This is The Signpost Newsroom, a place where The Signpost team can coordinate with writers, both regular and occasional, and people who have suggestions for topics to cover. See the boxes below if you have suggestions (something for the team to write about in regular columns), proposal/submissions (for articles you want to write/have written yourself), or want to create a pre-formatted draft article in your userspace, with helpful links and easy-to-edit syntax. Discussion occurs both here and in the SignpostDiscord.
Discussion of upcoming issues is done at the newsroom talk page. For general feedback on The Signpost as a whole, go to our talk page. To learn more about The Signpost, see our about page.
The Signpost currently has 5707 articles, 712 issues, and 14003 pages (4570 talk and 9433 non-talk).
To suggest a topic to be covered by The Signpost, simply click on the button below or post to our suggestions page manually. Example of good topics are
Editors who have done something extraordinary/wonderful
If you have an idea for an article you would like to write, you can submit it for review by the editorial team. You can do so by clicking the button below or by posting to our submissions page manually.
News articles should be kept relatively neutral and report on a specific piece of actual news. They can be on any topic of interest to Wikipedians, from general events, to technical news.
Opinion pieces are evaluate on originality, relevance to Wikipedians, and the quality of the arguments. They should provoke thought and encourage productive discussion.
Special pieces cover things that don't fall neatly in the above two categories. If it's interesting to you, it's likely interesting to someone else as well. Check with us and we'll see what can be done!
Create a draft
To create a draft of an article in your userspace, simply copy-paste {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} at Special:MyPage/Signpost draft (replacing USERNAME with your own username).
You can also use the button below. This will preload a form, which you can then save and edit. We recommend saving without making any edits to the preloaded form before starting to write your article.
Below here is an automatically generated master list of every page whose title starts with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/. It's automatically generated by SDZeroBot every day. Also consult the mockup page for the next issue to make sure all of their titles, images and blurbs are correct.
You should click the button to manually update it and make sure it's current before doing anything serious.
Note: There are also a bunch of things in /Drafts and /Next next issue. When prepping an issue, make sure that articles in this expand-o-box are accounted for.
Note: The below discussions are automatically transcluded from the newsroom talk page; to comment on a draft or submission, go there and create a section with the same name (i.e. "News and notes", "Arbitration report" etc).
As previously discussed, I have finished (or at least made functional) the script that parses and entables noticeboard threads. Here is the top 50 or so noticeboard threads since the beginning of the year (47, to be precise, which is the number of discussions above the byte threshold that I set to 70,000).
Sort this by "length" to get them ranked. I think that this would make for a decent discussion report. This is a very large amount, of course -- since it is for five whole months, and not three weeks -- I think if we did this every issue we could go in a lot greater depth but unfortunately there is a lot to cover which means a lot to gloss over quickly. jp×g🗯️21:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking on this, more or less, is that we ought to print something, even if it is not Pulitzer material, and that something is better than nothing.
It would be very nice if we could actually analyze these, as I did for AfDs at the deletion report a long while ago (in the days of having time for things) -- but if there is not sufficient time to actually go through and analyze them, we ought to summarize them, and if there is not sufficient time to summarize them, we ought to at least reprint what the closing statements were, and if there is not sufficient time to do that, I think the bare minimum would be to just publish them as a list.
As more time goes by, the job of catchup for these will only become more difficult (as with the quite lethargic arb report), so I would very much like someone to write something fleshing these out, but if this cannot be managed I will just put something in like a very bare-bones list. jp×g🗯️21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list should always skip all behavioural noticeboards at the very least. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of "tabulating" which threads had the most discussion, when the entire threads is about (say) one editor's misconduct or similar. They also feel ill fitting to compare in the same category as the other type of discussions, like "Village pump discussion on Xyz".
Imo the "behavioural" noticeboards in this list that should be skipped are - WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI, possibly WP:DRN. Perhaps a manual check can leave behind any AN/ANI discussions that are broader, like "What do we think of this part of admin accountability". I just prefer keeping them all out than keeping any "This editor's conduct was bad" discussions in the same vein as the rest.
I also see value in splitting the Village pumps from all other noticeboards, as separate categories/tables but that's not a big deal I guess. Soni (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hat btw, this was blowing up the newsroom. As for propriety on user behavior threads, I have given this some long thought, and ultimately I think it is of public interest. Traditionally, we have covered arbitration proceedings in great detail, virtually all of which are conduct issues (almost definitionally so, as the remit of the Committee doesn't include ruling on content or policy). The justification for this isn't the clicks, or the lulz, but that these proceedings and rulings involve issues of importance to all editors: they are usually on issues (political or cultural) that we consider important, they often involve people central to our community, and perhaps most importantly they involve the interpretation and definition (and sometimes reinterpretation and redefinition) of our norms and policies. A lot of the time, a big dramaboard thread will be about thousands of articles, or some big process thing, or be the impetus for some new policy to be added (or some old policy to be struck).
Of course some propriety is called for with these, as it is with the arbitration report -- particularly it would be tasteless to rank them in the fashion of a "Greatest Hits" reel -- but I do think it is something that warrants a solid and sober analysis.
(It is probably also worth mentioning that AN and ANI have kind of become the all-purpose "throw whatever shit here" zone for the project...) jp×g🗯️10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valid, though I just disagree with your stance. I think if we're keeping them all, it would be best if the list was sectioned based off venue. AE/ANI/AN for "Editor stuff", VPs for "Village Pumps" and rest for "Noticeboards". Or another phrasal.
I think at least that reduces the ickiness I feel + will be a generally better use for the lists anyway (A 100K count RFC on VP occupies a much different space than NPOVN or ANI, in my opinion. So some segregation improves the utility of the lists, imo.) Soni (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- the draft is the raw output of the script. The hope, at least, was that someone could use this as a basis to write the report, not that the unedited table would itself be the entirety of the report (not me, since the last three days I have been exclusively online by means of a phone in the back of my camper truck). jp×g🗯️21:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the script looks like very valuable tool, but dumping its output unedited into a Signpost story seems ill advised. Bluerasberry seems to be thinking differently, and has now framed this as "New Signpost technology for finding hot Wikipedia discussions"?
I'm also not sure about this part:
The Signpost presents the Wikipedia Discussion Report, which is an automatically updating table of Wikipedia's most active conversations.
I support waiting, editing, or discussing, and I also would take direction in reformating this as some kind of technology opinion piece from me if others prefer to not associate The Signpost with my personal tone.
I push back against 1) publishing the tool/table without a plan to also publish commentary and 2) postponing the announcement of this tool for too long, because it is really innovative and interesting. @Soni I can see a little of the "ill advised" but I somehow need more editorial advisement than that description. @HaeB "automatic" might not be the correct word as the table needs to be triggered to generate, as I understand. Yes I want static snapshots. I want development but also I think it is cool as is, and I trust our audience to see the value and manage the shortcomings of version 1.0 products.
It is probably too much to ask and both stories are in my head, but you all must have seen that the Wikimedia Foundation is pushing very hard to add AI generated summaries into Wikipedia article mainspace. I am not supportive of that, but I would be in support of using AI testing to help manage and condense and make data visualizations for any of these 50-page community discussions which this table identified. I want to support community tech and do not take for granted that we always will have free speech, a free platform, and enough community participation to even have meaningful discussions of the sort this table surfaces. Bluerasberry (talk)15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and throw in 2c of personal commentary on the whole phenomenon of these gigantic "50 page community discussions" as Bluerasberry put it. JPxG's analysis may have provided us a new opportunity for a data-driven discussion. I think that either a 14-level indent depth, or 50 pages actually discourages active participation. If The Signpost has an editor to take it on, I think it would be fruitful to start a discussion of whether a) this is indicative of a problem b) if the current 1990s style tech supports real participation and c) whether there is a negative correlation between lengthy discussions and actual solved problems. In other words, is our whole model of community self-governance at risk of takeover simply by people who have the stamina to deal with things like this? Has this been taken on before? I've never seen data like this presented to make the scope of the issue apparent. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This news story seems guaranteed to raise major complaints from at least two groups. I don't have a particular expertise in the controversial areas. I was looking for somebody who has handled this topic well in The Signpost before. @Bluerasberry: do you know of somebody who could write this up or even just be an "expert source" in the area? Smallbones(smalltalk)16:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! In addition to Ryan McGrady's article for Free Policy Press, which you already added and proposes the implementation of a "Wikipedia Liberty Index", there's also a recent post from D.F. Lovett's "Edit History" newsletter, where he suggests that a banner that emphasized the fact that Wikipedia is "an ever-evolving, volunteer-maintained project owned and operated by a nonprofit organization" would help the platform get less misunderstood and criticized...
Hi Signposters. [Following a conversation with Smallbones and HaeB] I'd like to write something based on the TPP piece to pitch to the Signpost. Some combination of excerpts and a paragraph or two about possible next steps (I asked them to put a CC BY-SA 4.0 license on it to facilitate doing so). What would be a sensible deadline for me to get you a draft? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to Smallbones, HaeB, and Oltrepier, I've had some health issues and other commitments which have prevented me from following through with this. However you decide to include it, I'll plan to follow up in the comments section to start a discussion about possible next steps. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The DOGE org isn't really "Musk's"; it existed as US Digital Service before his arrival and will probably exist after his departure last week (if I'm not mistaken, reported by USA Today and others). Other than that, I don't see anything wildly controversial. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, my initial reading of the paragraph about Elon Musk implied that you were saying Commons users might treat this request differently in light of the current political climate. Were you trying to suggest this? Svampesky (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: Yes actually I and others are scared of being called out in public media and shot with actual guns in the street. I do not like the head of the United States government having intense negative and aggressive focus on silly Wikipedia edits. It seems like some routine Wikipedia edits can be perceived as anti-American and treasonously harmful. I am not quite ready to communicate that much fear but I would like to convey a moderately alarmed amount of editorial caution, if you can help put that into words. Bluerasberry (talk)19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern, but I don't think The Signpost should state in its own voice that there isa difference about this particular DMCA request. That phrasing could imply that Commons users are using their own politics to influence the discussion. A more neutral wording might be something like: This is a standard DMCA request, but it might be seen as different to outsiders due to the current political climate surrounding Elon Musk. Svampesky (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's the same that already was the source for our previous story (see announced); one can just subscribe directly to read (i.e. it's not a confidential list in any sense). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had already added it to ITM right after posting here, where it joined two minor items related to the same 2023 paper that it is a reaction to, and has now been augmented with a fourth somewhat related item to become the issue's main story. I don't have very strong feelings here, but in general RR is the better location at least when it is about peer-reviewed full papers (this one is a "research letter" but still peer-reviewed it seems), and arguably the two comments by the authors of the 2023 paper would also fit there. However, I don't want leave ITM short of content for this issue by moving it over to RR now; if you folks prefer ITM here, I'll instead add a short mention in the "Other recent publications" section of RR.
As pointed out by the author on Facebook, the new paper is based on this on-wiki text, which we already highlighted (several times) in our 2023 coverage. So the added news value of the content itself might be limited anyway (although the fact that it has now been published in an academic journal is certainly worth mentioning).
Either way, while the paper is unfortunately paywalled, the author has kindly agreed to my suggestion to post a freely available version, which we should link to alongside the paywalled version. (By the way, academics are often not aware that journal publishers - even commercial ones like Taylor & Francis in this case [1] - allow them to post such green OA versions of their own paywalled papers; so it's worth asking them if you encounter an inaccessible research publication.)
Some people here know this already, but just as a general heads-up for those Signpost team members who aren't aware: This paper is part of a longstanding and extremely contentious controversy on-wiki and off-wiki. In 2023, it spilled over into our little newsletter when the combatants on one side (and their supporters) strenuously objected to us covering that 2023 paper insufficiently critically (or at all). There were also general BLPTALK-like concerns because the paper made extensive highly negative statements about specific individuals including Wikipedia editors. - I'm bringing this up because the current paper, as a rebuttal out of said side, likewise makes extensive highly negative statements about specific individuals, including Wikipedia editors. Its title alone should make clear that it is not above leveling invectives against specific people. (Also, personally I had concerns at the time about two serious misrepresentations in the on-wiki version, although I understand that these particular problems may have been fixed since.) Having said that, while the Signpost is subject to BLPTALK, I found most of these BLPTALK-like concerns unfounded back in 2023 and defended our coverage (in particular the inclusion of that allegedly insufficiently critical review that an academic with several peer-reviewed publications on Wikipedia of his own had contributed), as some may remember. And I likewise think we should be in the clear now with covering this rather aggressive new paper from the other side as well, considering that it too has been published in an established academic journal. But JPxG or whoever publishes this issue should be comfortable with taking that responsibility, and team members should be prepared to address concerns in case a similar crowd show up again. (Of course a cynical conjecture might be that much of the furor back then was not driven by principled objections against highly opinionated academic papers detailing on-wiki controversies per se, but rather motivated by favoring one side in the aforementioned longstanding content controversy. But I do think that there were at least several folks with genuine concerns but no stance in said controversy, alongside lots of editors who did not see a problem with our coverage.)
Thanks for mentioning the non-paywalled link. Have added it in ITM.
For reference, Taylor and Francis papers (and many, many others ...) are also accessible via the Wikipedia Library (Wikipedia Library link to the paper in question), but not everybody has access to the Wikipedia Library.
The 2023 paper by Grabowski and Klein was partly controversial because it divulged Wikipedians' legal names and places of employment without asking their permission, which is not in line with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. As a result the arbitrators asked the Wikimedia Foundation to write a White Paper with recommendations for researchers (the Wikimedia Foundation is currently inviting feedback on the draft, see the current issue's News and Notes).
This table is generated by querying the database replica and is periodically updated by a bot.
Edits made within the table area will be removed on the next update!
