Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

What Does Hitler Look Like?

http://www.simplicissimus.info/index.php?id=6&tx_lombkswjournaldb_pi1%5Bvolume%5D=26&tx_lombkswjournaldb_pi1%5Baction%5D=showVolume&tx_lombkswjournaldb_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=YearRegister&cHash=958174066a2c607fc5fa13e6da28f0fe

Issue No. 9, 5-18-1923, 105-116, p.2

This was published in the photo section of Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi by Thomas Weber, who credits Simplicissimus. I don't want to put the image up myself unless and until I'm certain that it meets Wikipedia's licensing criteria, but in any case Simplicissimus is a real gold mine! In this wise I was amazed to see that it doesn't have, and has never had, a project of its own. Is it all public domain? Does it go on a case-by-case basis? Do we have to wait 100 years? Is this the earliest known satire of Adolf Hitler‽!‽ Tell me, Teutons! kencf0618 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vysotsky, this might interest you, or it might not. Either way, cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by AleatoryPonderings (2022-07-15)

A motion for summary judgment was filed about a week ago on behalf of the Internet Archive in a lawsuit by Hachette and others against the Internet Archive. The motion refers in many places (see eg page 18) to the use of Internet Archive books on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if anyone at IA or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is defending IA in the lawsuit, would do an interview about WP's role in the litigation? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A notable press release was published. I will send a media inquiry. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Contacted for a statement. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by FacetsOfNonStickPans (2022-07-21)

The article would be a theorization of whether Wikipedia policies allow an editor to win a Nobel prize for their editing on the website. In other words can an editor edit in such a way, abiding by the policies of Wikipedia, that they win a Nobel prize for their editing? A Nobel in literature, peace? Or even any of these esteemed prizes such as a Turing? FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by R. S. Shaw (2022-07-25)

The Signpost should write about... There's a long article here that goes into how a group of Wikipedia articles are being manipulated. I don't know how accurate their assertions are, and haven't finished reading it, but it seems like it should have Signpost coverage. R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by NewsAndEventsGuy (2022-08-06)

The Signpost should write about...a study that recently showed Wikipedia articles are influencing judicial opinions. The study was led by a researcher at MIT, and that institutions column is "Study finds Wikipedia influences judicial behavior".... (just say no to brain rot) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/In_the_media, in the current issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

dope! Thanks, false alarm NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Hemiauchenia (2022-08-15)

The Signpost should write about... the fact that for nearly a decade, the toaster article claimed that the electric toaster was invented by 19th century Scottish inventor Alan MacMasters, who was completely fictious, with that claim and his article only being deleted last month. [1]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan MacMasters. The hoax has fooled numerous people, having been published in several newspaper articles as real. It's already received some coverage in Input Magazine. [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already being developed. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Another Believer (2022-08-15)

The Signpost should write about Wikimedians of the year, if not already planned:

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/08/14/celebrating-the-2022-wikimedians-of-the-year/

Congrats to the award recipients! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We're planning to do this, certainly :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

note to self jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Vchimpanzee (2022-08-22)

The Signpost should write about In age of misinformation, small group of NC residents keeps Wikipedia (mostly) correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In August's SP. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Les sans pagEs

For WM news, Les sans pagEs (Women in Red initiative for French Wikipedia) is professionalizing czar 12:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We already wrote about this. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Praveenp (2022-09-10)

The Signpost should write about... Sidheeq Kappan. He is a Wikimedian (Mostly contributed to Malayalam Wikipedia - ml:User:Sidheeq) and a Journalist. Uttar Pradesh, India Police has slapped Sedition, Terrorism as well as UAPA charges against him and imprisoned waiting trail for 23 months for reporting 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. He was granted bail by Supreme Court of India on 09-Sep-2022. Praveen:talk 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Indic Mailing list thread--Praveen:talk 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

note to self, would need more information on this jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Sophivorus (2022-09-06)

I recently uploaded this meme:

I find it a bit hilarious and a bit thought provoking too. If anyone agrees, I'd like to suggest it as a next entry for the "Humour" section of the Signpost. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

there is nothing here. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Kosboot (2022-09-12)

The Signpost should write about... kosboot (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) For the In the Media section: Doxxed, threatened, and arrested: Russia’s war on Wikipedia editors. I didn't know that Russia has sued the WMF. - kosboot (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. We're on it Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Was in September issue. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Nthep (2022-09-22)

The US DoJ names Wikipedia as being used by an the subject of an article to present a false picture of his net wealth. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:D_Pastor2014 for details and the DoJ press release Nthep (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This will be good - but perhaps it might have to wait for next month. If it made the mainstream press, perhaps this month in In the media. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this was in the 08-31 ITM. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Peaceray (2022-10-04): WikiConference North America & OpenStreetMap US's Mapping USA

I would like The Signpost to mention this upcoming joint conference scheduled for 11-13 November, (the weekend of Veterans Day in the US, Rememberance Day in Canada). This will be a bilingual conference with translation of English presentations into Spanish & from Spanish into English.

WikiConference North America (Nov 11-13) will be held jointly with OpenStreetMap US's Mapping USA.

Peaceray (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that we missed this!

Code for bot archiving
{{done}}

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If this wasn't in, it's too late to do so now. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Indy beetle (2022-10-13)

This might be worth a mention in the "in the media" section. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Added to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Code for bot archiving
{{done}}

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

We got this in the 10-31 ITM. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by ArnoldReinhold (2022-10-20)

The Signpost should write about...Perhaps the first example where our creation of a disambiguation page gets coverage in the news:

Matt Novak (October 20, 2022). "Wikipedia Tells Users To Be More Specific When Searching '2022 UK Government Crisis'". Gizmodo. agr (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Added to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media ––FormalDude (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Code for bot archiving
{{done}}

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by JuanGLP (October 5, 2022)

The Signpost should write about... DRAG RACE and its takeover in our world. Why? Because why not? — JuanGLP (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This does not seem particularly relevant to our overall deal. jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by 2600:1011:B13B:392E:5D24:9D70:A7EA:F27 (2022-10-09)

The Signpost should write about... [ https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/12-funny-bizarre-wikipedia-pages-231602766.html this] 2600:1011:B13B:392E:5D24:9D70:A7EA:F27 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

? jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by PerryPerryD (2022-10-12)

The Signpost should write about... User:BeenAroundAWhile, One of (If not the) oldest confirmed wikipedians, who passed away this month. A memorial or an obituary of sorts, to preserve his memory. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Chiswick Chap (2022-10-14)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has had an interesting effect on other Middle-earth articles, such as on characters in The Lord of the Rings:

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=wiki.riteme.site&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Aragorn%7CLegolas%7CFrodo_Baggins%7CSamwise_Gamgee%7CGandalf%7CSauron%7CThe_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power

Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Ghmyrtle (2022-08-24)

You might be interested in saying something about how the death of singer-songwriter Tom Springfield came to be reported, albeit belatedly. I've included my commentary at Talk:Tom Springfield#Death. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

note to self jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've put this in the grab bag for the next few issues. {{done}} jp×g 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

cricket player Arshdeep Singh (2022-09-05)

The Signpost should write about... this TechCrunch piece regarding Arshdeep Singh (cricketer). Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks like one of those typical pieces of coverage about someone's Wikipedia page being vandalized, and I think it is too far in the past to be relevant now. {{done}} jp×g 09:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tcr25 (2022-10-07)

The Signpost should write about "Wiki Dive" a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon type solo game/exercise/challenge where you start with the Featured Article of the Day (or a random article) and see how quickly you can reach submarine. It makes for some interesting thought exercises as you try to figure out a possible path to follow. (It was originally posted in the Antherwyck Games blog back in May, but I just saw it today.) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty old game, if I remember correctly (Wikipedia:Six_degrees_of_Wikipedia) -- it's been covered a few times before. {{done}} jp×g 09:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Hunter Kahn (2022-10-07)

A few years ago I drastically expanded the Wikipedia article about the baseball player Stephen Vogt, working it up to GA status. This year, Stephen Vogt retired, which brought some additional attention to the page.

I mentioned on my personal Twitter page that I was the primary author of Vogt's Wikipedia page, which led to me getting contacted by Ben Lindbergh, senior editor at The Ringer and co-host of a baseball podcast called Effectively Wild. It turns out Ben had done a little research about the longest baseball player articles on Wikipedia, and he had been particularly intrigued by why the page about Stephen Vogt was as detailed as those of players like Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.

So over the course of an hour-long conversation via Twitter DM messages, he started asking me questions about why I edited that page, how I went about it, what other pages I've edited, etc. He said he might discuss it on his podcast, and I figured he might give it a 30-second shoutout or something, but he ended up dedicated a full THIRTEEN MINUTES of his podcast to the discussion and to Stephen Vogt's Wikipedia page.

Not sure if this is something that would interest the Signpost, but if you want to listen, the Vogt/Wikipedia discussion can be found at the 17:40 mark of the podcast episode, which was just released today (October 7). The official episode description states: "Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley... share a few words from the diligent author of the retiring Stephen Vogt's ~~exhausting~~ exhaustive Wikipedia page." LOL

— Hunter Kahn 15:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: Note that the official description actually says exhaustive Wikipedia page (emphasis mine) — which is a compliment, whereas the version you gave would not be. "Exhaustive" means "exhibiting all the facts or arguments; very thorough". It's a synonym for "complete" or "comprehensive". "Exhausting" means "producing exhaustion (extreme fatigue); having a debilitating effect". It's a synonym for "tiring". Veeeery different words! 😃 FeRDNYC (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Oops, yes, an unfortunate (but kind of funny) typo on my part! LOL — Hunter Kahn 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

— Hunter Kahn 15:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! User:Hunter Kahn That looks like a fast ball belt-high right down the middle. I'm sure somebody will be stepping up to the plate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In the grab bag. {{done}} jp×g 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by MER-C (2022-10-17)

Russian disinformation on the Ukraine war gets noticed: [3] MER-C 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Y We covered the ISD paper, excellent. {{done}} jp×g 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Novem Linguae (2022-11-19)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign. That's looking like pretty big WMF x Community Relations news for this month, which should be included in any WMF roundup type articles. @Bluerasberry, Jayen466, and Kudpung:. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Andreas has already written a book review for this month's issue, but another WMF article wouldn't hurt - especially as I ironically had to tag the author's Wiki article for serious BLP issues today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Y Covered. {{done}} jp×g 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

doubles of people showing up in new Mexico

The Signpost should write about... 172.56.12.38 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) The crew of let's encrypt they are taking over political and justice positions in the state something needs to be done about it muy pronto.

I do not understand what this is supposed to mean. {{done}} jp×g 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by FeRDNYC (2022-12-18)

This might be worth a nod.

The Signpost should write about writer Emily St. John Mandel's effort to have her marital status updated on her own Wikipedia article, which it seems met with a bit of WP:BLP-fueled resistance... to the point where she took to Twitter and enlisted the assistance of Slate's Dan Kois, who ran "A Totally Normal Interview With Writer Emily St. John Mandel" for the sole purpose of generating a citable announcement of her divorce. Which worked.

...Our processes may be slightly broken. FeRDNYC (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Meant to include this Twitter source, which includes screenshots of the unfolding rigamarole: https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1604297664316821504 FeRDNYC (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We ran this in January, so {{done}} jp×g 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia jails two Wikipedia admins in ‘bid to control content’

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/05/saudi-arabia-jails-two-wikipedia-staff-in-bid-to-control-content

This article also states that last month's WMF banning of Arab and Persian admins had a theme: they were "Saudis acting under the influence of the Saudi government". cc @Jayen466. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WMF is disputing the extent of Saudi involvement, stating that the Guardian article contains inaccuracies: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/6IXJ7UQPFTLOC4YRUJNYUGHTXAN5ACVL/ –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In this issue. {{done}} jp×g 09:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by PAC2 (2023-01-07)

The Signpost should write about data analytics tools to analyze the list of articles created by a user (https://observablehq.com/collection/@pac02/pages-created).

I have already written a draft User:PAC2/What about the list of articles you've created. -- PAC2 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} This is good. I will move it to the issue space. jp×g 09:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Ghmyrtle (2022-08-24)

You might be interested in saying something about how the death of singer-songwriter Tom Springfield came to be reported, albeit belatedly. I've included my commentary at Talk:Tom Springfield#Death. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

note to self jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've put this in the grab bag for the next few issues. {{done}}jp×g 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

cricket player Arshdeep Singh (2022-09-05)

The Signpost should write about... this TechCrunch piece regarding Arshdeep Singh (cricketer). Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks like one of those typical pieces of coverage about someone's Wikipedia page being vandalized, and I think it is too far in the past to be relevant now. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tcr25 (2022-10-07)

The Signpost should write about "Wiki Dive" a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon type solo game/exercise/challenge where you start with the Featured Article of the Day (or a random article) and see how quickly you can reach submarine. It makes for some interesting thought exercises as you try to figure out a possible path to follow. (It was originally posted in the Antherwyck Games blog back in May, but I just saw it today.) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty old game, if I remember correctly (Wikipedia:Six_degrees_of_Wikipedia) -- it's been covered a few times before. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Hunter Kahn (2022-10-07)

A few years ago I drastically expanded the Wikipedia article about the baseball player Stephen Vogt, working it up to GA status. This year, Stephen Vogt retired, which brought some additional attention to the page.

I mentioned on my personal Twitter page that I was the primary author of Vogt's Wikipedia page, which led to me getting contacted by Ben Lindbergh, senior editor at The Ringer and co-host of a baseball podcast called Effectively Wild. It turns out Ben had done a little research about the longest baseball player articles on Wikipedia, and he had been particularly intrigued by why the page about Stephen Vogt was as detailed as those of players like Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.

So over the course of an hour-long conversation via Twitter DM messages, he started asking me questions about why I edited that page, how I went about it, what other pages I've edited, etc. He said he might discuss it on his podcast, and I figured he might give it a 30-second shoutout or something, but he ended up dedicated a full THIRTEEN MINUTES of his podcast to the discussion and to Stephen Vogt's Wikipedia page.

Not sure if this is something that would interest the Signpost, but if you want to listen, the Vogt/Wikipedia discussion can be found at the 17:40 mark of the podcast episode, which was just released today (October 7). The official episode description states: "Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley... share a few words from the diligent author of the retiring Stephen Vogt's ~~exhausting~~ exhaustive Wikipedia page." LOL

— Hunter Kahn 15:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: Note that the official description actually says exhaustive Wikipedia page (emphasis mine) — which is a compliment, whereas the version you gave would not be. "Exhaustive" means "exhibiting all the facts or arguments; very thorough". It's a synonym for "complete" or "comprehensive". "Exhausting" means "producing exhaustion (extreme fatigue); having a debilitating effect". It's a synonym for "tiring". Veeeery different words! 😃 FeRDNYC (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Oops, yes, an unfortunate (but kind of funny) typo on my part! LOL — Hunter Kahn 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

— Hunter Kahn 15:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! User:Hunter Kahn That looks like a fast ball belt-high right down the middle. I'm sure somebody will be stepping up to the plate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In the grab bag. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by MER-C (2022-10-17)

Russian disinformation on the Ukraine war gets noticed: [4] MER-C 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Y We covered the ISD paper, excellent. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Novem Linguae (2022-11-19)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign. That's looking like pretty big WMF x Community Relations news for this month, which should be included in any WMF roundup type articles. @Bluerasberry, Jayen466, and Kudpung:. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Andreas has already written a book review for this month's issue, but another WMF article wouldn't hurt - especially as I ironically had to tag the author's Wiki article for serious BLP issues today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Y Covered. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

doubles of people showing up in new Mexico

The Signpost should write about... 172.56.12.38 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) The crew of let's encrypt they are taking over political and justice positions in the state something needs to be done about it muy pronto.

I do not understand what this is supposed to mean. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Dumuzid (2022-12-06)

The Signpost should write about... Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk has been something of a tear on his personal site Twitter, including, for instance this], and it seems (from my very subjective point of view) to be getting a lot of pickup. Just thought I would throw it out there! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media. Thanks for the tip! {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 02:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by FeRDNYC (2022-12-18)

This might be worth a nod.

The Signpost should write about writer Emily St. John Mandel's effort to have her marital status updated on her own Wikipedia article, which it seems met with a bit of WP:BLP-fueled resistance... to the point where she took to Twitter and enlisted the assistance of Slate's Dan Kois, who ran "A Totally Normal Interview With Writer Emily St. John Mandel" for the sole purpose of generating a citable announcement of her divorce. Which worked.

...Our processes may be slightly broken. FeRDNYC (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Meant to include this Twitter source, which includes screenshots of the unfolding rigamarole: https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1604297664316821504 FeRDNYC (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

{{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}In Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media. jp×g 02:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia by Russian troops

I've seen occasional mentions in the last week that Russian conscripts are being trained by simply handing them a copy of relevant Wikipedia articles. As much as I would defend the accuracy of Wikipedia content -- I know technology articles have been unofficially used inside Intel -- this is criminally negligent for any government to do. Anyway, I've discovered a NYT article that details this practice: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html Unfortunately, this is behind a paywall, so I can't verify exactly what is actually written. Hoping someone else can have a look & use this for Signpost article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

{{Done}} in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media. jp×g 02:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (2022-12-20)

You have probably noticed the adventures of Emily St. John Mandel, [5][6][7][8], just wanted to note that editors are talking about it at Talk:Emily St. John Mandel. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Sourcing_marital_status and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Resolving_conflicts_between_WP:BLPPRIMARY_&_WP:BLPEDIT/. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by FacetsOfNonStickPans (2022-12-27)

The Signpost could create its own mini-course or mini-capstone project within the Wikipedia Signpost namespace itself. Just text based, like normal Signpost articles. Here is one idea: On the software/coding/technical side of the encyclopedia. I am sure there are many non-technical editors who would want to know more about the technical side of this place and wouldn't know where to begin. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Progress being made at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical, and some attention being given to it in From the editor columns as new fixes are made and features introduced. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 02:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia jails two Wikipedia admins in ‘bid to control content’

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/05/saudi-arabia-jails-two-wikipedia-staff-in-bid-to-control-content

This article also states that last month's WMF banning of Arab and Persian admins had a theme: they were "Saudis acting under the influence of the Saudi government". cc @Jayen466. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WMF is disputing the extent of Saudi involvement, stating that the Guardian article contains inaccuracies: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/6IXJ7UQPFTLOC4YRUJNYUGHTXAN5ACVL/ –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In this issue. {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 09:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by PAC2 (2023-01-07)

The Signpost should write about data analytics tools to analyze the list of articles created by a user (https://observablehq.com/collection/@pac02/pages-created).

I have already written a draft User:PAC2/What about the list of articles you've created. -- PAC2 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

{{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}This is good. I will move it to the issue space. jp×g 09:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by PAC2 (2023-01-15)

The Signpost should write about this article in Slate : "Should ChatGPT Be Used to Write Wikipedia Articles?" (https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/chatgpt-wikipedia-articles.html) PAC2 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been done in the last issue. PAC2 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Great :) {{done}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}jp×g 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by WildStar (2023-01-19)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia has a new look!

As of January 18, 2023, the default Wikipedia skin has been changed to Vector (2022). Early reaction on Wikipedia to the change was both positive and more loudly negative and somewhat nasty by some. Its rollout was perhaps not the smoothest. The change has already caught the attention of the media and organizations such as PCMag, TechCruch, Slate, and India Today. See user reaction on Wikipedia here, the Village pump, and Reddit. The Wikimedia Foundation is also collecting feedback using a Qualtrics form. — WILDSTAR^TALK 14:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There will be a couple of paragraphs in the next "In the media". Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

{{Done}} eh! Thank you. — WILDSTAR^TALK 23:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Rotideypoc41352 (2023-01-29)

Less The Signpost should write about... and more "has The Signpost written about..." Saw some journal articles linked in an old Twitter thread, and wondered if we've covered those studies already. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: we covered that paper a couple of times in In the media when it came out. The media was more impressed than I was! Now I'm interested if you know anything about GPTzero. Please email me or leave message here with a ping if you've got anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I do not really have anything (hence the lack of a ping or an email). If you are looking at Special:Diff/1134341207, I read the NPR article on GPTZero and its creator and decided to cite and add it to an existing mention of GPTZero. Beyond what I read on NPR, I don't know anything else. Thanks for the inquiry! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For the archives:

Another detector, GPTzero, was created by Edward Tian, a senior at Princeton University, and was also used to test the same text. It reported that "Your text may include parts written by AI" and identified 12 sentences that were "more likely to be written by AI".

OpenAI and GPTzero's creator were both contacted for comments on this article at short notice, but neither have, as yet, replied. – J, S, B,
— Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/News and notes#Investigative challenge

(Sorry for the accidental pings.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

These three papers have been covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/Recent research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/Recent research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/Recent research (Rotideypoc41352: always feel free to try the archive search fuctions here or m:Research:Newsletter#Archives). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Nick Moyes (2023-02-10)

The Signpost should write about... a recently published piece of research entitled Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I can get one of the authors to contribute something to The Signpost. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The article doxxes several Wikipedia articles and violates WP:OUT. This is also, to put it in the picturesque words of someone else "Icewhiz shit again". For context, Icewhiz is a globally banned user who has engaged in long term abuse (including making death and rape threats against other editors). The impression that this article was co-written by him or under his direction is unavoidable. Volunteer Marek 01:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just read the article and I think it is very important. The signpost should definitely cover it. Groceryheist (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And enable and encourage off wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors by a globally banned user? Volunteer Marek 05:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just a rehas of the stuff Signpost covered before (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media) - back then as news, now it made it through the slow academic pipeline. It's not news, maybe it could be covered by "Recent research" section, but be careful. The stuff is highly controversial as it is related to editor harassment, arbcoms, indef and site bans, etc. Previous newsroom discussions for some context: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_4, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive_30. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just a rehas of the stuff Signpost covered before (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media) - back then as news, now it made it through the slow academic pipeline - based on a quick skim of the paper, it does cover quite a few events from after 2019, so this claim does not seem to be true.

For context, Piotrus and Volunteer Marek appear to be among the main subjects of this paper, a fact that they don't disclose in their comments above. I think it could be a good idea for the Signpost to offer them (and/or other editors covered) to write a response, to be considered for publication as an opinion article. But obviously the main coverage should be written by other people. We'll definitely aim to cover it in some form in "Recent research" as with all Wikipedia-focused research papers from such academic journals (Groceryheist you would be welcome to contribute a review), but we generally aim for independent contributions in that section, so if Guettarda can get indeed get one of the authors to contribute, a separate opinion article might be the best format for that too.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if anyone clicks the article they can easily see that I'm mentioned, so I didn't think there was anything to "disclose". Note that at least one of the authors User:Chapmansh also edits Wikipedia [9].

The main concern however is that the article in question engages in doxxing Wikipedia users (following up on the doxxing and harassment conducted by User:Icewhiz), which is a violation of WP:OUTTING. Per our policy LINKING to off wiki sites which contain personal information which has not been disclosed ALSO is a form of WP:OUTTING. So actually, the link here to the article also violates our policy. Since this hasn't been done maliciously *here* I have not brought it up but increasing exposure to this doxxing is certainly a concern. Volunteer Marek 15:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that policy and believe that there are ways for the Signpost to cover this peer-reviewed academic publication without violating it. Besides, based on a quick link search, it seems that many community members do not share your concern that the link may violate policy: It has so far been posted and discussed at Talk:The Holocaust in Poland, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikipedia’s_Intentional_Distortion_of_the_History_of_the_Holocaust, User talk:François Robere, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Chapmansh (where various uninvolved editors and admins seem to be skeptical of the harassment and outing claims), User talk:Drmies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Wikipedia’s_Intentional_Distortion_of_the_History_of_the_Holocaust, User talk:GizzyCatBella and Wikipedia:Teahouse#editors_accused_of_systematic_distortion.

PS: thanks for pinging User:Chapmansh, she's welcome to weigh in here too. (I see she doesn't disclose her real-life identity on her user page, but I agree with you that it's not a violation of WP:OUTING to connect an editor with their real-life identity if they have published their real name on-wiki themselves elsewhere, as evidenced by the diff link you provided.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:HaeB Okay, so here's the other issue. One of the authors is a Wikipedia editor. There already are some... certain, editors who are trying to build the spin that any criticism of this article constitutes WP:ASPERSIONS or even WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, supposedly against this one author who is a Wikipedia editor. This is a very contentious area and that's just how things work in this topic I guess. Now, obviously, if I were to write some kind of response, I would indeed criticize this article. And I would criticize it both on methodological grounds (how the article came to be and how it was developed) and on empirical grounds (whether the stuff claimed in the article is true or just a bunch of usual Icewhiz hooey). But *I know*, given how things work in this topic area, that the probability that someone will take my written response and try to use it to drag me in front of some drama board admins or even ArbCom is not insignificant. Maybe this sounds a bit AGF-lacking but there's a reason I've been able to stick around here for 17... 18, 19, damn, 19, years. I know how things end up unfolding in such situations. And of course I'm not asking for some kind of "immunity" to write completely what I please but I do need to know the parameters here. What can I criticize? Can I discuss the Wikipedia background? Can I point out deficiencies in scholarship? Can I question professionalism? Or is it pretty much "write at your own risk" and let the sluaghs wrench me to get administrated upon in one of the nine levels of these hells (all of which start with the letter A apparently)? Any help on this? Volunteer Marek 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that I contribute a review. I'll start writing this evening and see if it seems like it will be worthwhile. Groceryheist (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a short piece on that study to In the media earlier today. I was blissfully unaware of this conversation at the time, having instead seen a link to the study on Twitter. (This is not meant to be in lieu of coverage in Recent research. Do feel free to add a line about fuller coverage coming in RR at the end of the month, User:HaeB.) --Andreas JN 466 19:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
When we have a well-researched, peer-reviewed article showing systematic disinformation from editors who bully and CANVAS to work their way around our dysfunctional on-wiki processes for abuse, why are those editors not banned from participation in this discussion? Arguably they should be globally, indefinitely banned, but that takes more time and relies on those aforementioned routinely-failing processes, as described in the article. But that they are using the same disinformation and bullying in this discussion is laughable. Does anyone still even pretend that functional on-wiki processes for abuse actually exist? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably because this article is just repeating false allegations made by a user who was indefinetly banned for engaging in extreme harassment of other Wikipedia editors (doxing, threats etc etc etc) and has been on a crusade against them for the last three years. Also because almost all (maybe actually all) of these allegations have been examined by numerous administrators and arbitrators extensively on many previous occasions and these examinations have correctly and almost universally rejected them as false.

Pro-tip: don't take the word of someone who makes death threats and rape threats at face value. Double Pro-tip: Don't take the word of someone who takes the word of someone like that at face value at face value. Volunteer Marek 23:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's more discussion of this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Wikipedia’s_Intentional_Distortion_of_the_History_of_the_Holocaust. Andreas JN 466 00:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Media coverage:[10] (press release from uni) and [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also: [12][13]. François Robere (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Fake news spreads... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not that much independent coverage, then. If we're lucky journalists Harrison, Benjakob or Cohen may write something at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The press releases and op-ed obviously aren't, but Ynet and Haaretz are independent. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone read the Haaretz article, btw? Is it any good? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard review of the essay, with some commentary from its authors. The author is Ofer Aderet, Haaretz's history reporter[14] and a lecturer at the Open University's Ascolot School of Interdisciplinary Studies. François Robere (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere, now in English: [15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Benjakob did a poor job with the WCC story, repeating Icewhiz claims, so I would not expect much there. What did the others covere? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, you should probably start that comment with "in my opinion, as a person criticized in that piece...". François Robere (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"In my opinion, as a person criticized by indef-blocked harasser Icewhiz, whose claims were uncritically repeated in that piece..." - will that do? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Depends how you like your BLP - steaming, or on fire. François Robere (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sautéed, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Telegraphic Agency [16], Der Spiegel [17]. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The JTA is in Jerusalem Post as well. Anything good in the Der Spiegel? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Spiegel covered the history of the dispute from the 2019 Haaretz article thru the present. It was surprisingly comprehensive and interesting to read even through gtranslate. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you read it, consider putting it on WP:PRESS 23. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks. Done! Levivich (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Also in The Times of Israel. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Covered (despite objections) in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-20/In the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

New Wikipedia AI feature of DuckDuckGo, called "DuckAssist", which answers questions with text from Wikipedia.

The Signpost should write about the new Wikipedia AI feature of DuckDuckGo (DDG), called "DuckAssist". If the user types in a query for which Wikipedia has relevant information, DuckAssist pops up at the top of DDG's search engine results page (SERP) with an Ask button. If you click on that, it presents an answer from Wikipedia right there on the SERP. — The Transhumanist 05:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I heard about this via Ars Technica[18] and Apple News. Gabriel Weinberg of Duck Duck Go writes "We’ve used Wikipedia for many years as the primary source for our “knowledge graph” Instant Answers, and, while we know it isn’t perfect, Wikipedia is relatively reliable across a wide variety of subjects. Because it’s a public resource with a transparent editorial process that cites all the sources used in an article, you can easily trace exactly where its information is coming from." [19] ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/Op-Ed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by QuicoleJR (2023-04-10)

The Signpost should write about... The discussion around User:Bradv and User:Jimbo Wales at User talk:Bradv. The discussion centers around an allegation by Jimbo that Bradv is an undisclosed paid editor, and the community response defending Bradv.

QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Some links:[20][21] (one more thread below) [22] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Covered (in several stories) in the April 26 issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Peaceray (2023-04-20)

The Signpost should write about...

Schaul, Kevin; Chen, Szu Yu; Tiku, Nitasha (2023-04-19). "Inside the secret list of websites that make AI like ChatGPT sound smart". Washington Post. Retrieved 2023-04-20.

Probably behind a paywall, but I see it b/c I have a subscription. This is an analysis of Google's Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus (C4) data set^{[C4 1]} From the article:

Wikipedia to Wowhead ... The three biggest sites were patents.google.com No. 1, which contains text from patents issued around the world; wikipedia.org No. 2, the free online encyclopedia; and scribd.com No. 3, a subscription-only digital library.
See the The websites in Google’s C4 dataset table
Many websites have separate domains for their mobile versions (i.e., “en.m.wikipedia.org” and “wiki.riteme.site”). We treated these as the same domain. We also combined subdomains aimed at specific languages, so “wiki.riteme.site” became “wikipedia.org.” So only enwiki seems to be in the dataset.
... the training data for OpenAI’s GPT-3, released in 2020, began with as much as 40 times the amount of web scraped data in C4. GPT-3’s training data also includes all of English language Wikipedia, ...

Peaceray (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

C4 references

^ Dodge, Jesse; Sap, Maarten; Marasović, Ana; Agnew, William; Ilharco, Gabriel; Groeneveld, Dirk; Mitchell, Margaret; Gardner, Matt (2021). "Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus". arXiv:2104.08758 [cs.CL].

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible 'in the news' entry

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/27/wikipedias-influence-grows

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"AI Is Tearing Wikipedia Apart"

The headline of this article on the website of Vice is more sensational than warranted, but I guess it deserves a mention in "In the news". --Lambiam 11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

So far as I have seen, the community is handling the AI issue with the same studied calm with which it has handled numerous comparable issues, and has developed sensible policies in response. BD2412 T 16:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean, by doing absolutely nothing except letting the loudest nutjobs dominate the conversation, while everyone with something reasonable to say is forced out and wanders off to do something useful. Is that what you mean by "the same studied calm with which it has handled numerous comparable issues, and has developed sensible policies in response". Because that's the standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 16:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Oltrepier (2023-04-12)

The Signpost should write about... the role Wikipedia might have played (ironically) in NPR's decision to quit Twitter. As reported by Gizmodo, Business Insider and even the network itself, Elon Musk told reporter Bobby Allyn that he relied on this specific category to determine which accounts should be deemed as "state-affiliated" or "government-funded". As a result, someone even decided to add a clarification to the aforementioned page. Unfortunately, I guess NPR's reputation wasn't the only one at risk of serious damage here...

@Smallbones and Jayen466: It's very likely that you were already writing on this, but I still wanted to report it, hopefully it's useful. Oltrepier (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/In_the_media#In_brief. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Rhododendrites (2023-05-08)

I was going to just post an update here, but I don't know how much traffic this page gets, so updating the date/position, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I posted the below back in March. By the time the next issue comes out, the show will be over, but it may be a good time for a post-event mention. Maybe it's because I'm active uploading photos on Commons, but IMO it seems like a big deal for someone in our community to have their original wiki-contributions featured in a gallery/museum. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Signpost. I've learned of what may be the first museum exhibit of a Wikimedian's contributions to the project. Frank Schulenburg has a photo exhibition going on through 5/14 at the Museum of Northern California Art, featuring prints of his photos that document northern California on Commons. There's information (including the photos themselves and documentation of the exhibit being set up) on this page on Commons: commons:User:Frank Schulenburg/Northern California on Wikipedia. Seems like something the Signpost may want to cover. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/News_and_notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (2023-05-27)

The Signpost should write about...

India communicates with WMF: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Communications_from_government_of_India_to_Wikimedia_Foundation_regarding_content_about_maps_depicting_the_borders_of_India. May be worth a mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-05/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

In the media Suggestion by Philh-591 (2023-05-31)

xkcd has mentioned Wikipedia again. Don't forget to mouse hover (tooltip) over the cartoon. I don't know if there are yet enough mentions of Wikipedia at xkcd to warrant a list at Wikipedia. Philh-591 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Philh-591 I wonder if he was inspired by a certain Sirocco. Yes, it's on Youtube. I'm also reminded of 2022 United Kingdom government crisis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in brief at the upcoming edition of In the media. Not sure if webcomics should qualify as visual media or not. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-05/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by SCP-2000 (2023-06-12)

The Signpost should write about...

Wikimedia Foundation files lawsuits against Russian Prosecutor General's Office, Roskomnadzor over blocking Wikipedia information. It is likely the follow-up action of Moscow Court rejected case in November 2022. --SCP-2000 03:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Moneytrees (2023-06-13)

The Signpost could include information on a planned user study involving an AI browser extension named “ConvoWizard” that aims to inform users when a conversation is getting tense. The group is looking for participants, and are open to feedback at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Cornell_team_seeking_feedback_on_a_planned_user_study Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft suggestion: "A Cornell research group is now recruiting volunteers for a user study involving a prototype tool to help Wikipedians have healthier discussions on Talk pages, noticeboards, and other discussion spaces. You can learn more about the project at its meta-wiki project page or by checking out the discussion on Village Pump. Wikipedians who are interested in participation should sign up here: (link)" Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/News_and_notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by NikosLikomitros (2022-06-21)

The Signpost should write about the consequences of COVID pandemic in Wikipedias, especially in the activity of many Wikipedias of the developing world. In the developing world, the years until 2020 were met with continuous and uninterrupted growth in users and activity. However, after the beginning of the Covid pandemic, the brief further growth due to the first lockdown has been followed from a, for many Wikipedias, prolonged decrease in active users and activity.

Here are some examples:

Hindi had 7,707 active users in 2017 (according to Wikiscan), number that doubled to 15,2 thousand active users in 2020 based in Wikiscan. However in 2021 only 12,282 users made at least one edit according to Wikiscan. The evidence from 2022's activity show further decrease. And before the pandemic it was one of the shining stars globally in activity and gradually new articles, heading for more than 2 thousand active users in 2020 (in regular basis).
Spanish had 118 thousand active users in the same year, 2017 (Wikiscan data)). In 2020 the active users had surged in 150 thousand (Wikiscan) and in 2021 the users decreased to 131 thousand. More decrease is expected in 2022.
Indonesian, based in the same site, has recovered from 2021's decrease and heads back to normal.
Turkish had 32,585 users in 2020, in the first year after the unblock. In the next year 30,3 thousand users did at least one edit, and further decrease seems to be expected.
Bengali had 5,230 users in 2017. In 2019 the users with at least one edit increased to 10,8 thousand. In 2020 users increased to 11,6 thousand, and in 2021 to 11,8 thousand. This year a small decrease is possible. The impact, thus, was lower, but it would have been nearly to 17 thousand users without the pandemic's disruption and new articles would have continued to grow to more than 40-50 thousand a year.
Urdu had 1,385 users in 2017. In 2020 the users with at least one edit had surged to 2,576. In the next year they decreased to 2,127 and a check of this year's data shows very strong possibility for a further decrease.
Swahili had 590 users in 2017, 1,047 in 2020 and 1,012 in 2021. Finally for 2022 there is a strong possibility of growth based in the estimation from the numbers provided from Wikiscan.
Marathi had 2,020 users in 2017. In 2020 they reached 2,270 (in 2019 there were 2,591) and in 2021 they continued to decrease to 1,794. In 2022 the most recent data show further decrease, possibly even 30%.
French had 105 thousand users in 2017. In 2020 they reached 139 thousand, and they decreased to 133 thousand in 2021. As in 2010 there were 99 thousand users and 112 in 2014, it is obvious that much of post-2017 growth was driven from the French-speaking African countries.
Persian had 33 thousand users in 2017, 52 thousand in 2020 and 49 thousand in 2021.

I suggest that you should write an article for this decrease of activity in many Wikipedias of the developing world. This decrease has been mixed with stagnation or decrease in pageviews as well, as you can see from the Wikistats site. These decreases wouldn't have happened if Covid pandemic wasn't disrupting the growth cycle of various Wikipedias of the developing world. You can check, in Wikiscan, in the Calendar unit (checking Stats and after the name of year, which is given as e.g. 22 for 2022), the growth and decrease of annual new article production pre and post-2020.

I think that you must compile a such article, with interviews from Wikipedias of India, Africa and Asia giving their opinions for the decrease and what could be done to finally end it. After the publication of that article, if you judge that it would be on the benefit of the Signpost, I would suggest to publish an op-ed as well, showing an estimation of how Wikipedia's activity could be now if Covid was just a mere fiction. NikosLikomitros (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. A deep dive on topics like COVID-19, the Russo-Ukranian War, etc could be done./ 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Late, but @NikosLikomitros:, if you can give links for these statistics (I see that there are links for the first couple, but not the rest) I can try to write it into a story for this month or the next. Also, a lot of them stop around 2021 -- is it possible to get updated numbers for 2023? jp×g 08:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Legoktm (2022-09-05)

The Signpost should write about...the passing of Peter Eckersley. He was a prominent figure in digital rights advocacy at EFF, as well as an early contributor to Wikipedia as User:Pde, editing up through last year. I found out about his involvement in Wikipedia from this Twitter thread. Legoktm (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

note to self, could go in 2022 obits jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by BD2412 (2022-09-29)

The Signpost should write about... User:BD2412 becomes the fourth Wikipedian to surpass two million edits. It's here now, but should be official here tomorrow. Moving Wheeler Martin from draft to mainspace was the edit that hit the magic number. I kind of feel like Forrest Gump in that scene after he has been running back and forth across America for three years, and suddenly stops and says, "I'm pretty tired, I think I'll go home now". Cheers! BD2412 T 07:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

jp×g 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This was kind of a joke, but sometime in the next few weeks I'll cross 2,150,000. BD2412 T 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by JamieF (2022-11-02)

The Signpost should write about... the View it! tool. A new tool for discoverability of images on Commons in development utilizing Structured Data on Commons. I would be happy to write/help write the article, if others are interested. JamieF (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@JamieF: That sounds like it would be great. I would love to see a draft -- either as part of the technology report or potentially (if there is enough in there) as its own article. jp×g 09:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Project Osprey (2022-11-15)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia’s Citations Are Influencing Scholars and Publishers an interesting opinion piece with references Project Osprey (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (2022-11-17)

The what-to-do-about-twitter-blue discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Twitter_Blue_and_verified_Twitter_accounts may be worth a mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Daniel Case (2022-11-25)

The Signpost should write about... University of Kansas archaeologist John Hoopes' praise for Wikipedia's articles in that area at the end of a recent interview in Slate Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Kosboot (2022-12-16)

The Signpost should write about... for "In the Media" https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/11/01/guest-post-wikipedias-citations-are-influencing-scholars-and-publishers Wikipedia’s Citations Are Influencing Scholars and Publishers By Rachel Helps kosboot (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by PAC2 (2023-01-07)

The Signpost should write about the Wednesday index (https://mastodon.world/@OpenSexism/109315053114410894). OpenSexism measures gender diversity in 26 Wikipedia articles each week. This has created a nice dataset which helps measuring the evolution of gender diversity over time. Here is the article: https://medium.com/@OpenSexism/the-wednesday-index-one-year-of-gender-diversity-data-visualized-a6458b94d52b

Linking talk pages of mainspace articles to relevant Signpost articles

The template 'Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects' has been used rather consistently. Is there any mechanism to add relevant The Signpost articles to the talk pages of articles in the mainspace? There is a template already used for coverage which has been used around 4.5k times; can this template be used? For example, from this issue (v19i1), if I wanted to link the Technology Report to the corresponding Wikipedia article talk page how should I do it, the press template or some other way? Can I duplicate this process to other cases? FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would indeed use the press report. This is basically a newspaper that is slightly more editable/close to home than most ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Shushugah. I hadn't really expected a comment from a reader/contributor of The Signpost like me. Now that you have...

I think this is a small point but important enough to mention. All I can gauge from the current scenario is that no one has discussed this, it isn't on the About page, so WikiCommonsense applies, a case to case basis, based on The Signpost and English language Wikipedia structure.

The above example with Abstract Wikipedia I took seems a positive case. Other articles in mind would be more difficult to say. For example let's take, The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia. Now the full article doesn't cover the header, since it is an "In the media" post, a bunch of other stuff are also mentioned. So do we draw from this a criteria that only those articles which cover the mainspace article in entirety and in depth with no other topic should be added? Another example, Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging. Here The Signpost has commented on a media article. So should The Signpost be linked, or should that media article? A number of threads emerge. Should a line about this be added to the About page? Should it become a formal part of the publication process? How many articles are we talking about here?

This much detail is unnecessary. This is a small point; getting out quality issues on time is the main priority. Those on the About page, thank you! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Chetvorno (2023-01-17)

The Signpost should write about... The state of paid editing. This comes up on Signpost briefly every 6 months or so, but it is only getting worse. Wikipedia as a trusted worldwide information source has become the target of an enormous promotional Wikiwashing industry with the advertising budgets of huge corporations behind it. No one is even shy about paid editing anymore; I see ads for WikiFederation, WikiProficiency, WizardsOfWiki, WikiCurators (retch), The Mather Group, WhiteHatWiki all the time. I would like to see a comprehensive history of the problem, including a history of RfCs of proposals for dealing with COI editing.

I have been an editor for 16 years and I feel this is the main threat to Wikipedia. We will lose our main asset, our editors, if they realize their unpaid hard work upgrading articles with the truth will simply be reverted by boiler rooms of paid flacks at ad agencies editing anonymously. Corporations' excuse is they need to do COI editing to correct wrong or out of date information in their articles, but that's inverting causality: any actual errors in these articles are because few independent editors want to work on articles where there is a 900 pound gorilla in the room. What unbiased editor would waste their time editing corporate and business articles today? How corrupted are our articles on corporations? I would like to see the opinions of veteran editors and WMF on this, and what to do about it. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Oltrepier (2023-01-22)

The Signpost should write about... two more press features for the project, this time courtesy of Il Post and The Atlantic!

The first article was published by Italian on-line newspaper Il Post - they have already written about Wikipedia in several instances - on January 2, 2023. The piece broke down the ongoing debate on the tone of the Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising banners that are usually hosted on the site at the end of each year: in the process, previous articles by Slate and The Washington Post on the same matter, as well as the WMF's official statements on Wikimedia 2030 and donations, were quoted as sources. If needed, I can help you translate the article to English.

On the other hand, just today (January 22), American magazine The Atlantic has published an article about the platform's approach to controversies and "edit wars", as well as its commitment to fact-checking through secondary sources. Most notably, the author has presented the very long discussion involving Gloria Hemingway as the starting point of his piece.

I don't know how interesting these news could sound like, realistically, but I hope it will still be an useful suggestion! Oltrepier (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Oltrepier (2023-02-03)

The Signpost should write about... the recent restrictions to Wikipedia imposed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, a Government-owned agency that regulates telecommunication services in the country. Last Wednesday, the PTA seemingly blocked the platform in almost every area across the nation, in an attempt to push admins to remove some allegedly "blasphemous" (albeit unspecified) content from the site.

Not exactly a good omen, especially thinking about your report on Saudi Arabia from last month...

Oltrepier (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by EEng (2023-02-16)

The Signpost should write about WP:Songs about Wikipedia/The RfA Candidate's Song. Funniest thing ever. E Eng 19:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I like it.

Absolutely worth a listen, and so old by now that it is probably new to most. Andreas JN 466 19:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Thinker78 (2023-02-22)

The Signpost should write about the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 1258. February marks 765 years to the day of the finalization of the destruction of knowledge accumulated for centuries, during that grotesque event of murderous and brutal conquest. I couldn't help but to express my feelings in the page's talk. In memoriam. Thinker78 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a worthy addition to Wikipedia:There is a deadline at least. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Jason Rees (2023-02-26)

The Signpost should write about Wikipedia's tropical cyclone and weather projects changing their generic colour scheme which is used on the trackmaps, infoboxes and throughout the project. Its been a long slog and a lot of teeth-pulling but we seem to have finally managed to find a colour scheme that works, complies with Wikipedia's policies and a number of people are happy with, however, a number of people on and off wiki do not like the colour scheme changing. As a result, @Hurricanehink: has designed a press release to try and highlight what process the project has been through etc and I would strongly suggest that the Signpost covers this issue.Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here to second this. I wrote up what should function as a press release, it would be nice to have it published somewhere besides just the project talk page. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tyiohko (2023-02-27)

New Wikimedia Brand Report (about ten countries). For example, it showed that “80% of global internet users have heard of Wikipedia”, more than Britannica or Reddit, but less than Google or YouTube. Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons awareness - less than 20%. Not very good results for South Korea (Wikipedia awareness only 40%; 60% detractors; negative Net Promoter Score) and for young users (18-24). Also Free Knowledge Movement is not very popular. https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/brand-stewardship/brand-health/ Tyiohko (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tokisaki Kurumi (2023-02-28)

I recently noticed an interesting phenomenon when observing the Chinese Wikipedia, the vast majority of Chinese Wikipedia editors are relatively young, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Demographics tells us that 28% of users are older than 40, but it seems that the Chinese Wikipedia does not follow. I think this might be worth a writeup, right? ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Robertsky (2023-03-01)

The Signpost should write about... Wikimania 2023, to be held on 16–19 August 2023 in Singapore, program submission is now opened (since 28 February 2023, 16:00 UTC). It will be opened until 28 March 2023, 23:59 AoE. There are 11 tracks to submit your proposal to: Community initiatives; Education; Equity, inclusion, and community health; ESEAP (East, South East Asia, and the Pacific) region; GLAM, heritage, and culture; Governance; Legal, advocacy, and risk; Open data; Research, science, and medicine; Technology; Wild ideas. Diff post: Be part of the Wikimania 2023 program!; Track details, submission questions on Wikimania wiki. – robertsky (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Really sorry this got missed. Will be in the next issue, with a "Hurry" warning. Andreas JN 466 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Andreas, thanks! Appreciate the follow up. :) – robertsky (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding User:robertsky as a co-author of News and notes where this will appear. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Levivich (2023-03-13)

The Signpost should write about... "The Living Law of Wikipedia", a lecture by David Nelken of The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, delivered at Singapore Symposium in Legal Theory 2023. YouTube video. Compares Wikipedia's WP:PAGs to legal systems. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:HaeB, is this something you would want to cover as part of Recent Research? (If not then I'll add the video to In the Media.) Andreas JN 466 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Andreas. Yes, legal research is definitely in scope for RR. I'll aim put a brief note in the next issue of RR, but likely just quote an excerpt from the description - if you are going to listen to the talk and do a fuller writeup, feel free to (in either ITM or RR). Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by AnonMoos (2023-03-30)

Maybe the Signpost could investigate anonymous IP's repeatedly adding short gibberish sections to the end of many article talk pages, which has been going on for months now. See the history of Talk:Tap code for one semi-random example. Or does anyone know if this has been discussed elsewhere, and any conclusions reached? Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Jayron32 (2023-04-12)

The Signpost should write about... Sam Denby's Half as Interesting video on ArbCom Jayron 32 15:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In "Wikipedia in other media" news, Half as Interesting has done a video about ArbCom. Just in case anyone was interested. Might be worth a little note. --Jayron 32 15:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

[Dodge_Sap_Marasović_Agnew_2021-1] Dodge, Jesse; Sap, Maarten; Marasović, Ana; Agnew, William; Ilharco, Gabriel; Groeneveld, Dirk; Mitchell, Margaret; Gardner, Matt (2021). "Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus". arXiv:2104.08758 [cs.CL].

[C4 1]