it. But if the theory is already out there, this won't help.
• A very short story, completely shooting down the conspiracy theory. The shoot down could include quotes from very trustworthy figures of authority.
• A long story, completely ripping apart the theory, examining every detail.

Any of these strategies could actually increase the spread of the theory. But if we do it right it would be a service to our readers. I tend to favor a very short story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Posted my Book review

about Stephen Harrison's The Editors, something I've been working on for a long time. It's not really ready for a final copy editing, but feel free to get started on it, I've left the arbitrary breaks in which always makes it easier for me to edit.

I suspect that this might be controversial, since there is another draft of this by another author. I've tried to get some private feedback, but been mostly unsuccessful. Feel free to comment here. I do think now is the time to publish it, since there are interviews with Harrison coming out - see In the media. And I'm almost sure there will be other reviews soon as well. Wikipedians should get their first review of this from another Wikipedian.

I'll note that in News and notes on the Global council charter, it looks like we're pushing something, but it's just not ready to push yet. I'll suggest we tone it down, it just has too many holes in it still.

I hope to finish up In the media tonight. If I have time tomorrow, I might do a Disinfo report on a topic I first heard about today. It's the type of thing that offends the hell out of me - the type of topic that I usually find easy to write about. It should be short and clean and have a happy ending.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh, hello? This looks like rather uncollegial behavior, considering the other review that was submitted and discussed transparently on the submissions page. What are your arguments for giving your own review preference instead?

As discussed there, the marketing material for the book (on Amazon and on the author's homepage) already touts a blurb by you (from an earlier Signpost story about a previous version of what became the book). That might be an argument for giving other views room first.

I do think now is the time to publish it - as discussed on the submissions page: From a book marketing perspective this might be preferable, as pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish a review only once they will actually be able to acquire and read the book themselves.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @HaeB: for the response. I do understand that this situation is unusual, perhaps unique, for The Signpost. As I wrote above, I've asked around on how to handle this. More than once. The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens." I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. But I don't think it's a good idea to submit an unfinished draft well ahead of time. I also think it would be unusual to post something like "I've got dibs on this story". I've been following this story for over three years and was really looking forward to writing the review. When the other review was submitted, I contacted @SGerbic: to see whether we could write a joint review. After seeing my (fairly weak) attempt to write a joint review using some of her material, she thought that our views were too far apart to do that. I agree with that assessment. She also suggested that The Signpost might print both the reviews, which I don't expect to happen.

What are your arguments for giving your own review preference? It's pretty simply really, I think the other review missed some important points and included other things that were just distractions. Yes, I'm biased. Ultimately it will be up to the editor-in-chief to decide which review he wants to publish. But absent any guidance, I though at least I should submit my review. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13. I wouldn't see any purpose to a Signpost policy saying that we have to wait until the public has received books before we publish a review. Pre-publication reviews are standard practice essentially everywhere (at least in the US) as far as I can tell.

@JPxG and Bri:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I find both reviews to be excellent. However, I would like to address one point: The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens.". This seems misleading, as you didn't submit it in the conventional manner on the submissions page; instead, you posted it directly to the next issue (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review). My opinion is that you may have unfairly used your Editor-in-chief-emeritus status to prioritize your submission over Sgerbic's submission. However, it's down to JPxG; these are just my thoughts. Svampesky (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I still believe both reviews are excellently written; however, I have striked out my comment as, upon closer examination, it appears they could function as promotional material for the book, contrary to WP:NOTPROMO. Svampesky (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I submitted the article in the same way I've submitted every article I've written in the last 4+ years. Then I posted this thread here, to make sure that everybody knows what is happening. It's completely transparent. We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page, he just posts it in the usual place. If JPxG want to replace my review with the other, he is free to do so, and he'll find it easier to do since I set up the page.

I do think that some folks are misinterpreting what a book review is. The format is pretty standard throughout the media, e.g. most book reviews are favorable, simply because most people won't write a review about books they don't think their audience will be interested in. And prepublication reviews are the industry standard because it's a convenience to the reader to be able to order a book when it's first coming out, rather than wait until it's old news. And book reviews are clearly opinion pieces, they always give something of the opinion of the reviewer. Let's not try to make our book reviews into something they've never been intended to be. Since the question of promotion has come up, I'll state (as is in the review) that I received an electronic copy of the book (which I can't sell or even give away - it has my name embedded in it) and that I'm an email acquaintance of Harrison, though we've never met in person. For example, in writing up "In the media", I might ask him about the meaning of a specific sentence. I do admire his writing and reporting style - but that is already in my review. I haven't and won't receive any payment or favors for the review. It's just a straightforward view about what I think of the book. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's completely transparent. Dude. You say above that I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. Yet when Susan submitted hers in May (in a thread that you were definitely aware of, considering that you emailed me about it), and several folks weighed in - Novem Linguae, Bluerasberry, myself and JPxG - you didn't say a word there. Not even when JPxG stated his intention there to run this alongside the release of the book, in contrast to all the arguments you are suddenly bringing up now to run it when the book is not available to the general public yet. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13 - yes, I already said above that pre-orders exist and that driving up their numbers is considered an important book marketing technique. rather than wait until it's old news - surely you don't claim that this book is so ephemeral that it will be no longer of general interest in late August? As for industry standard, lots of professional publications run book reviews weeks or even years after publication.

We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page - in case it has escaped your attention for the last decade or so: RR 1) is always announced on this page a few days in advance of the deadline, and 2) maintains a public to-do list of papers to review, where folks are invited to sign up as reviewers. The latter is exactly to avoid the kind of situation that you are creating here.

Since the question of promotion has come up - Nobody suggested you were getting material favors for this favorable review. But optimizing the timing (or content) of a Signpost story for the goal of helping an author we admire to maximize their book sales would be problematic too. Our readers' interest should come first. And again, the book's marketing material on Amazon and on Harrison's website already contain a (rather fawning) blurb by you, attributed to the Signpost no less.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ The review should be published after the book's release and after its promotional period. The author sending an advanced copy of the book to Wikipedia for a review could function as promotional material for it. The book is a novelization of Wikipedia; should it be posted beforehand, it could be utilized as a promotional tool by the author, who might proclaim, We have the Wikipedia stamp of approval!, in the lead-up/first sales week in order to boost sales of the book. To avoid this, the review ought to be published at least one week after the book's release, once the initial publicity phase has subsided. To add, this would not be the case for a book not about Wikipedia. I'd see it as fine if the book was a novelisation of Twitter. Svampesky (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see any reason to redefine that standard practices of book reviewing just for the Signpost. And if Wikipedians choose to buy a dozen or so books a few weeks before they otherwise would have -so what? This is just not a case of promotion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

standard practices of book reviewing - as I said above, it's entirely standard to publish book reviews after (or on) a book's publication date. If you don't believe me, check (as a non-cherry picked example) this LitHub list from two days ago: "5 Book Reviews You Need to Read This Week", from The New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic and the Washington Post. All five were published on or after the reviewed book's publication date, none in advance.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This discussion took me by surprise. I didn't expect to come in and find Smallbones questioned for a good faith book review. I feel that the objections raised in the conversation above ought to be rebutted lest we set unfortunate precedents or step on each others' toes further.

In my process of finding reviews to establish notability in wp articles, I quite often find pre-publication reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly. E.g. for my last book article about The New Rules of War, there is a PW review from October 2018; the book was published in 2019. My advice to Smallbones is to acknowledge the advance copy but if necessary we can say there was no (other?) compensation involved.

As for the process of composition off wiki, lots of folks prefer to do it this way. As for regular contributors not submitting their ideas or works-in-progress for approval, not a problem at all as far as I am concerned; it still has to go through the usual review and copyediting and isn't sneaking something in the issue.

I find the suggestion that the submittal of a second opinion about a work of fiction is somehow "competing" with another author off-putting and stifling our own ability to express ourselves here. If we are going to discourage ways of contributing to The Signpost, it needs to be in a consistent and transparent way, not ad hoc. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification. My sole concern is the timing of the review's release in The Signpost being during the books promotional period; I offer no opinion on anything else. Book reviews are inherently promotional, which is unavoidable. Nevertheless, we can mitigate this unavoidable-promotion by publishing the review after the promotional period has concluded. The book is also a novelization of Wikipedia, and thus can serve as a promotional tool for the author during its promotional period. Svampesky (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: An embarrassment of riches ... Having had an advance paper copy of the book as well, I would suggest we use Smallbones' review first (whether in this issue or a future one). Sgerbic gives away quite a bit of the plot; I'd propose we run hers at a later date (definitely well after book publication).

Both reviews have their strengths, but I can relate to Smallbones' piece more; he verbalises things I felt too when reading the book. A strength of Sgerbic's review is that she relates the book's plot to some of Harrison's previous journalistic writings that I had not read; that was very useful info.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Both reviews are worthwhile to have. I have given both a quick copyedit (Susan's at User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors). Andreas JN466 20:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If running one review first and the other later would lead to bad feeling, I'd suggest running both in the same issue. Flip a coin for which one is labelled Book Review 1 and which one is labelled Book Review 2. Andreas JN466 08:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Bri, this is misrepresenting the discussion above. Smallbones is not questioned for a good faith book review (at least not by me, I haven't commented on the contents of this review so far), but for his entirely unusual and uncollegial actions around it.

the suggestion that the submittal of a second opinion about a work of fiction is somehow "competing" with another author off-putting and stifling - read again. Smallbones did not merely submit "a second opinion", he wants his own review to run instead of the one that was transparently submitted in May and discussed by several Signpost team members back then. He even explicitly rejected the idea that both could be featured, i.e. promoted exactly the "competing" notion that you find "off-putting and stifling" (After seeing my (fairly weak) attempt to write a joint review using some of her material, she thought that our views were too far apart to do that. I agree with that assessment. She also suggested that The Signpost might print both the reviews, which I don't expect to happen.)

I can't help noticing that you apply your concerns about Signpost book review authors being "questioned" and met with "off-putting and stifling" comments very selectively here, to only one of the two. Have you spent a moment thinking about what kind of message we send to Signpost contributors if they make a good-faith effort to follow our submissions process, receive largely approving feedback etc., only to be muscled aside at the last minute by a Signpost bigwig who denigrates their review with vague claims? (note that in his response to my question above about arguments for giving your own review preference instead, Smallbones has provided no concrete examples for his insinuations that SGerbic's review missed some important points and included other things that were just distractions)

I quite often find pre-publication reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly - nobody said that pre-publication reviews don't exist. Rather, the point of contention is Smallbones' claim that these are the default and the Signpost publishing a review only after a book is publicly available would mean to redefine that standard practices of book reviewing. As explained above, I consider this claim pretty much debunked, considering that e.g. the New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic and the Washington Post routinely also do that terrible thing that Smallbones insists is breaking the norms of professional journalism. (If you want to dig deeper into that, consider e.g. that Publishers Weekly is a "trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers, and literary agents", to quote from that article's lede - not at the general public. Again, I think we should put our readers' perspective first.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Disinformation report

Should I/Bluerasberry move this from drafts to next issue? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report but would like anyone else to add their support to publication following any review, critique, or request for additional care if needed. The piece is submitted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Disinformation_Report_Take_2.

I think this is one of the most interesting pieces ever submitted to Signpost in terms of this being an evidence-supported narrative of how shenanigans significantly contributed to the establishment of United States legislation, court precedent, medical policy, and political platforms. As this is a transgender political piece, getting this out now in election season would be timely. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My disinfo report I talked about above is ready. It's in my standard disinfo report style, so I'd usually put in here. But it looks like Special report is open, I'll post it there and let other people switch things around if necessary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed election announcement text

I am standing as a candidate in the next WMF board election. I was also previously on the election commission for two terms, and wrote about elections here in The Signpost in the past, so covering this is a bit my beat.

I believe the following is news worth reporting now, but I would request that anyone else review this and consider posting it or anything else. I suggest this as a section in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes.

Thanks for considering.

---

Wikimedia Foundation Elections, 3-17 September 2024

The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Election is the world's most important Internet election will run 3-17 September 2024. Wikimedia editors will choose 4 of the 12 trustees to serve on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Duties of trustees include reviewing the progress of the Wikimedia Foundation CEO, and deciding to approve or reject the plan and budget which the CEO presents to the board every year. Mark your calendar, and prepare yourself and your colleagues to vote.

On 1 July, candidates finalized their answers to questions which the election committee presented to them. Read the questions and answers and consider discussing at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024 or wherever concerned Wikimedia voters convene.

---

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Gottem. jp×g🗯️ 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

thanks looks great Bluerasberry (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

20:11 Special report

I was thinking that I should give a warning about the controversial practice of short selling. While strongly regulated in the US, and very controversial, it is legal and has been practiced widely (since the 1600s in the Netherlands, 1820s in the US).

I've posted in the article:

"Readers should be aware that short selling, the practice of betting that a stock's price will go down, is a controversial business and that many short sellers have been accused of exaggerating their reports in order to drive the stock price down further. We are not aware of any such accusations in this case."

@JPxG: It will certainly be worth your time to fact check this very carefully before publishing. Strong accusations and controversy often follow short selling reports. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess this was held over for the next issue. I'll adjust the section heading. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)