Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

State of the issue

Think we have a decent, if smallish issue. Seven ten articles in pretty good states, two JPxG says are largely done, but not on the Newsroom yet, and, um.. two that probably aren't appearing until next issue that we can ignore. Here's my notes:

Copyedited

Serendipity, News and notes, Featured content, Special Report, Gallery, Technology report, From the team, Opinion , Humour, In the media, Busting into Grand Central (this last one should probably be moved to a more generic article type)

Copyedited with slight issues

• Thinking deeper - Might be set up a little oddly, but I like the ideas a lot.

Ready for copyedit

From the archives

Pretty much there

Need a little more work

Written somewhere

JPxG mentioned he had a "From the archives" and an "Essay" ready to go.

Not even really started

• Arbitration report: Just a template.

I might throw together a couple easy articles, like a gallery or something. EDIT: I did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and say this: For something made on a whim, I think the Gallery is pretty hard-hitting. It's a subject I think about a lot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 16:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured content has been copyedited now. I'll add to the "written somewhere" that I have an Opinion piece and there are some others waiting for review at the Signpost submissions page. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri! Good to know: We might actually get a full-sized issue. I'm quite happy to copyedit anything I haven't written, so just put it up ASAP. I'll check the submissions page over for anything likely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 16:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bri: Cleared out the submissions that looked ready. Yours is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion, but has a big highlight for an unfinished bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

External links in the Special report are shown the same way as internal links, i.e. without the special symbol usually distinguishing external from internal links.

It seems to be due to the sidebar template (Template:Signpost series, hey, hadn't seen one of those in a while in an article ... note you need to install an extra tool to tag articles for inclusion in a series).

It might be confusing in some passages (there are a few external links placed on publication names, like The Guardian or The Washington Post, and those now look as though they were merely linking to the Wikipedia articles on these publications). Can/should we fix this? Andreas JN466 21:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't get Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Thinking deeper ... at all. I don't think this would go down well in its current state.

We've had one or two sections like that in recent issues that left people wondering why we had decided to publish them ... that way lies danger. You don't want people thinking about the Signpost, you want people thinking about the things the articles are about. Andreas JN466 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I kind of like it as a set of thought experiments about Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I have the 2005 at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Retrospective (from User:JPxG/The Illuminated Signpost where I also have 2006). It is unbelievably long and boring so I think some copyediting is needed, and I feel kind of bad dumping it on other people so I will try to pitch in myself. The essay is at Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles, which is quite long and doesn't really have a date-based deadline (ha!). jp×g 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Humour is done. I moved the existing one to a different page because I didn't think it was going to be ready in time. If anyone wants to go over this, I'd appreciate it (although there is kind of a delicate balance -- my assumption is that readers will need to mouse-over a lot of links for this one to go as hard as it needs to). jp×g 04:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have to say I don't get "Philosophical bridges" under the unusual column title Thinking deeper. Is this a gedakenexperiment taking us down a Bicentennial Man-style road? And how do you cross a bridge before you get to it, anyway? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Bri. There are certainly people who don't understand the basics. We should inform them, not publish them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur; I think there is something good in here, but it needs to be fleshed out more thoroughly. I am moving it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Thinking deeper. jp×g 09:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say this is shaping up to be a good issue. I'll be away from 'net access this afternoon so I'll hang around and copyedit here and there but my contribution is almost complete now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• I). concur with Bri. And I'll say that I'm surprised about it turning out as well. Sorry I didn't have more time. @JPxG and HaeB: Just a couple of comments - I'm guessing that HaeB is keeping to a monthly schedule on Research report, so jpxg might be able to proceed anytime. Publishing early!? You never know about these things. About the "From the team", there's a sentence approx. "If we run out of shit to say". I hope I'm not an old stick in the mud, and I know you're joking, but filthy language almost always confuses or offends somebody. In this case is literally says "we're giving you crap," and puts down the rest of the team. Wouldn't you feel silly if a reader says "yes, you are" and we lose them. It's just the idea that we'd be telling our readers that we are not giving them the best newspaper that we can (within our limitations and abilities). I'd take offense to that if I didn't know that's not what you mean. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Smallbones on the language. Can we please aspire to New York Times-style tone – because that's the sort of publication we'd ideally like to link to us when there is a Wikimedia story, and to come to us for background. Andreas JN466 20:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'll go ahead and change it to "stuff", but @JPxG: can obviously revert if he'd like. Will we ever get the same "tone" as the NYT? No, but I think "aspire to" is ok, as long as we realize that there are a few otherwise good writers that we want to keep who won't agree, and that many of the non-regulars will want or need a looser style. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Stuff" is good. There are very few situations in which swearing is necessary, and this is not one of them. If I write something like this, please whack me with a newspaper and/or copyediting tools. jp×g 21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Confirming that we're going to skip this issue with "Recent research" to keep its monthly cadence (as I had already stated earlier above). I just noticed that someone had changed my Newsroom note about RR in the December issue to be about this upcoming issue, but that's not accurate, I'll remove that now. (This seems to be another case of confusion caused by the newsroom page not having been reset after the publication of the last issue as per the longstanding instructions - JPxG what's the solution/process change again you had been proposing for this?)

I'll be available though to post the usual Twitter/Mastodon/FB announcement after publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet more crap

https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/chatgpt-wikipedia-articles.html and Talk:Artwork title. jp×g 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Feader reedback

See Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2023-01-16, which should now work properly -- I wrote scripts for User:WegweiserBot to update the modules automatically on publication, so no frantic manual tagging is necessary. For a recent changes feed, see RC and Talk RC from the omni-index. jp×g 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Slate article about Vector 2022

Hi Signpost contributors. I noticed this news article about the new redesign [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if more places cover it. Anyways, I thought I'd bring it up in case it's useful somewhere. Hey Levivich, maybe you'd be able to write something about it? It's okay if you can't, the Vector skin redesign just reminded me of you for some reason. I'm not quite sure why. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If The Signpost is looking for views about the new skin, I'd be happy to give mine. Shout me on my talk page if you want me. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the Signpost is always looking for people to contribute. JPxG, maybe Mjroots' could do the next issue's essay? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be giving the United States debt ceiling crisis starting this week just a little more attention than the wiki skin changeover on Wednesday. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bri: I admit I'm a bit confused about the relevance of that to Wikipedia but I'm not American and I'm not familiar with what you're referencing so maybe it makes more sense with context. Anyways, you do your thing. Hopefully someone can cover it in the next issue since I think this has been the first new default layout since 2010? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Rauwerda's article absolutely nailed that whole thing. Thanks for the ping Clovermoss but I'm going to pass as I'm already overcommitted elsewhere, but I bet it'll be in good hands with Mjroots. Levivich (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at me and my ability to predict the future:

• Engadget [2]
• Techcrunch [3]
• PCMag [4]

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. Techcrunch and Engadget were added to In the media on 18 January. Of course you can add PCMag and you can still contribute to ITM if you find more! ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This was a pretty good summary: "Perhaps your brain rejected all the new white space, or the way the "sticky" new table of contents hovers while you scroll. But also maybe you just hate change. There's no right way to react to a thing happening on the internet, so whining and nitpicking, along with inexplicable fear,(Opens in a new window) are to be expected at a time like this." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre situation

POLITICO writes: "George Santos appears to admit drag queen past in Wiki post". This includes a putative screenshot of User:Anthonydevolder, a user account indeffed today, with two edits, (both deleted; they don't show up in Special:Contributions or on Xtools). Its user page is redlinked... and has no deletion log. What????? jp×g 01:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• The article looks pretty much correct. Doug Weller blocked the account for impersonation, but since it was registered (last used?) in 2011, that looks like a creative use of WP:IAR. Well what else would you do with an account like that? There are 2 similar accounts that have edited George Santos since the election. Some pages are archived, but I don't see anything useful in them. I think we have to have something about this, but ... I guess they might ban somebody who links to Politico in a Signpost article. Can Republicans kick him out of Congress for admitting to being a drag queen? (Just a thought - somebody would accuse me of making a bad joke ...) I know, they'll accuse Wikipedia of faking the page. Sometimes you have to start with a headline. How about "George Santos accused of telling the truth", but would anybody believe iy? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also articles in BuzzFeed News, The Independent, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, the Bharat Express News, HuffPost, and Mediaite. jp×g 06:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• WP:AN#User:Anthonydevolder has some information on this. One of our admins holding Oversight permissions admits to making a mistake in applying it here. The deletion log now shows one undelete by the admin.

This is interesting too. I don't usually think to check edit filter logs. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Publishing on Wednesday, February 1?

The deadline template up top says our next publication is on Wednesday, Feb. 1. If this is the case, I'll have to bow out of the next issue. If we are publishing on a weekend, I'd like a shot at the George Santos Signpost article. I've been following the Santos story for about a month and thought it was a bit boring, with no connection to Wikipedia. That's changed a bit now. I should note that "boring" to me includes somebody who just lies 100% of the time. If he does that, he'll obviously be thrown in jail sooner or later. An interesting story, to me, would be where he tells something like the truth at least once. Still working on that angle, but at least we have a solid Wikipedia angle now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Loophole in Wikimedia, LLC Operating Agreement?

I've found what seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Wikimedia LLC Operating Agreement. Basically, there is a whole section that talks about how the WMF can add further members to the LLC, or transfer all or part of its interest to an assignee. The section reads as follows:

• 5.1 Additional Members. The Sole Member may admit additional members to the Company.
• 5.2 Transfers. A Member may transfer all or any part of its interest in the Company to an assignee only upon the written consent of the Sole Member.
• 5.3 Execution of Agreement Required. The admission of an additional member or transferee member under this Section 5 becomes effective when such additional or transferee member consents in writing to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as amended to accommodate such additional members.

Now you need to bear in mind that Wikimedia, LLC is incorporated in Delaware and that Delaware is one of only four states in the US that allows anonymous LLCs, meaning that the identities of the members of the LLC are not part of the public record. You can add, change and remove members and nothing about it will be seen in Delaware's public records. I've asked User:LWyatt (WMF) about it on Meta-Wiki. He says it's a boilerplate clause, that there was no specific intent behind its inclusion, and that he has recommended or will recommend to WMF Legal that they remove it entirely next time the document is reviewed. But as far as I can tell, those phrases are unique to the Wikimedia, LLC Operating Agreement. No one else has used those wordings, in particular the second and third ones, about the "assignee" or "transferee member". Have a look at the discussion on Meta and let me know what you think, please. Andreas JN466 02:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Andreas, you're way out of the area of your knowledge or expertise as far as I can tell. Are you a practicing lawyer with experience in Delaware corporate law? Have you checked with anybody who is or who has any recognized credentials in the area. If you don't have any such backing for your story, I'll suggest you refrain until you get some sort of actual legal basis to discuss (with expert backing). Otherwise it will look like you are just using The Signpost to troll the WMF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Now, I am not a lawyer, IANAL, but there are certainly things that look quite normal to me here. The clause may just be part of a plan to liquidate the LLC if necessary. It's in the same part of the agreement as the liquidation section and feeds into it. There certainly have been corps which have had to be liquidated without such a section and it is incredibly difficult and time-consuming to get it all straightened out. I'm thinking in particular about a cemetery where all members of the board died or disappeared. Unusual you say. Sure but not as unusual as the things you are speculating about. Get somebody knowledgable to go on the record, or just drop it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

WMF Legal's Shaun Spalding posted a 2000-word reply today. Short version: The WMF will remove Section 5, though it may take them a while to get round to it. It's quite a lot to absorb; it'll take me a couple of days. Andreas JN466 23:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Longer version - he was extremely polite and said that the WMF would make the change, subject to approval by expensive legal specialists, but it's not a good use of WMF funds to make the change now, so wait until they modify the LCC form. My interpretation - wait at least 10 years. It's also not a good use of space in The Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No Serendipity next issue

Apologies, but there will be no Serendipity article in the next issue of The Signpost. Bi-weekly is a bit too much for me. Vysotsky (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Serendipity, 4 Feb

Skipping this issue - as discussed earlier, Vysotsky will stay monthly and thus resume in the half February issue. Vysotsky (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Publishing on Feb 2 and not Feb 1

All right, I'll push the deadline forward at least to then. I don't know about going all the way to Sunday, but I guess we could do that too. jp×g 04:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it - and just to clarify my comment above, I'm also not in favor to moving this issue to Feb 5; I meant that in the future we should go back to setting the publication date to Sundays in general. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Update from Maryana Iskander

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Update_from_Wikimedia_Foundation (I've copied the statement to News and notes). --Andreas JN466 10:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also a more general "Year One Update" now: m:Wikimedia Foundation Chief Executive Officer/Updates/Year One Update. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict with Andreas at N&n

@Jayen466, Bri, and JPxG: I totally rewrote the N&n section on "Investigative challenge" and had a major edit conflict with Andreas. It might be better if I leave it alone for now and let Andreas try to straighten it out. Or give me a couple of hours and my mind will be clear. Bri and JPxG you might want to check out the "Investigative challenge". The only reason I put my initial first is because I don't like it when anybody puts "-B-S" under anything I've written. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Smallbones I was blissfully unaware ... I'll sort it out. Also, the point about the initials is noted for future reference. ;) Andreas JN466 19:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Smallbones Diff. I'll be busy for the next hour or so off-wiki, so if you want to carry on editing, do! Best, Andreas JN466 19:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, no B.S. please. Thanks for running the text through the AI-detector(s) – if I'm reading the history right this was done by Smallbones with his own OpenAI account? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was done by me. The OpenAI account may be a thing, but if so I probably got it way back when I asked it to write about The Signpost. "Stumbled into it" is probably the better description, I'm not sure I actually did anything beyond giving them a tiny amount of info about me. If there is a GPTzero account, it was slightly easier to get. I have sent both emails, but ... well maybe they are busy. GPTzero has said something about making a free version. Something like "for any signed-in Wikipedian" would make a lot of sense to me, but who knows what makes sense to them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Publishing tomorrow, February 1?

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: If we are going to publish tomorrow, I see 5 articles that could be put in shape to be publishable:

News and notes. It looks ok, but I really object to the inclusion of a section on "WMF uses legal boilerplate in its contracts". That is total BS IMHO.

In the media: Needs some work

Featured content: is fine

Tips and tricks, and Wikiproject report - I just skimmed them but they look ok.

I could probably get a Disinformation report out by 10am NY time for George Santos.

Just one question - why are we publishing during the weekdays?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Also there are 2 submissions that should be published. The Estonian one needs some good copy editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is good. I am looking forward to it. jp×g 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't really need to publish on the 1st, although I think if we're doing two per month it might be good to space them as regularly as possible (i.e. two issues in February already means a 14-day gap due to it having 28 days). I would also be fine with moving to the 2nd. jp×g 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Delaying it to February 2 is better for me. I also like publishing on Sundays. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been anticipating to have RR in publishable form by the Feb 1 deadline, but could also use the extra day.

+1 to publishing on Sundays in general. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't February 2 a Thursday? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

From the editor, 4 Feb

Test test test. jp×g 02:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent research, 4 Feb

(trying out JPxG's new system for my customary generic notice)

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its twelfth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here (also for future issues), as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Got delayed an am still working on this, sorry. Should be in publishable form in less than an hour. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Op-ed, 4 Feb

I suggest we introduce this with "the author is Executive Director of Wikimedia Estonia" and explain whether their contribution is an official position of the affiliate.

We should also be damn sure that the diff attributed to the guy's attorneys was in fact acknowledged by them. The article says his "lawyers have admitted" making it ... where? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that lawyers personally wrote to me and mention their not-so-successful attempts at removing this content. We have also mentioned that to the media and they have never denied their attempts. This writing is rather neutral in style (i.e the official position of Wikimedia Eesti is actually way more vengeful and strict). The limits on publication would not allow getting more into details (as it would get way too long), but the more we would look at it, the more outrageous and unwarranted this attack seems. BTW: That removal of information attempted to erase all his links to the mentioned pension reform from that article. Ivo (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

After getting an email from the author, but before reading the above comment, I made a couple of changes that seemed appropriate, e.g. removing the phrase about the lawyer's anon editing since I couldn't see documentation for it. But now I don't think I'd do that. Rather than switch it back right away, I'd like input on how best to change it now.

Perhaps change the current "Anonymous editors made several attempts to remove the section from Wikipedia by deleting it (for example here)." to

"Anonymous editors made several attempts to remove the section from Wikipedia by deleting it (for example here). Since Wikipedia administrators don't like anonymous vandalism, the well-referenced paragraph was restored three times. Later Ivo Kruusamägi received a letter from Pruunsild's lawyers saying that they had made the deletions. Then those lawyers decided to take it to the courthouse."

That should take care of any qualms about The Signpost not having any documentation for this and satisfy any enWiki admin who might question us on it. @Kruusamägi and K2suvi: should realize they are taking on the responsibility of answering enWiki admins on this, as well as any legal responsibility in Estonia. @JPxG: should approve this before I make the change. Thanks all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

From the history of that article we may see, that we have 3 cases from 2 IP-addresses where this section was removed from the article and each time it was restored by a different administrator.

If you want references then there are plenty of examples. Like from here you may read (in Estonian): "According to him, the entrepreneur discovered the Wikipedia page at the end of November last year. It was the accusations concerning the pension reform that caught his eye for the first time, and he asked attorney-at-law Paul Keres to change them. Unfortunately, the original text was restored every time in a couple of hours."

That specific letter, which was sent before midnight of 12th January, demanded this section be deleted within 24 hours or they will sue us. It also said that they have themselves tried to delete that, but each time it was reverted. Ivo (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kruusamägi and K2suvi: The postimees article looks like it should do the job, but unfortunately it is cuttoff by the paywall just as it's getting to the good part! Could either of you copy the text and send it too me? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as that important to triple-check that, as it is kind of a no-brainer who did the edits even without the confirmation from the lawyers, but you could send me an e-mail and can share the pdf of that article. Ivo (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And this same thing is also mentioned in our blog. That is freely accessible. Ivo (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, we've got that nailed down now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about this, being unable to verify that the attorneys "owned" the anon editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That is undoubtedly true and there is no lack of sources to prove it. Or do you want me to forward you a letter from them where they said it themselves, when numerous newspaper articles are not enough? But what puzzles me here is why is that even so important for you who tried to vandalize that article. People often try to delete stuff, so what? Ivo (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's important because this publication's reputation is on the line if we allow something under our masthead which turns out not to be true. Not to mention any other sorts of liabilities that would be attached to such a thing. I don't think it's untrue, but neither do I know for a fact that it is true, and that's not a good position to be in just before publication. Smallbones, have you seen the newspaper article? Like you, I was only able to get to the paywall and didn't see confirmation of the statement made in the op-ed. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

He saw it. And I'm the person sued here. So do not assume I don't understand the implications.

From that Postimees article it could be read that Pruunsild asked his lawyer to make that change. In here that lawyer states he sees it that way, that the possibility to make edits for everyone includes the possibility to delete stuff and he sees no issue with that and does not understand the problem. In here that could be read as the first thing. Ivo (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In their opinion, we are the bad guys as we don't allow them to delete something they don't like. As they see no issue on why it could not be deleted, then they have not made any attempt to hide their past attempts to erase the part of that article, and have instead used this in their argumentation to show us as the bad guys as we have reverted their attempts to "fix" the article for multiple times (like this why (!) they are going to court). They have even stated that Wikipedia is liable for the claims made and it is irrelevant that we only refer to the claims published in media 3 years prior to the creation of that Wikipedia article (and making those claims was perfectly legal even in the first place). They just ignore that newspaper (I can only guess, that maybe they thought it would be easier to sue some random Wikipedian than a big media house in Estonia... it doesn't seem at all that they expected us to fight back). And for real, there is no lack of rather foolish claims. Just explaining all this would make that article 3x as long. Ivo (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• More stuff I found:
• https://www.err.ee/1608851951/pruunsild-vikipeedia-peab-vastutama-seal-avaldatud-laimu-eest
• https://www.delfi.ee/artikkel/120128718/isamaa-suurrahastaja-pankur-parvel-pruunsild-kaebas-vikipeedia-laimu-eest-kohtusse

jp×g 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is also this and that Ivo (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW This is the same as this. ERR (Estonian Public Broadcasting) also publishes some articles in English. Ivo (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In the media, 4 Feb

@Bri: Thanks for the Section 230 writeup (an important issue). But the current version confuses the anti-terrorism moderation lawsuit (Gonzalez v. Google LLC, which blames YouTube for the November 2015 Paris attacks and which the amicus briefs by WMF and others that Gizmodo listed are about) with the related but different NetChoice lawsuits against these Texas and Florida laws (basically Republicans trying to clamp down on what they see as woke censorship on social media). As the Verge article points out, these are both serious threats to Section 230 but from different angles. I'll take a quick stab at correcting this but don't have enough time to look further into it; in particular it would be good to know whether the WMF public policy team has also weighed in on the Texas and Florida laws. HaeB (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice those sources were for the other case. Another editor actually added those after my writeup, and I just merged them in without checking closely. Will have to change the wording to reflect the difference. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Tilman sorted out the two topics a bit, and I did a bit more. It may need another copyedit pass to make sure it's not herky-jerky going between the two. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

On another note, it looks like we have a fork of the same text at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report, where JPxG copied it over earlier while still leaving it in place at News and notes. JPxG, what's the plan there?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to point out the same thing. Note that the edits made at ITM are not (yet) reflected in the version in the Special report. ITM also has a Section 230 picture. Andreas JN466 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

News and notes, 4 Feb

News and notes and In the media both have items about censorship by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem to my mind. When I first saw the press coverage, I was unsure where it fitted best; on balance I think the best thing is to have the larger article in News and notes and then just have the shorter one in ITM point to News and notes. Andreas JN466 15:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Bloomberg says Wikipedia is now blocked, the deadline having expired. I've added a paragraph. Andreas JN466 19:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: WMF released a statement responding to the block. I will update the article shortly; please do not publish until I make the update. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok we good. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation report, 4 Feb

@Smallbones:, if you still plan to do the disinformation report, I created an item for it on the status page. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Bri: I think I can get a draft up in an hour. The problem's been that to me it's such a big and unusual story. Checking the refs will be the main work after posting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good :^) jp×g 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bri and JPxG: go ahead without it. I have to be away from the computer for several hours. But if the delay in publishing is of the usual length, I may have something. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I am going to be working on this issue for a while, so I think we will probably be ready on the other side of your break. jp×g 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Posting within 5 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyedit done. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Was going to remove that temp section header but Smallbones beat me to it! ☆ Bri (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Bri: FactsOnly13 (talk · contribs) might be worth a mention as well. Andreas JN466 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466: I'd noticed he'd been banned. He certainly didn't like the old pic and got into copyvio problems trying to replace it. But there are certainly many copyvio freaks who aren't George Santos! If you can see more than that please send me an email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit filter log. Just another clumsy single-purpose account that edited quite recently and was focused exclusively on the George Santos article. Andreas JN466 08:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Page views

.

Date	Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
2023-01-01	Traffic report	Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!	393	502	557	578	589	601	663	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Technology report	Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"	5188	5616	5836	5981	6033	6062	6166	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Serendipity	Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical	398	504	537	570	591	613	655	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Recent research	Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes	697	875	981	1060	1088	1104	1169	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	News and notes	Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins	7393	8327	8708	8879	8978	9061	9212	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Interview	ComplexRational's RfA debrief	658	770	804	827	864	901	961	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	In the media	Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more	1234	1533	1636	1718	1748	1773	1833	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	From the archives	Five, ten, and fifteen years ago	485	601	629	645	655	662	713	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Featured content	Would you like to swing on a star?	432	537	572	592	601	608	656	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Essay	Mobile editing	943	1206	1286	1357	1444	1470	1534	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	CommonsComix	#4: The Course of WikiEmpire	455	586	621	634	646	652	703	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-01	Arbitration report	Arbitration Committee Election 2022	482	586	608	615	632	641	702	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}

.

Date	Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
2023-01-16	Traffic report	The most viewed articles of 2022	2293	2558	2702	2762	2787	2803	2895	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Technology report	View it! A new tool for image discovery	735	902	984	1019	1040	1049	1117	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Special report	Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020	14306	14777	15226	15899	15962	16009	16213	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Serendipity	How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100	1197	1470	1585	1627	1650	1667	1732	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Opinion	Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our librarious litany	660	777	877	924	942	949	1000	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	News and notes	Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion	820	966	1083	1121	1139	1160	1228	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	In the media	Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again	1524	1745	1955	2032	2066	2088	2258	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	In focus	Busting into Grand Central	654	766	830	850	868	885	938	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Humour	New geologically speedy deletion criteria introduced	740	882	957	991	1003	1016	1078	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Gallery	What is our responsibility when it comes to images?	662	782	850	875	883	897	952	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	From the team	We heard zoomers liked fortnights: the biweekly Signpost rides again	1109	1434	1609	1663	1678	1692	1764	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	From the archives	Five, ten, and fifteen years ago	473	590	655	681	686	699	760	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-01-16	Featured content	Flip your lid	391	477	540	566	577	588	649	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}

These will update automatically whenever I run the script (which, when I get around to it, I will put on Toolforge). jp×g 03:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is working correctly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. jp×g 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow

Well, it is 3am and I am not finished, so I think I am going to go to bed and finish properly in the morning. jp×g 11:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should I move the target date to today? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about the countdown timer widget, I wouldn't bother. Anyone watching it and involved in publication is also watching this conversation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Published. jp×g 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Mailing list posts done. This is quite a fat issue ... with this amount of content, it's almost worth going back to weekly. Andreas JN466 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we still aiming to publish the next issue on February 12? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

February 12 is what I set the countdown timer to just a few minutes ago, and it works for me. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Simplicissimus video on Wikimedia fundraising

Simplicissimus is a German-language YouTube channel with about 1 million subscribers. Their videos average around 800,000 views.

They published a 13m30s-long video on Wikimedia finances earlier today. It includes a few snippets from an interview with me, as well as one or two screenshots of the Signpost. The recent fundraising RfC is mentioned as well, and there are screenshots of English-language correspondence with the WMF from 10:00 onwards.

I think it's worth a mention in ITM, but obviously up to you guys. --Andreas JN466 20:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, nice sweater! But I didn't understand a word except for "infoboxen". Maybe @HaeB, Bri, and Zarasophos: could write a paragraph each? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it would help to read it, you can get a transcript like this (auf Deutsch, of course). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Andreas JN466 16:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I learn something new every day. Nonetheless, I don't think I could really help much on this story from the translated transcript. For example starting at 9:00 (just before Andreas?) I got

"through all the money what though got in have of course the ideas what actually the mission of the Wikipedia Foundation should rabidly changed the Wikipedia Foundation wants a lot now to be more than just that she imagined back then with the clearly defined project of In the early 2000s, Wikimedia Foundation today only less Similarities the media archive Wikimedia Commons Wiki books or a animal species directory are more Foundation projects now exist there are also some regional offshoots for example the association Wikimedia Germany of the expansion of articles promoted in German."

Well, in a pinch, maybe ... but in general I'll stick to English and Russian (maybe even French or Spanish) sources. FWIW, if I understood it correctly, I disagree that Wikipedia has rabidly changed its mission since the early 2000s when the mission was clearly defined. Rather WP was ill-formed or at least immature back then and needed to slowly evolve, as has the mission. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that meant "rapidly" though I also saw "rabidly" in the machine translation.

(interrupting myself ...) Listening to the original audio ... I think this snip at 9:05 should be translated as "changed its mission quite ruthlessly". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The German there is:

• Durch das ganze Geld, was aber reingekommen ist, haben sich natürlich die Vorstellungen, was eigentlich die Mission der Wikipedia Foundation sein sollte, ganz rabiat verändert. Die Wikipedia Foundation möchte jetzt viel mehr sein als einfach nur das, was sie sich damals vorgestellt hat.

If you enter this into DeepL, DeepL gives you an accurate enough translation, which is:

• With all the money that has come in, the ideas of what the mission of the Wikipedia Foundation should be have changed dramatically. The Wikipedia Foundation now wants to be much more than simply what it imagined back then.

Google Translate does okay as well – "ganz rabiat" just means "quite radically" or "drastically" in this context:

• But with all the money that came in, the ideas about what the mission of the Wikipedia Foundation should actually be have changed drastically. The Wikipedia Foundation now wants to be much more than what it originally envisioned.

This was in the context of Erik Möller's statement back in 2013 that "$10M+/year" would be enough "to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission." (By the way, I said "Wikimedia Foundation" not "Wikipedia Foundation" ...) Andreas JN466 08:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a snippet at 7:34 that I translated.

Deutsch -- as machine transcribed

Heute verfügt die Stiftung insgesamt über genug Vermögen um die Server für weit über 100 Jahre betreiben zu können etwas Zeit auf der Webseite Wikimedia Foundation und man weiß wie gut die Stiftung aufgestellt ist und wo das Geld genau hinfließt die Seite ist aber leider nicht sonderlich übersichtlichen

English -- loose translation

Today, the Foundation has enough assets overall to support the servers running Wikimedia websites [including Wikipedia] for well over 100 years. But how one tells how well the Foundation operates and exactly where the money flows into the site[s] though, is unfortunately not very clear.

I'll come back to this later if possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What the presenter says there is:

Heute verfügt die Stiftung insgesamt über genug Vermögen, um die Server für weit über 100 Jahre betreiben zu können. Etwas Zeit auf der Webseite Wikimedia Foundation und man weiß, wie gut die Stiftung aufgestellt ist und wo das Geld genau hinfließt. Die Seite ist aber leider nicht sonderlich übersichtlich und hat eben nur 7,6 Millionen Besuche pro Jahr und Wikipedia 180 Milliarden.

The unedited DeepL.com translation is:

Today, the foundation as a whole has enough assets to run the servers for well over 100 years. A little time on the Wikimedia Foundation website and you know how well the foundation is positioned and where exactly the money goes. Unfortunately, the site is not very clear and has only 7.6 million visits per year and Wikipedia 180 billion.

They go on to say that most people aren't going to bother to look into the organisation more deeply when they are faced with an alarming banner.

If I had to edit the DeepL translation I might change "how well the foundation is positioned" to "how financially healthy the foundation is". I'd also change "the site is not very clear" to something like "the way the site is structured, it's not very easy to find things". (I mean, go to https://wikimediafoundation.org/ and see how long it takes you to find the financial reports, and count how many "Donate now" buttons you have passed by then ...) Andreas JN466 08:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia day

What is Wikipedia day? 2803:1500:1200:7ACC:3991:50EC:9534:5735 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia began publishing on January 15, 2001 (plus or minus) and every January 15 is celebrated as "Wikipedia Day". Try WP:Teahouse for these types of questions. But glad to help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Investigative challenge

I bet there's at least one article on enwp that was written by ChatGPT. Challenge: find it. How: don't know yet. You could timebox the article creation times based on when the public interface was opened. Easy if someone declared that they used the AI assistant. Hard if you have to figure it out. But maybe?? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I see from reading VPP that our very own JPxG credited ChatGPT for a copyedit a copyedit in December 2022. First?? I dunno. And I still want to see a whole article.

The earliest mainspace credit in an edit summary that I can find with this Quarry query is Artwork title draft by Pharos, 6 December 2022. And the earliest edit anywhere is an experiment on Teahouse Q&A generated by the bot, posted in Teahouse subpages by 0xDeadbeef on 2 December.

The query linked above only covers December, but I found zero in November with this other one. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the hard problem, detecting bot text if it wasn't declared by the WP editor. How could this be approached? This FastCompany article explains a bit about tools that can evaluate a given text with some accuracy. According to FastCompany, in the future the bot output may be watermarked but apparently it is not at this time. You can do a search on "openai detector" to find out about another. So the challenge for an investigator would be identifying a finite number of candidate wiki texts to scan. In other words: identify new articles created in the right timeframe – approximately between the OpenAI public launch on November 30 and December 6, the first declared ChatGPT creation – and maybe the right length, that are candidates to do further analysis on. I suspect this is doable becuase it's just a few days worth of new articles. Maybe starting with Special:NewPagesFeed and the appropriate date filter. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

One other rubric to whittle down the space of possibles. ChatGPT doesn't include data on events after c. 2021. So you could rule out for example the new article Death of Arshad Sharif which documents an October 2022 event. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this: apparently CNET was publishing articles generated by "an AI" since November, about 73 in all, without telling readers [5]. Is the date a coincidence? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Would this be of interest for our readership? I could summarize in News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd think it could be good, probably with the section title "Investigative challenge" in Nandn. I'd think you should put in the date of December 6 but not the title. This way people would be able to find something, but then they could look for more to find something we didn't know already. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so I understand ... you are suggesting to report the date the first GPT-generated item was posted to enwp, but don't link to it nor give the title of the item? Make it a challenge to the readers to find it for themselves? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I thought this was your idea :b) ! But why not? maybe something like:

"Can you find it? We've found one article that was written by ChatGPT on December 6, 2022. But was it the first? ChatGPT is ... (details). So can you find the article written on December 6? More importantly can you find an article written by ChatGPT before then?" @Bri: Do it how you'd like of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I thought this was your idea :b) ! But why not? maybe something like:

"Can you find it? We've found one article that was written by ChatGPT on December 6, 2022. But was it the first? ChatGPT is ... (details). So can you find the article written on December 6? More importantly can you find an article written by ChatGPT before then?" @Bri: Do it how you'd like of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a subheading at NaN with some wording I thought up before your reply. If you want to tweak it by all means, happy to share authorship credit. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT is GPT

@Bri: ChatGPT is powered by GPT-3 (3.5 to be exact). GPT can be used directly to do the types of things that ChatGPT can do, and probably more, because ChatGPT is powered by GPT, but is restricted by a pre-prompt in its API app layer between it and GPT. In other words, ChatGPT is GPT, with an alternative user interface slapped on top of it. And GPT predates ChatGPT. So, you might want to include GPT-generated articles in your investigative challenge. JPxG, for example, has been using it on Wikipedia since last Summer (maybe even earlier). I hope this heads up has been helpful. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft space

As drafts have the potential to become articles, it may be worthwhile to extend your search to include draft space.

rsjaffe is possibly the best at finding ChatGPT-generated content on Wikipedia. You should talk to him about how he does it. He found the following LLM-generated articles in draft space:

• Draft:NuMSP 97.69% fake
• Draft:Product Photography (the introductory paragraphs score 99.98% fake on GPT-2 detector)
• Draft:Classical Conversations 99.98% fake
• Draft:Leigh Bortins 99.82% fake
• Draft:CaSS (Competency and Skills System) 99.98%
• Draft:Sanjit Bajpai 99.90%
• Draft:Honda Big Red UTV 99.98% (features and maintenance sections, omitting the headings when measuring)

If we're lucky, maybe rsjaffe will take on your investigative challenge.    — The Transhumanist   13:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
P.S.: pinging @Rsjaffe:.

I’ve found over 40 articles now in draftspace. They’re tagged either with the “AI generated” template or the “AI-generated” template (there’s been a name change since I started). If I remember correctly, I found 2 articles in article space that were at least partially LLM generated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I just sent an email to @Rsjaffe: inviting him to submit and article on this (before seeing the above comment). It's important to me that new submitters understand that they can write about almost anything related to Wikipedia, so I only suggested "500-1500 words". That said a few "sugested themes" can help new authors, if it doesn't put them off writing what they really want to write. So all Signposters and others might suggest here what they want to read. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I am interested in writing something though I am kind of allergic to writing articles. Any suggestions in what you would like to see would help. I may ask ChatGPT for suggestions! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A few of the obvious possibilities are:

• How many have you caught vs, how many you think are out there
• What does the quality look like? Are there any humorous hallucinations? What have you got against ChatGPT anyways?
• Are there any quick tells? What's the most solid method of catching ChatGPT text
• What are the stakes in this (poker) game? What's being risked?

Well, that's more than enough from me, others will have different interests in this topic. Don't just follow this list - it will make the article sound mechanical. Do write what you are passionate about without hemming and hawing and overqualifying what you write. Your interests, your passion, is what will make it a good article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I also followed up with rsjaffe on-wiki. Either way I look forward to getting this in The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bri: how do I submit the article? It's about 1,000 words currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please go to WP:NEWSROOM and click the "Start article" button next to the title "Essay". It will preload some Signpost formatting. You can copy and paste your text into the essay in the area for the body (after the preloaded "Header 1"). We can fix up the titles later if necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, first draft is up. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to The Signpost! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, The Transhumanist, and Bri: I am totally impressed with the resulting article! I'll even suggest other than basic copyediting, that nobody tries to tweak the article (except rsjaffe if he wants to). Trying to improve near-perfection seldom works. That said I have I have one minor suggestion for a tweak. I'd like to know for sure if the interview at the start is real. I think it is but I'd like to know for sure. That should be simple enough to do. Say, right below the "Interview" section header write in italics something like This interview was recorded on February 12. or anything similar that gives just a bit more info and makes it clear that it really happened.

Thanks to Bri, TT, and especially rsj for making the article happen! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Interview is real. I'm going to byline it with "This interaction with ChatGPT was recorded on January 29, 2023", as that would make it clearer I was working with the AI and not the company that made it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

F10 deprecated

Worth noting: Special:Permalink/1138889978#RfC: Removing F10. Useless non-media files ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, added to News and notes. --Andreas JN466 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

publishing on the 12th?

Just looking at the publication time gadget up top, it says we publish on Feb. 12. 8 days after the last publication date? I think a return to biweekly publishing is unwise just yet, but recognize why others might set this as a goal. IMHO we need to develop the staff first and concentrate on quality. I doubt if I'll be able to help with an issue this week. I expect my contributions in the future will just be a small amount of material for ITM and one piece at a time for Disinfo Report - however long that piece takes to write. For example I'm working on a subcontinental story that could take anywhere from 5 days to a month. Right now it looks like it will be more like a monsoon than a short thundershower. I'd like to take the time to be sure about it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I fixed that to "biweekly" for you. We had a brief discussion above on this page, but it really isn't settled yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been in bed the last couple days, and before that I was out of town. I am behind a few days, and it looks like everyone else is too, judging from the newsroom. What do we say to running on the 18th (Saturday)? I will set it to then for now (so that the thing isn't saying it published yesterday). jp×g 10:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think fortnightly is a good goal, but we can't jump down to 8 days. We're managing fairly well with trimmer fortnightly issues (certainly, featured content is getting way better viewcounts now that it's not in monstrously big issues and isn't monstrously big itself), but we're going to need to be generating a lot more content to go weekly, even briefly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Feb. 20 issue out

Comments at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2023-02-20. Pageviews will be in after a day or so. I would like to apologize for being a couple days late on publication and not helping much with the writing process. Next issue I hope to be more active (and get some of these drafts out!) jp×g 18:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

State of the issue, 16 Feb

We're doing pretty well this week. Everything's either ready for copyedit or better, except for the traffic report, which, honestly, looks fully done except title and blurb. Eight Eleven articles including the Traffic report (The Arbitration report is blank, but got started as a blank article and never deleted, so it's always there.)

If we don't publish on the day indicated, we need to update a bunch of cross-links since they have to be hard-coded. Specifically:

• "In the media" → "News and notes"
• "News and notes" → "In the media"
• "From the archives" → "Cobwebs"

I've done a list before. Not sure if anyone likes them, but...

Approved

In the media, News and notes

Copyedited

Disinformation report, Essay, Featured content, Gallery, Humour, Traffic report, Cobwebs, From the archives, Tips and tricks

Copyedited but

N/A

Ready for Copyedit

N/A

Ready for Copyedit, but not for publication until next month

Next featured content

Basically done

N/A

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: I... can't copyedit anything this week. The things I had no involvement in were already copyedited, and my attempts to bring the rest of the issue up to a complete state got my sticky little fingers into the bits that I could have previously copyedited. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I got Gallery. We missed the Valentine's Day deadline *shrug*. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much. Didn't even exist until after Valentine's, but thought the issue needed something light and fun, and didn't have time for the more labour-intensive planned projects (have an idea for a Tombstone, AZ related one). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured content ready now too. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bri, Adam Cuerden, and JPxG: I just submitted a new Disinformation report. It's almost complete except for one "just summarize the basics" short section. Other than that section it should be ready for copyediting. I just need some time away from looking at it too long. But please copyedit it gently, it's a pretty sensitive article, so please don't insert any barking cats or meowing dogs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Got the copyedit on what's there so far. Taking a break for the rest of the evening. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Does anybody (e.g. @JPxG:) know how to use the series template Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Paid editing? I'd like to have about 6 items in the series, rather than the 64 or so it has now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Smallbones: Key is this fix to the series template which then allows you to use a limit=6 parameter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Adam Cuerden and JPxG: Ok I've got the trick on limiting the number of previous stories and decided to set it to 10. BUT (a big but) when Adam added the template the "full width yes or no" template went crazy and put a narrow width just before the section "Gautam Adani" I tried changing the fullwidth=yes parameter in

"Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2|fullwidth=yes"

which didn't work. Then I added an extra copy of the template just before the "Gautam Adani" section. No combination of parameters (yes or no) aligned the page correctly on the left. I'd rather not have the box with the previous stories if it is going to misalign the page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspect it's a bug in the new Vector skin. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm completely done with that last small section in the Disinformation report and that section (only) should be copyedited again.
• I'm going to add a section at the top of Nan that WMF (legal) is opening up a consultation for a change in the Terms of Use. It is my impression that legal very much needs and want to get a ToU change through the system, so this is everybody's chance to make a difference in the ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm done with it, but a very small copyediting job should be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Tips and tricks, 19 Feb

Should it start with Originally published as [name of userspace essay]? We often do this if it's been started somewhere else and especially if they intend to keep that as the live/updated essay. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Publishing?

@JPxG, Bri, and Adam Cuerden: any indictation on a publishing time? Anything we can do to help? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering myself. At this time I think all the copyediting and brushing-up that I can do myself, has been done. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that the last few days I have not quite been a paragon of human competence. I have published this issue, and hope not to delay it for quite this long in the future! Thank you for bearing with me. jp×g 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Back from my slumber

Hi! After some very stressful study months I find myself back to full wiki-contribution ability. Any things y'all need help with I can assist in? Sorry for leaving y'all without me for the last few issues. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Portal CSDs deprecated

Special:Permalink/1140739661#RfC: Should P1 and P2 be repealed as CSDs? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming Featureds section

Ha! And two of the authors of the three not MILHIST articles are themselves heavily involved with MILHIST. A military month. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Aye! Was very... obvious. And so, y'know. Wouldn't surprise me if JPxG punches up the headline a bit, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Pageview stats

First ten, Disinformation report

The Disinformation report is way higher than the others this month. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

India is a very populous country. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Reader feedback

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2023-02-04 jp×g 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Pageviews here (they will take about a day to load in, until which time they'll be shown as "-1").

.

Date	Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
2023-02-04	WikiProject report	WikiProject Organized Labour	271	356	405	501	515	544	612	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Traffic report	Films, deaths and ChatGPT	467	650	724	779	792	820	886	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Tips and tricks	XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles	479	613	659	692	716	758	828	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Special report	Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation	770	980	1044	1087	1106	1130	1216	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Section 230	Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia	988	1202	1274	1332	1345	1385	1476	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Recent research	Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias	2359	4872	4990	5096	5142	5172	5268	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Opinion	Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage	439	599	629	666	678	709	782	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Op-Ed	Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter	442	546	595	627	639	669	729	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	News and notes	Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan	985	1235	1378	1491	1533	1575	1696	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	In the media	Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate	956	1202	1292	1342	1364	1397	1523	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	From the editor	New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function	770	990	1055	1082	1087	1116	1167	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Featured content	20,000 Featureds under the Sea	324	432	477	499	512	538	599	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}.
2023-02-04	Disinformation report	Wikipedia on Santos	2451	2691	2857	2940	3012	3077	3275	{{{views360}}}	{{{views999999}}}

I will be away from keyboard the next couple of days, so I won't be able to run the script (and I haven't put it on Toolforge to run automatically yet), so we'll have to hold off on this for a bit, or check them the old-fashioned way. jp×g 22:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this is pretty cool. EpicPupper (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: These numbers differ a lot from those given by the Pageviews tool (e.g. for the first entry above, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/WikiProject report, it currently gives 378, whereas your table states 1679). It seems that you are including automated (bot/spider) views too? These should be removed, the standard is to count human views only (as in Adam's pageviews link below). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is really cool, really motivating to contributors, and greatly adds to the legitimacy of The Signpost as a publication. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

State of the issue

Small, but some time-sensitive things.

• Copyedited: Featured content, Technology report, News and notes
• Copyedited with one thing: Recent research Presuming the above discussion is sufficiently dealt with. Don't want BLP issues. Split in two, to allow the part we must get right to have the extra time.
• Ready for copyedit: From the archives, In the media
• Maybe? Commons copyright rules

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on ITM and NaN! Andreas JN466 01:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad to help! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, just to note, I cut one item from ITM while writing it up: https://paranormaldailynews.com/craigs-psi-wars/ felt a little too promotional: The website doesn't appear to be significant, and the article's selling a book. If I'm missing something, we could include it, but I'm not quite seeing enough notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No objection. One thing I thought was funny about the piece in The Critic was that the author complained about Wikipedians' anonymity but chose to remain anonymous. Andreas JN466 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye. If it weren't for all the BLP issues of the characterisation of the academic, I'd probably engage with the article more. It's pretty full of accusations, pretty light on evidence outside of the sockpuppetteer, which... isn't really much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 14:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Protection on "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust"

Maybe a news note for the next issue

• There was over 200k of pre-publication WP:Newsroom discussion of the Recent research piece "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" – about 10x the length of the Recent research article itself. I don't know if the length of that discussion has ever been exceeded.
• The Recent research talkpage was extended-confirmed protected shortly after publication. This has never happened before in the history of The Signpost. There are currently only three pages in Wikipedia talk space so protected [6].

☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Publishing schedule for next few issues

If we move quickly, we can keep a two-week cadence and publish on April 1, which could lead to some opportunities for fun. These would be the dates of the target weekends for an issue:

• March 4-5
• March 18-19
• April 1-2

Thoughts on this schedule? The first target weekend is slightly under two weeks from today. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We could always plan on a light March 18 issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I have adjusted the deadline template for the next issue accordingly. (Regarding April 1st though, it's probably more valuable to be able to run a timely report about the happenings elsewhere than to indulge in belated funsies ourselves; also I think that good humor writing - and editing of such writing - is hard and has not always been among our strongest skills here at this venerable publication).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we could reasonably have a gallery and a humour section, and there used to be a tradition of having a little more fun at Featured Content for April. But, yeah, let's keep the humour contained at least, not making up a whole News and Notes Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember the details off the top of my head, but there was a major problem with an April 1 issue in the past. There was something like an article about D.Trump and J.Wales being twins separated at birth. The end result was the EiC was badgered into resigning plus some even worse stuff. We might try this as long as there are no BLP jokes, plus being really, really careful. I'd like to keep JPxG around for a while. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Aye. The reason User:Gamaliel was hounded off Wikipedia. I honestly blame the reaction more than Gamaliel. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-01/News and notes for the record. It's really not that bad, but it was at the height of Trump mania, and, well... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Next issue will be #6; date set to 2023-03-19 assuming we stick with what I proposed above, despite the delay to issue 5. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent Research on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I've brought it up here. I think this was a terrible decision, frankly, especially in JPxG's absense, and if it is a problem, it needs to bedealt with soon, to mitigate harm. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've responded there with an edit summary and content acknowledging that I was in the role of both publisher and acting E-in-C in the absence of the regular E-in-C.

If Signpost editors and staff want to weigh in at ANI, they should do so without any more encouragement from me other than this: The Signpost can only continue as a meaningful publication if its contributors are free to act without fear of retribution when covering serious allegations of misconduct by other community members. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that encouragement, or canvassing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Editor-in-chief

@JPxG: Can you let us know if you are able to participate in issue 5? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bri! (For context, JPxG's next-to-last edit was on February 27, and in his last edit on March 1 he mentioned electricity/internet issues.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well in that case maybe we should have a backup plan. Would people mind if I approved the content other than Recent research and we go ahead and publish? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I will not agree to publishing this issue without "Recent research". But if people want me to take on the responsibility for that section including Groceryheist's review (i.e. being the Signpost's point person for any post-publication complaints etc.), I can do that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Have my own connection problrms

I agree with HarB. Just rrview rr. Its ready for publication 2600:4040:7B39:FE00:4E7F:4A00:A8A8:CD4D (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That was me. Who will publish. Smallbones 2600:4040:7B39:FE00:4E7F:4A00:A8A8:CD4D (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@HaeB Has anyone tried contacting JPxG? He's been active on both Twitter and Mastadon in the past few days, so internet access doesn't seem to be a problem any longer. Just A Regular Kind Of Zeppelin (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, about the same time I started this thread. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Just A Regular Kind Of Zeppelin: I haven't (although I had in fact started to draft an email to him at the time when Bri started this thread). Do you happen to know about the best ways to reach him?

For the record, Bri's proposal to go ahead with publishing right away caught me by surprise (you may also have noticed in the edit history of the review how Groceryheist and I scrambled to get an already planned change - based on feedback from the day - implemented and reviewed before the suddenly announced publication time). But in the end I think this may have been the best option for resolving this situation and moving on without having this talk page sink into an even deeper morass where parties who see their interests affected by the Signpost's coverage continue to throw stuff against the wall in the hope to either have the views expressed in the review align more closely with their own, or derail its publication altogether.

As a general reminder, such EiC absences are exactly the kind of situation for which we created the EiC continuity norms last October. IIRC back then I had proposed to also specify a concrete number of days for the periods of of inactivity or unresponsiveness mentioned there - if only as a rule of thumb. I still think that might be useful.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I've gone and looked at the current state of Recent research and it looks defensible to me. I have access to the pub script and if I have to face the community over pushing the publishing button for it, so be it ... it won't be the first time. I'll give this an hour to sink in then go ahead at 0500 UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Bri, FYI I was working on a few last minute edits (described above in a response to @HaeB) which I published before I saw this comment. I won't make any more changes unless you or @HaeB point something out. Groceryheist (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that I quickly reviewed these last changes too (and made some fixes on top of them). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. The review looks good to me. Groceryheist (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm back to start it. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. I'll be back in the morning to see if SHTF. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not contributing the Traffic Report (this week had some delays). You can add in what's in the Newsroom even if it's a day late, or otherwise leave it for the next edition igordebraga ≠ 06:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Some delays"? This week had a major pileup. Levivich (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)