Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-04-18 21:25:39.
March 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
26 27 28 29 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
April 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 01 02 03 04 05
May 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
29 30 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 01 02
The Signpost currently has 5519 articles, 692 issues, and 13441 pages (4368 talk and 9073 non-talk).
Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 5 (2024-03-29) · Purge
issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)
Articles and pageviews for 2024-03-29
Pageviews for 2024-03-29 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
Traffic report He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune 401 597 631 631 631 631 631
Technology report Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year 1736 2419 2539 2539 2539 2539 2539
Special report 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles 1333 1833 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920
Recent research "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors 585 808 855 855 855 855 855
Op-Ed Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge 994 1312 1388 1388 1388 1388 1388
News and notes Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified 377 492 526 526 526 526 526
Interview Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy 435 621 661 661 661 661 661
In the media "For me it’s the autism": AARoard editors on the fork more traveled 719 966 1014 1014 1014 1014 1014
Humour Letters from the editors 510 707 748 748 748 748 748
Comix Layout issue 442 626 665 665 665 665 665
Articles and pageviews for 2024-03-02
Pageviews for 2024-03-02 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
WikiCup report High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close 365 500 656 681 681 681 681
Traffic report Supervalentinefilmbowlday 385 523 721 752 752 752 752
Recent research Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias" 1105 1410 1755 1828 1828 1828 1828
Obituary Vami_IV 767 1009 1382 1438 1438 1438 1438
News and notes Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net" 1128 1520 2045 2123 2123 2123 2123
In the media The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record 716 928 1180 1219 1219 1219 1219

Delay edit

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

@JPxG I agree, it would help us work on them a little more calmly... Oltrepier (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will see to get RR into a publishable state within the next six hours, and should also be able to help out a bit with N&N and/or ITM.
Looking at the other blue links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status:
  • Traffic report looks ready to be copyedited (CCing Igordebraga to confirm)
  • WikiProject report has substantial content already but also lots of placeholders - Shushugah, would you prefer this to be postponed to the next issue?
  • Tips and tricks and Obituary still consist mostly of Lorem ipsum and should probably be postponed or removed
  • News from Wiki Edu seems problematic per the discussion above
  • Web report is an inscrutable draft that was last edited in December and should probably be moved somewhere else or be deleted to avoid confusion
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes, please do postpone my WikiProject report, I will ping again new/existing contributors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CaptainEek and Adam Cuerden: Are you still working on your respective columns? Oltrepier (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've had a ton of paperwork regarding my dad's death. Next issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Adam Cuerden I'm so sorry, I didn't know about it... Oltrepier (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually it doesn't seem that CaptainEek was planning to work on the obituary, based on the thread above (which probably would have been better placed on the suggestions page).
Overall it looks like we should go with N&N, ITM, Traffic report and RR, only. (RR should be publishable now, after Bri and I had to wrestle a bit with the rather unwieldy Nature paper, but could still use some copyediting. The former three still haven't been marked as ready for copyediting and also lack titles and blurbs.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@HaeB Oh, I messed up, sorry.
To be honest, I could have write a brief obituary myself, but since I never got to know Vami personally, I'm afraid of just "phoning it in" and sounding dishonest... Oltrepier (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Shushugah: Any progress regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report since last month? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there's a need for more articles for the upcoming edition, I'd gladly writeup a report in the next few hours on the WikiCup (first round just finished), like I did a few months back, if there's any interest. @JPxG:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would there be any interest in me writing something up about it for this edition? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't speak for JPxG (who is currently tasked with making the final calls on such questions), but it sounds like a good idea to me! Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BeanieFan11 You've got my co-sign, as well!
On a side note, has anyone had any updates on Wiki Loves Monuments? Oltrepier (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The organizers came out with a big announcement on February 26 informing the world that ... "we approach the highly anticipated announcement of the winners of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2023" ;) I would check the social media channels mentioned there if you are looking for future updates. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK - will make sure to write one up in the next few hours. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Working on it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JPxG, HaeB, and Oltrepier: Wrote it up here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiCup report. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did some quick copyediting. The layout is still messed up due to an apparent bug in the series template (also in this earlier story) - CCing JPxG as he appears to have looked into that template most recently. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think I worked around the series template bug. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it looks good now -- I don't know exactly what's going on, layoutwise, with the sidebar templates. I haven't had time to check it out; I am a little burned-out on Signpost technical maintenance, so it may be a while, and in the meantime perhaps we just need to have the repeated end and start templates (unless anyone else can fix what's going on there). jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, I am going to start going through now and making ready. jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Nap and we roll. jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @JPxG Wait, I'll try to take over the obituary real quick! Oltrepier (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @JPxG: Right, now the obituary should be ready to go, as well. Since I never got to know Vami personally, I was afraid of doing everyone a disservice, so I just used sawyer-mcdonell's note and gave him writing credits. Please let me know if it's still OK. Oltrepier (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for the credit! I'll add that @AirshipJungleman29 copyedited & reconfigured it at my request, so I'd request that he be given some credit too. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sawyer-mcdonell Sure, I've done it just now. Thank you for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Lovely! sawyer * he/they * talk 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Issue 2-04 publication edit

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

That "start going through now and making ready" announcement was made over 20 hours ago, followed by no pertinent edits yet. I am very very unconvinced that team members making further edits in the meantime is the main hold-up here (btw, I see you made some additions to N&N yourself right after posting that "pencils-down" suggestion here).
Generally speaking, as we have discussed several times here over the last year or so, the problem is the lack of reliable deadlines (this issue was supposed to be published over three days ago). They just won't be taken serious if the EiC just sits back and waits for everything come in, then swoops in days after the supposed publication time to edit heavily and make decisions (and late-adds his own stories without a chance of them getting reviewed by others). Rather, one needs to be actively involved in the run-up to the deadline, e.g. by following up on stale drafts or providing feedback when asked. Both of these tasks had to be taken up by others in this section, and if it helps we could think about devolving that role more formally (in any case I would like to already highlight Oltrepier's great work on curating this issue).
Apropos, it would be good if the next issue's publication date could be set to a Sunday again per our usual custom.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much, @HaeB, although I did what I did mostly out of my natural selflessness... mixed with self-annihilation. : )
But jokes aside, I think all of the articles we agreed on publishing are actually good to go now; I've only left Vami's obituary un-ticked, because I wrote it myself, so I thought another pair of eyes would only improve it before giving it the final green light.
By the way, I take advantage of this discussion to let you know that I won't guarantee you to be able to contribute as much to the next few issues, due to real-life priorities (mostly study priorities). Sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if I would call it devolution. In the ancient times of 2022 tasks were divided to some extent (e.g. the editor-in-chief and publication manager were separate people). There was also one issue a month instead of two. Then for a while there were two editors-in-chief, and overall more manpoower available for writing and editing, and this swell of momentum was at the time the main impetus for moving to two issues a month. Well, now there is one EiC, who is me, and no publication manager, and it is somewhat difficult to find time for editing and formatting and publishing the whole thing as well as shepherding articles through the editorial process. Some of the stuff you've mentioned, I don't really know how to avoid. For example, if I publish articles marked for publication without editing them at all -- some of them from this issue were marked as ready for final approval and still had lorem ipsum at the start -- it will just look bad, and if I let stuff get published that's too edgy and spicy and unsubstantiated we will get dragged to ANI and our articles nominated for deletion and our editorial control eroded further (I am willing to fight these battles over stuff that is newsworthy and of public interest but not for, say, throwaway off-color remarks about the length of fingers -- we know how that went last time). If I just omit articles from the issue that aren't ready and don't add to them, it is sitting back and doing nothing, but if I complete unwritten articles by adding stuff to them (or write my own) it is swooping. I postponed publication of this issue by a couple days because none of the articles were close to ready, which is being late. At any rate, I have not contributed a piece of original reporting in multiple months.
I would very much appreciate if someone were able to help out with the publishing process.
I think that, if nothing else, the technical work has made it a lot easier to do this (the newsroom automatically displays all the articles without having to be manually edited every time, there's an automatically updating calendar in the deadline template, the deadline template itself is far simpler and easier to use, the draft templates give better help for article and image formatting, the publishing script/tagging script/draft templates/display templates now allow images without excruciating hours of manual formatting) -- so, while it still takes time, it no longer requires someone to go elbow-deep into the task beyond knowing basics of wiki markup.
I've mentioned here once or twice that the faster schedule has proven somewhat difficult, and that there would probably be less stress if we moved back to monthly publication, and it didn't seem very persuasive. Nonetheless, I think that for the next issue I am just going to set the date to three weeks from now, and if we manage to figure out something that allows an issue to be released two weeks from now that's great -- otherwise I do not think it's worthwhile. jp×g🗯️ 05:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interview with WMF leadership edit

I have a draft at

@Smallbones and Jayen466: Thanks for helping to coordinate this


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

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

I haven't looked at this yet but adding new media formats to The Signpost beyond pure print seems like a healthy and good direction for us. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Bluerasberry,
Thanks for this. I was wondering if you want to include some further sources at the end? Such as:
Hope this is helpful. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JBrungs (WMF): Thanks, they all fit, I added them all. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue immediately after 20-4 Recent research edit

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing this [1] is on your radar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't, thanks for the heads-up! On first glance it doesn't quite seem to be in scope for "Recent research", e.g. because it is not an academic publication, so I think "In the media" might be the best section for it. Depending on the publication time of this issue (cf. below) I might be able to do a brief writeup if nobody else beats me to it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup edit

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

This issue edit

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

Will the arbitration report have something to do with the comment at AN: It's no surprise that the environmental modeling software company with four Wikipedia articles is the one that has a Wikipedia admin on its payroll.? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I just added a story to N&N which should make it into a viable standalone section. ITM isn't quite yet, though.
Given that only "Interview" and "Humor" appear to be without major content gaps at this time, I think it is safe to assume that the updated deadline is not realistic either, so I just went ahead and tentatively moved it a bit further (JPxG, feel free to adjust to the actual intended publication time).
I'll aim to have RR publishable by that time, and hopefully I can also contribute a bit more to ITM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will be on a plane in a couple days, and the couple weeks after that I will be on the same computer (but with a comically tiny screen). My hope is to spend most of tomorrow working and packing, and I don't know how much of an impressive arb report can get done between that and everything else, it might be kind of thin gruel. Some things that need to happen still:
I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue; they have to get moved into articles and formatted properly (and piccies found). If someone could help out with this I would experience extreme pleasure (I will apologize for taking care of these extremely late on my own behalf). jp×g🗯️ 10:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue - can you explain your assessment more in case of the third piece? I don't see any content in the linked submission (User:JWheeler-WMF/Designing a new Community Wishlist).
Also, not to get into wider discussions about balancing opinion and journalistic reporting (or independent coverage vs. advocacy by interested parties), but four (or 3.5) different WMF-authored pieces in a single Signpost issue seems quite a lot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
last night i offered to help out with the Signpost (via discord message), but i'm not sure where to start, or what would be most helpful... anyone have any suggestions of things that need doing? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media links some news items that still need a (possible quite brief) writeup, and (as discussed above), this could too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
i can definitely try my hand at blocking down some summaries for In the media :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
i've written a blurb about Lucy Moore/women on Wikipedia (although i wasn't sure what to put for the subtitle), and added the sources about alleged anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia mentioned at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2024#March - i haven't written a blurb or anything for that topic though. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks good! I added one sentence. Someone still needs to find a catchy subtitle for each.
Two other recent news items that seem worth covering in ITEM if you're interested: [2] (see also our earlier coverage: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/News_and_notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject), [3]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
i recall discussing the roads wiki fork with other editors on discord - it's something people are interested in. i can write a little something about both! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @HaeB and @Sawyer-mcdonell - I hope that I am posting in the right place and tagging the right users; if not, please forgive me. ;) My question is whether it is possible to include more caveats about the World Jewish Congress (WJC) report that is covered in the In Brief section titled "Accusations of bias"? The Foundation takes allegations of bias on Wikimedia projects seriously, so several staff have reviewed the report. They found that the WJC report makes a number of unsubstantiated claims of bias on Wikipedia. It lacks adequate references, quotes, links, or other sources to support its purported findings. Further, the report misunderstands Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as well as the importance of anonymity for user privacy on Wikimedia projects. Thanks! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
having read the WJC report myself, i completely agree with the WMF's conclusions here about the poor quality of the report - as a very new contributor (mentioned above) i'm unsure of the best way to include such caveats, so i'll ping @JPxG (who himself added to the blurb) for some more input. i also wonder whether it might be better to move this to a full story rather than an in-the-brief blurb? currently we only have 1 lead story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is certainly room in ITM (and other Signpost sections) to include context and informed criticism about the covered publications.
I just made this into a full story, taking Lauren's note above into account and adding other context and links to previous related coverage.
@LDickinson (WMF): thanks for the input, and generally speaking (i.e. without having formed a conclusive opinion about this specific report myself) it is great to see the Foundation pushing back publicly against shoddy research and defending Wikipedia against unfounded bias accusations. (As you might be aware, we too have been doing this at the Signpost at various times, including for some pretty egregious examples.) My only feedback would be that criticism of such faulty research is even more useful (for our audience and probably also for the criticized researchers) if it is concrete and substantiated itself. Are the reviews by WMF staff that you mentioned public, or could they be made public? It would be great to be able to link them in our story.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LDickinson (WMF) Out of curiosity, has the WMF published any comment/response to the WJC report somewhere? If not, do you intend to? For the interested, I used it as a ref at Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and another editor added some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @HaeB, @Sawyer-mcdonell, and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for updating the write-up to include the Foundation's assessment of the report. I’d like to add an important point: The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia. We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ). We are committed to further examining any additional information shared about or related to this research. Could this be included in the story?
As is our typical practice, we will respond to any relevant media inquiries with our assessment and comments on the report, rather than posting a public statement. Thanks again! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, I'm not sure how much our readers would benefit from reading through generic PR truisms like The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia (I mean, it would be quite surprising if *discouraged* such research). I know that these have value in other text genres like press releases, but the Signpost, like most journalistic publication really, usually tries to focus on the actually newsworthy information.
As for We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ): As a general statement this is likewise commendable but not very newsworthy. However, if included in this story, many or most readers may, not unreasonably, perceive it as an insinuation that this "strong recommendation" was not followed in case of the present report. And that brings me back to my above feedback about your earlier (already included) statement, which I don't see you addressing: Criticism is more valuable if it is concrete and substantiated (after all, unsubstantiated claims was one of the problems you raised yourself about the WJC's criticism of Wikipedia). So which policies and best practices did Dr Lir violate concretely in her report, in the Wikimedia Foundation's assessment? Again, I'm not against calling out researchers' failings and am not defending this report. But we do have some responsibility about what kind of negative statement we highlight and publicize in the Signpost. And sometimes academics who have made mistakes hit back aggressively instead of addressing valid criticism (see e.g. this very extreme recent example, smaller versions of which exist in many places), so we need to be prepared to defend this coverage if needed.
By the way, the FAQ you recommend is essentially unmaintained, and horribly outdated in various parts and incomplete in others (notwithstanding the very commendable efforts of one staff member back in 2021 to fix several other parts, as a side project at the Wikimania hackathon). E.g. related to the policies and best practices part, it makes no mention of the WP:NOTLAB policy that enwiki instituted in 2017.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @HaeB. I take your point. Stated plainly, I’ll refer back to my first note: The report lacks adequate references, quotes, links, or other sources to support its purported findings. While we take claims like these seriously, we found them to be unsubstantiated. Without adequate sources and adherence to our standard research guidelines, it’s difficult to comment further on their veracity. LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

  • I am going to head out in a couple hours, and that is probably the last time I'll be online today. So far it looks like we have most of a usable ITM, traffic report and N&N, a couple light columns (humor and comix) and an interview due to be uploaded in full on the 28th. I don't see anything for recent research; I had hoped to have more time for a discussion or arb report but did not. I think that it might be better to hold back for a day or so; if we just ran on the 28th we could probably have a full RR and interview as well as enough time for a discussion/arb report. jp×g🗯️ 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the update (but, broken record, please also have the deadline template reflect such information for the benefit of everyone contributing to this issue; I just tried do to that myself, again).
    It sounds like you were saying that we won't publish before the 28th (UTC?) in any case because of that interview. As always, I'm committed to not have RR become the bottleneck that holds up publication, I'll now aim to have it in a publishable state in about 24h, which I assume will still be well before the new actual deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To highlight a few other still open tasks besides those discussed above, in case Sawyer-mcdonell or others would like to chip in on those:
    • Copyediting and drafting headlines, as per the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status. (The lead story in N&N has actually been available for copyediting since Sunday already, but I hadn't marked N&N as "needs copyedit" yet since some other draft items there are not yet done.)
    • Fleshing out or removing the remaining missing items in N&N and ITM
    Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    i can definitely work on those! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    speaking of headlines, i'm not sure i'm familiar enough with how we do headlines to be confident in that - i looked around for some kind of guideline about it, but couldn't find any. i did do some copyediting & fleshing out, though. i think the graphs story for N&N is pretty well-written, from the perspective of someone who is not very technically-inclined; i could start something for the UCoC story if no one else has something cooking up. also, are we thinking there will just be one main story for ITM? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Re UCoC, we haven't heard back from User:Jayen466 since the above ping, so yes, it would be great if you could start writing that up (a brief item instead of a full story would still be better that nothing).
    There isn't really a guideline about headlines as far as I'm aware. So I would just say go with your sense of what you might find most informative and interesting as a reader yourself. (Some current team members love to indulge their personal sense of humor with these, but we're getting some reader pushback on that.) In N&N, NightWolf1223 has already helped us out in the meantime.
    Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    sounds good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @HaeB@Sawyer-mcdonell Thank you both very much for your work on this. I've added a link to the user comments to that section, added a Wiki Loves Monuments section and added the affiliates' annual reports to the In briefs. News and notes should be publishable now. Andreas JN466 15:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    lovely! the WLM pictures are great :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lots of progress since yesterday but we still have quite a few checkmarks missing in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status, and it seems nobody has yet followed JPxG's invitation above, more than three days ago to help out with the submissions (see things that need to happen still) . Perhaps Sawyer-mcdonell is interested in trying out their hand on these as well? As mentioned above, I'm skeptical about running all four at once; my vote would be to focus on the first two only (the NPP update and Maryana's op-ed); the annual plan one seems unfortunately a bit outdated already and the wishlist one consists of lorem ipsum so far. Also I'm myself behind with RR, but will have something publishable in a few hours.
@JPxG: Regarding the graphs extension piece: I'm fine with splitting it out from N&N now that we have other content there. But I think "Technology report" would be the best rubric for that, will move it there if you don't mind. (It's actually where I had intended to put this in the first place, before deciding to use it to fill the void at N&N instead ;)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that is good. I also agree about not running too many of the WMF submissions at the same time; I think we could run the Maryana one this issue and the NPP one the next (or both in this issue) and leave the rest. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
i can try transferring the Maryana op-ed to the actual op-ed section & maybe give it a little copyedit ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:The last good place edit

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

Thanks, we covered it extensively in November already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We got mixed up on the publication dates – the online journal had published a year ago, but the print edition ran it just last month. Therefore I included it again in the Recent research draft thinking it was new, but fortunately HaeB noticed. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vami IV last FAC edit

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


Acta est fabula, plaudite.

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

An update and new deadline edit

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

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

Since our cadence is now first Sunday and third Sunday of the month, I set the next issue to 21 April, jumping over the first Sunday which is only 1 week from past issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I commit to completing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. If I don't get more participants, I will fill in more trivia/look back at some of the accomplishments/other quirks of the Wiki Projects and their early days. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I am also back from the shadow realm, as of today, and will be trying to follow up on a bunch of stuff that has gone undealtwith the last while. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Next "In the media" edit

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

@QuicoleJR I didn't add it myself, but I agree: it would serve as a nice opener to the RR column!
@Bri By the way, I think the entries about the ban lift in Pakistan and edit wars on articles about San Francisco politicians both have lead story potential: I can try to work on and expand them in the next few days, if you'd like to! Oltrepier (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be great if you did that! Consider expansion of ITN items a "go" at any time in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good find, and yes, feel free to move the coverage to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research. Let's make sure to cite the study itself too and not just the media article. In any case I added the paper to the usual to-do list for RR, which otherwise still needs to be updated with new publications; I hope to do that within the next two days (we are bit short-staffed this month). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just want to note here that the Pakistan thing [4] is from last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Next News and notes edit

I've added a couple of headlines:

  1. The long-awaited draft of the white paper on research ethics and privacy is up on Meta-Wiki, with community feedback invited (this was one of the outcomes of the Grabowski/Klein ArbCom case on the Holocaust in Poland)
  2. Former Steward User:Mardetanha has been SanFran-banned

Anyone who'd like to have a stab at writing these up is welcome.   I am still under pressure with work and am grateful for any help.

Incidentally, mentioning Shira Klein, she has another, more recent claim to fame now, as one of the authors of the Academics4peace open letter titled "Genocide is plausible; stop arms to Israel". For more see [5] --Andreas JN466 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's been no discussion of what brought about the SanFranBan, right? I can't help but wonder if MENA was involved. Note, the user is still listed as one of the two primary contacts at Iranian Wikimedians User Group (on Meta). The concern stems from this WMF announcement from December 2022 and our coverage from January 2023 which stated the roots of the December 2022 bans lie in concerns expressed to the WMF about the Farsi Wikipedia some years ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bri Do you need some help to complete the column? I can work on some smaller parts, if needed! Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's assume I won't be able to complete this column, so please do whatever you can with it. If I can contribute more this month it will probably be with small things like copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request assistance in staging report of WikiConference North America edit

I submit this for publication in the next issue.

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

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

I can set up the skeleton of a WikiConference report for you. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article status roster has a blue "Start article" button for you now at WikiConference report. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I should have looked at your draft first. It looks like it's already in Signpost markup. Do you just need it moved to Signpost page space? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Assumed this move is what was really wanted, so I did move it to WikiConference report. The page is listed in the article status roster. These links might be useful later:
The latter (2023) is the latest Signpost article I could find that is just about any WikiConference; the former (2015) is the latest titled "WikiConference report". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, everything is now as I wanted it.
Yes, I wanted this moved to Signpost page space for publication in the next issue.
It is unfortunate that only two WikiConferences are covered here, with one of these in India and the other in the United States. These are annual by region in a few places. I will discuss with others. Whatever the case, I am happy to present this one this time. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue immediately after 20-5 Recent research edit

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