This page is to discuss the
upcoming issue of The Signpost.
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here. |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2024-06-30 16:25:41 ( Writing: 28 June 18:00 (-1 day ago; -4%) Publishing: 29 June 18:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Deadline has started. (
refresh) | )
Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-06-30 16:25:41.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Articles and pageviews for 2024-05-16
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Articles and pageviews for previous issues/years
|
---|
|
The Signpost ( talk · chat) |
---|
|
|
|
Recent changes: main · talk |
|
With publication soon (?) I just noticed that the gallery in the WikiConference report includes an image of a community banned editor. Maybe this should be removed? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Just so I don't forget, a few days ago I went through the " Suggestions" section to collect some news that went over our heads:
- This study on under-representation and mischaracterization of Black and/or female figures on Wikipedia (suggested by Gråbergs Gråa Sång; will likely feature in "Recent Research", so I'm going to flag it to @ HaeB);
- The joint statement on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip by several Wikimedia organizations and volunteers, which is currently the subject of a pretty lengthy and fiery discussion (suggested by Another Believer);
- The recent death of Ukrainian Wikipedian Yuri Lushchai, who reportedly fell victim of the current war in Ukraine on March 28 (suggested by Avessa and Oleg Yunakov; probably needs further verification);
- Also on March 28, the WMF's introduction as an Associate Member of the Unicode Consortium (suggested by Arcorann).
I hope these are useful for the next issue, and let me know if there are any mistakes! Oltrepier ( talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I drafted a story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes about the election for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election ending 9 May. This is a major election.
This is a major election following one of the most complicated development processes in Wikimedia Movement history. The timeline was just posted 5 April, which I find inconvenient and too short of notice for a process which requires high voter participation and a new organization which is likely to consume US$100,000s of thousands of dollars of resources before the next election.
I wish we could report the election before it is over but more than that, I wish elections were disallowed without confirming a schedule and giving notice. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 RfA reform changes seem like they may be out of scope for the regular News and notes column. Describing how we got here and all of the Phase I tweaks and major changes — starting with admin elections, I think — might merit its own special page. What do Newsroom folks think? ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, going with the "coming to the rescue" theme, you could use this Featured picture. Or if you have any ideas for what the AI generated image would look like, drop a note here and I can work with our sometimes- Signpost helper prompt engineer/artist, and gen some up this evening (US Pacific time). ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it me, or does the Newsroom's table cite the "Special report" column twice? It must be a graphical bug... Oltrepier ( talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I wrote an op-ed about the imminent split of Wikidata to separate d:Wikidata:WikiCite content into a new Wikibase instance, and being the start of Wikidata federation. This is a rushed development from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is good that they are committing to support WikiCite, but it is chaotic to be under pressure to take action.
The reason this is news is that that they called for comment at d:Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/WDQS_graph_split/WDQS_Split_Refinement
Disclosure: I am a data scientist who develops WikiCite, sometimes with sponsorship, but not for some years I think. I must be the most expert person available to write this. I am still working on the draft but wanted to share the idea sooner.
I do not think this requires so much review, but if anyone has questions, ask. Can we move this into the next issue? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I moved this to
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed but probably maybe it isn't an op-ed. "Special report" is already taken for this issue. ☆
Bri (
talk)
20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm committing to finish the blurb on the SVT's report on Ruviki and ru.wiki as soon as possible, and I'll take care of the brief blurbs, as well. However, I don't feel I'm familiar enough with what's going on over at the French Wikipedia (the story originally flagged by @ Bluerasberry)... Is anyone able to help on that front? Oltrepier ( talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I started to take a crack at AI generated images for the issue, then quickly realized I could get in hot water. However didn't want to waste the effort, maybe someone will be inspired to try something else. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I also wanted to remind that the lead stories about the annual reports by Wikipedia/WMF and the OWID gadget still have to be developed... I can help with them, too, if needed! Oltrepier ( talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There will be one from me. jp× g 🗯️ 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delays, since I had discussed with y'all sharing it months ago. We managed to shorten the query to <10 seconds so I'll be done with the data collection within the week. The associated graphs won't work on wiki (:sobs:) but I can host them on my website as a d3.js graph and link said website within the essay if that's fine with y'all. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Cf. this request for an uninvolved proofreader to do some fact-checking. Thank you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The recently-created essay Wikipedia:No queerphobia and its related deletion discussion reflect the current mood at English Wikipedia.The close of that discussion said that folks agree that people can write pretty much whatever they want in essay space as long as it does not violate policy. This may or may not reflect a "mood" or a "zeitgeist".
Deadnaming is the term for the hateful practice of referring to a transgender person by their former name in unnecessary contexts.That's not what Merriam Webster ( §) or en.wp say.
The results of that poll were narrowly in favor of including the deadnames.This "summary" fails to mention that the birth name must be reported in RS for it to be mentioned anywhere (generally in the early biography section only), and that the person must have become notable primarily while still using their birthname for it to be mentioned in the infobox or in the lede. NB: it is about the lede that there was a narrow majority of people saying that a person who became notable while still using their birthname should have their birthname mentioned in the lede. For the rest of the votes (excepting typography) there was no mention of a "narrow" majority.
Man we're past deadline -- not just writing deadline, but also publication deadline -- and I am already working on an arb report covering eighteen months instead of one month -- Jesus Christmas this is a gigantic block of text to proofread and copyedit that wasn't here yesterday... also it's about the hottest-button social issue of our times... also it's in French... what in tarnation... why the hell was there an articlespace pov tag in this... so many questions... I guess I will answer them, myself, tonight, starting with what in the damn hell the significance is of these Friction guys -- gals -- folx -- saying "LGBTQUIA+" in the lead of their article and "LGBTQIA+" in the headline, why are they saying "contributeurices" instead of "contributeurs" (are they all women?) because WiR on here sure don't call themselves "editrices" or "contributresses", maybe this is some weird French thing, jp× g 🗯️ 05:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Following numerous press articles on the treatment of trans people on Wikipedia, several LGBTQUIA+ contributors have written this open letter that we are publishing today on Friction Magazine.in the summary while the editors themselves use the shorter acronym and the byline is for "Contributeurices LGBTQIA+". I realized that only after adding a clarification to the article the U is for "undefined" (and, weirdly enough but neither here nor there, seems to primarily be a West Coast US thing).
It's a bit late notice, but since it's pre-written, could WP:No Queerphobia be featured as the essay for today's issue? I saw it was mentioned in the In The Media section briefly and there isn't an essay pre-slated so thought I should ask, my apologies if this is the incorrect place for that. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the upcoming Top25 report, through May 11, is under development but nearly done. Should we pull it in to the current issue, in its current state? Preview at Special:Permalink/1223973452. My concern is if we don't put it in this issue, it will be pretty stale by the time the next issue of The Signpost comes out. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note here, @ Jayen466 thanks for flagging in your draft that the Annual Report had not been added to the Financial Reports page. This has now been done. Cheers, JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Boy oh boy -- anyway I am running the script now, single talk page should be showing up at the top of the newsroom talk (in a cot) like always -- 4am, time to sloop. Ready to see which of the things from this issue the pitchforks get out for !!!! jp× g 🗯️ 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
NGunasena (WMF) notes here that there is currently a substantial backlog of WMF-submitted Signpost contributions. This seems unfortunate, since we should be encouraging and rewarding foundation folks who seek to communicate with us here, and since some are old enough at this point that they may have gone out of date. Would the editors be able to try to clear this backlog over the coming issues? (That said, we should of course be careful, since someone at the foundation doing particular work is by definition unable to report on that work as an outsider, so we should use opinion or other perspective labels as needed.) Sdkb talk 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
this is annoyingly unfunny. ltb d l ( talk) 14:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HaeB: Is this the first Ph.D. thesis to come from research on Wikipedia? I came across it at hackernoon. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! First of all, sorry for not being able to help with the up-coming issue: I've been pretty much snowed with other tasks and priorities...
Since the first ever election cycle for the newly-established Italian ArbCom has just come to an end, I feel like it would be nice to talk about it next time, so much that I'm considering to write a full Special report about it, by even reaching out to some of the most notable users involved in the process. However, if you feel like we should rather stick to a shorter blurb in the "News and notes" column, I'd be up for it, as well!
How do you all feel about this? Oltrepier ( talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
See User:Bri/Signpost Opinion1. It's sort of brief, a little bit tongue in cheek, but a little bit not. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Generalissima and i are working on a featured content piece for this issue. we talked about this briefly in the discord with @ JPxG - the "start article" button for featured content on the newsroom page doesn't give any pre-loaded content currently, which would be a good thing to fix. we also may do something similar to jpxg's arb report and split it between two issues, as there's a lot to get through for the last 6ish months. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any links that broke- not sure how you mean that, e.g. the WLH list currently still points to a broken link from this talk page discussion (which btw provides some additional context on how that intro came to be). And as you indicate, there may be other uses that are not visible in WLH. I seem to recall various prior discussions on this page about disruptions to the Signpost's processes caused by over-eager admins deleting pages in what they considered to be uncontroversial cleanup. In some cases this might have been avoided by simply leaving a redirect in place.
The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost- actually there are more such pages which are not yet included there (and which we might want to mark as obsolete), e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (news) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (opinion) ...
It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template- I hear you, but is there a more elegant solution for generating those buttons in the newsroom page ? In any case, that kind of convoluted and opaque codebase is yet another reason to tread carefully with non-essential cleanup operations and merely optical improvements, unless one is prepared to check thoroughly that they don't lead to unintended consequences.
It's in
here, and starts with An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet walk into a bar...
☆
Bri (
talk)
03:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Or another, Larry and Jimbo walk into a bar...
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I prepared Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour with the original version of the bar joke. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Should be covered. If not in this issue, the next. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Just holding some things here instead of shoehorning into issue #8. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Among U.S. counties, Essex County in Massachusetts has the highest number of preserved First Period architecture buildings, according to Wikipedia), not sure this is worth covering.
Is there an estimated time for publication?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the piccy on this one ... having an individual's portrait below the title "disinformation" probably won't fly. The same term never appears in their biography. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece- I think you're mistaking me for somebody else and would like clarification on that, I joined after he left and there is no ongoing dispute - I nommed an AFD for a POVFORK of his that quickly passed 8-1 (the 1 being an editor who encouraged him to write it) in a week in January this year and openly state so in the article.
Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light.- which really confused me: this is a disinformation report piece on how a professional quack used WP to promote WP:FRINGE views, attack his opponents, edit with COIs, and sockpuppet. He is notable IRL for his anti-trans advocacy per multiple RS, and this was an investigative piece about how he used WP to do it. ARBCOM ignored evidence of issues with his editing and didn't give him any real sanctions (just an IBAN, which he still ignored with socks). What do you believe I'm leaving out and where should the focus be?
getting to work with y'all in the last issue- not quite sure about the precise meaning of
work with y'allhere (I for example wasn't involved there at all). But it's interesting that you bring this up, considering that concerns were voiced there already (by SashiRolls, an editor not involved in the discussion about your current piece), e.g. about fact-checking and your decision to insert yourself in the Signpost's journalistic reporting on the deletion debates about your own essay. May I also that remind you that this apparently highly controversial essay is still slated to run in this Signpost issue. So it's not exactly like your views in this area ( WP:GENSEX, which you had previously been topic-banned from and are still under various restrictions for, in particular regarding
articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed) are being censored by the Signpost.
Noticed two weird things during publication.
jp× g 🗯️ 13:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
this draft had been made some way other than by filling in the draft template: I guess one could blame the editor who manually formatted the page in preparation for publication, yes. But it should always be possible to create story pages without using the preload.
Hello! I just wanted to point out a very interesting article from Il Post about the difficulties encountered by newly-registered Wikipedia users during their first contributions, and the tips they can take advantage of to improve and keep their confidence up.
The article was written by Viola Stefanello – who we already cited on the Signpost before – and it's very interesting and informative, especially considering the context of a seemingly ever-shrinking base of users and admins on this platform. It also cites a recent video tutorial by Molly White and contains several brief interviews, including to Wikimedian Marta Arosio and admin Sannita.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to add it myself, but it should make for a pretty engaging lead story! Oltrepier ( talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Jayen466 and JPxG: On [third] thought, I've decided to focus on pushing my original idea through for the next issue, since I've had quite a hectic schedule in real life as of late; plus, the ITM column for this issue already looks quite filled up, so let's not make it too bloated. I hope this isn't a problem... Oltrepier ( talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not on the byline for the upcoming issue's "Wikipedia editors deem Anti-Defamation League unreliable on Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and think it's best to keep it that way. But wanted to note: Jewish Insider has a piece just posted yesterday, titled "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia", with this quote: "the exchange, which took place in an online community dedicated to editing Wikipedia articles to better reflect a pro-Palestinian narrative, offers a glimpse at how ideologically motivated actors operate behind the scenes to shape the knowledge shared on Wikipedia". ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have written User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js for the sake of more easily formatting images in draft templates (and by extension, on the front page/archives). Basically, if you add this to your commons:Special:MyPage/common.js
importScript('w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js'); // Backlink: [[w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js]]
it will give you a little dropdown on file pages that says "Use in Signpost template", which will gives you the properly formatted params for using that as an article image in a draft template. That is, from this file, you can generate this:
|piccyfilename = File:Čerčany, nádraží, z nástupiště k budově.jpg |piccy-credits = ŠJů |piccy-license = CC BY 4.0 |piccy-xoffset = 0 |piccy-yoffset = 0 |piccy-scaling = 403 }}
This automatically parses out the filename, author, and license shorthand, as well as computing the minimum scaling to make it fit in the snippet templates.
Of course, the scaling can be whatever (if you want the article's piccy to be a small portion of an image), but the minimum scaling factor (i.e. to have it fit in the 300x300 box and not be letterboxed) is computable from resolution -- for portrait-style images the minimum scaling number is 300 because MediaWiki prevents pillarboxing, but for landscape-style images it is some arbitrary number based on the aspect ratio (e.g. a 3:4 image sized as "300px" will be letterboxed with blank space below it, you have to scale it to at least 400... but Commons doesn't give aspect ratios on the file page, just resolutions, so this required manual computing every time... well, no more of that dumbness.
Anyway, if anybody wants to let me know if there is anything stupid or busted about this script, I am still expecting to have to revise it somewhat, although from clicking around on a few dozen random Commons files it seems pretty robust. jp× g 🗯️ 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Different people describe the meta:Movement Charter in different ways. My own view of it is that it contributes greatly to justifying who will decide how to spend the the upcoming US$billion in Wikimedia revenue.
The big public ratification vote for the Charter will run from 25 June to 9 July. I started a draft article on the vote at
On 10 June the drafting committee published the final version of the Charter. I posted to the Charter talk page asking for community reactions for publishing in The Signpost.
The April 2024 Wikimedia Summit produced a list of dealbreakers which attendees demanded that the previous version of the Charter must fix, or that they would recommend against ratification. I was an attendee there. Summit organizers set up a simple gradesheet for anyone to use to mark yes/no on whether the revised Charter addressed those deal-breaking problems. I am seeking for someone, or ideally a group, to come to consensus on grades for the revision.
I generally have this story under control but if anyone wants to help coordinate, especially by reaching out for community comment to anyone who will speak up, then please join. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: Note the board will likely reject the Movement Charter anyway:
-- Andreas JN 466 12:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Bluerasberry: Thanks for attending to this. The current charter draft has lots of rough edges, and yet is designed to make amendment almost impossible. It is not ready for ratification. It primarily needs to define something flexible that we can refine as it starts to take effect.
A refrain by drafters in the past weeks has been that it is "safe to try", but I find that not to be so. (Given our fondness for rules-lawyering and the siren song of policy creep) In particular:
I'll try to write up more coherent thoughts tomorrow, but these are quick thoughts. – SJ + 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
moved from
#20:8+1 News and notes:
I have added an endorsement to the article, which was unsolicited and received off-wiki from one of the drafting committee members. We didn't discuss whether this would be part of the article, so bringing it up here for discussion, if necessary. ☆
Bri (
talk)
18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
end of moved part
HaeB (
talk)
00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
hi all. very pleased to see the recent message by @ Blueraspberry, at meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#c-Bluerasberry-20240614153000-Request_reactions_to_Charter_for_Signpost_newsletter.
I would like to add to and support your request for feedback and input, from the community. in that note, may i please invite you to join the discussion, at the MS forums? the url is below. I consider this to be a highly valuable resource for the entire communuty to hold ongoing discussions. please feel free to make any comments here on this. thanks!
url: https://forum.movement-strategy.org/
thanks! Sm8900 ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit late, but could we run an obituary for Hanif Al Husaini? He died on May 27, but this was not reflected on the site until yesterday. I think we should run an obituary for him. QuicoleJR ( talk) 21:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I need anyone but me to cover the meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024 because I am standing as a candidate.
I covered this in the past, and I would not want anyone to expect me to do it this time because I have a conflict.
Some other reporting
Here are what I think are all the important dates to know
Some of this is relevant in the next issue.
For questions and to get comment, ask meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections committee. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on military history, but I see some potential errors in the description of the invasion of Normandy. If this is important enough to go over, let me know, otherwise I'm probably not going to invest more time in it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Salazarov, an administrator on the Uzbek Wikipedia, has apparently passed away. I think it would be appropriate to run an obituary, but I will not be able to write this one, as I will be on vacation. I would appreciate anyone else who wrote an obituary for them. I believe there is precedent for publishing an obituary with multiple people in it in the Signpost. Thanks, QuicoleJR ( talk) 10:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The publishing deadline is currently set to Friday morning Pacific Time. Is this correct? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I do (finally) think this should be published, pretty much as is. I will pre-publication make a comment, in the comment section, featuring Mikhail Bulgakov's dictum "Manuscripts don't burn", since this story gives a minor example where the dictum is incorrect. Smallbones( smalltalk) 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
There are two excellent opinion pieces and an interesting tech report in the submissions, which will make a varied issue if all three are included. There might be an issue with the columns. I'm getting a fellow Wikipedian to proofread my Discussion report, to not cause issues as it touches on a contentious topic. It will be submitted by the deadline. Here are my thoughts:
Which is more appropriate for the op-ed column and which is better suited for the opinion column? My initial thought is that the WMF BoT is an op-ed, and Etika is an opinion. Svampesky ( talk) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't get the joke. Svampesky ( talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 20:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Moved one comment to the existing section above: #Movement Charter Ratification vote. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I've recently found out that Hyacinth, an admin, passed away last December. See his talk page and his obituary on the deceased Wikipedians page. Graham87 ( talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This page is to discuss the
upcoming issue of The Signpost.
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here. |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2024-06-30 16:25:41 ( Writing: 28 June 18:00 (-1 day ago; -4%) Publishing: 29 June 18:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Deadline has started. (
refresh) | )
Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-06-30 16:25:41.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Articles and pageviews for 2024-06-08
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Articles and pageviews for 2024-05-16
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Articles and pageviews for previous issues/years
|
---|
|
The Signpost ( talk · chat) |
---|
|
|
|
Recent changes: main · talk |
|
With publication soon (?) I just noticed that the gallery in the WikiConference report includes an image of a community banned editor. Maybe this should be removed? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Just so I don't forget, a few days ago I went through the " Suggestions" section to collect some news that went over our heads:
- This study on under-representation and mischaracterization of Black and/or female figures on Wikipedia (suggested by Gråbergs Gråa Sång; will likely feature in "Recent Research", so I'm going to flag it to @ HaeB);
- The joint statement on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip by several Wikimedia organizations and volunteers, which is currently the subject of a pretty lengthy and fiery discussion (suggested by Another Believer);
- The recent death of Ukrainian Wikipedian Yuri Lushchai, who reportedly fell victim of the current war in Ukraine on March 28 (suggested by Avessa and Oleg Yunakov; probably needs further verification);
- Also on March 28, the WMF's introduction as an Associate Member of the Unicode Consortium (suggested by Arcorann).
I hope these are useful for the next issue, and let me know if there are any mistakes! Oltrepier ( talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I drafted a story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes about the election for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election ending 9 May. This is a major election.
This is a major election following one of the most complicated development processes in Wikimedia Movement history. The timeline was just posted 5 April, which I find inconvenient and too short of notice for a process which requires high voter participation and a new organization which is likely to consume US$100,000s of thousands of dollars of resources before the next election.
I wish we could report the election before it is over but more than that, I wish elections were disallowed without confirming a schedule and giving notice. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 RfA reform changes seem like they may be out of scope for the regular News and notes column. Describing how we got here and all of the Phase I tweaks and major changes — starting with admin elections, I think — might merit its own special page. What do Newsroom folks think? ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, going with the "coming to the rescue" theme, you could use this Featured picture. Or if you have any ideas for what the AI generated image would look like, drop a note here and I can work with our sometimes- Signpost helper prompt engineer/artist, and gen some up this evening (US Pacific time). ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it me, or does the Newsroom's table cite the "Special report" column twice? It must be a graphical bug... Oltrepier ( talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I wrote an op-ed about the imminent split of Wikidata to separate d:Wikidata:WikiCite content into a new Wikibase instance, and being the start of Wikidata federation. This is a rushed development from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is good that they are committing to support WikiCite, but it is chaotic to be under pressure to take action.
The reason this is news is that that they called for comment at d:Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/WDQS_graph_split/WDQS_Split_Refinement
Disclosure: I am a data scientist who develops WikiCite, sometimes with sponsorship, but not for some years I think. I must be the most expert person available to write this. I am still working on the draft but wanted to share the idea sooner.
I do not think this requires so much review, but if anyone has questions, ask. Can we move this into the next issue? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I moved this to
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed but probably maybe it isn't an op-ed. "Special report" is already taken for this issue. ☆
Bri (
talk)
20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm committing to finish the blurb on the SVT's report on Ruviki and ru.wiki as soon as possible, and I'll take care of the brief blurbs, as well. However, I don't feel I'm familiar enough with what's going on over at the French Wikipedia (the story originally flagged by @ Bluerasberry)... Is anyone able to help on that front? Oltrepier ( talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I started to take a crack at AI generated images for the issue, then quickly realized I could get in hot water. However didn't want to waste the effort, maybe someone will be inspired to try something else. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I also wanted to remind that the lead stories about the annual reports by Wikipedia/WMF and the OWID gadget still have to be developed... I can help with them, too, if needed! Oltrepier ( talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There will be one from me. jp× g 🗯️ 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delays, since I had discussed with y'all sharing it months ago. We managed to shorten the query to <10 seconds so I'll be done with the data collection within the week. The associated graphs won't work on wiki (:sobs:) but I can host them on my website as a d3.js graph and link said website within the essay if that's fine with y'all. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Cf. this request for an uninvolved proofreader to do some fact-checking. Thank you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The recently-created essay Wikipedia:No queerphobia and its related deletion discussion reflect the current mood at English Wikipedia.The close of that discussion said that folks agree that people can write pretty much whatever they want in essay space as long as it does not violate policy. This may or may not reflect a "mood" or a "zeitgeist".
Deadnaming is the term for the hateful practice of referring to a transgender person by their former name in unnecessary contexts.That's not what Merriam Webster ( §) or en.wp say.
The results of that poll were narrowly in favor of including the deadnames.This "summary" fails to mention that the birth name must be reported in RS for it to be mentioned anywhere (generally in the early biography section only), and that the person must have become notable primarily while still using their birthname for it to be mentioned in the infobox or in the lede. NB: it is about the lede that there was a narrow majority of people saying that a person who became notable while still using their birthname should have their birthname mentioned in the lede. For the rest of the votes (excepting typography) there was no mention of a "narrow" majority.
Man we're past deadline -- not just writing deadline, but also publication deadline -- and I am already working on an arb report covering eighteen months instead of one month -- Jesus Christmas this is a gigantic block of text to proofread and copyedit that wasn't here yesterday... also it's about the hottest-button social issue of our times... also it's in French... what in tarnation... why the hell was there an articlespace pov tag in this... so many questions... I guess I will answer them, myself, tonight, starting with what in the damn hell the significance is of these Friction guys -- gals -- folx -- saying "LGBTQUIA+" in the lead of their article and "LGBTQIA+" in the headline, why are they saying "contributeurices" instead of "contributeurs" (are they all women?) because WiR on here sure don't call themselves "editrices" or "contributresses", maybe this is some weird French thing, jp× g 🗯️ 05:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Following numerous press articles on the treatment of trans people on Wikipedia, several LGBTQUIA+ contributors have written this open letter that we are publishing today on Friction Magazine.in the summary while the editors themselves use the shorter acronym and the byline is for "Contributeurices LGBTQIA+". I realized that only after adding a clarification to the article the U is for "undefined" (and, weirdly enough but neither here nor there, seems to primarily be a West Coast US thing).
It's a bit late notice, but since it's pre-written, could WP:No Queerphobia be featured as the essay for today's issue? I saw it was mentioned in the In The Media section briefly and there isn't an essay pre-slated so thought I should ask, my apologies if this is the incorrect place for that. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the upcoming Top25 report, through May 11, is under development but nearly done. Should we pull it in to the current issue, in its current state? Preview at Special:Permalink/1223973452. My concern is if we don't put it in this issue, it will be pretty stale by the time the next issue of The Signpost comes out. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note here, @ Jayen466 thanks for flagging in your draft that the Annual Report had not been added to the Financial Reports page. This has now been done. Cheers, JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Boy oh boy -- anyway I am running the script now, single talk page should be showing up at the top of the newsroom talk (in a cot) like always -- 4am, time to sloop. Ready to see which of the things from this issue the pitchforks get out for !!!! jp× g 🗯️ 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
NGunasena (WMF) notes here that there is currently a substantial backlog of WMF-submitted Signpost contributions. This seems unfortunate, since we should be encouraging and rewarding foundation folks who seek to communicate with us here, and since some are old enough at this point that they may have gone out of date. Would the editors be able to try to clear this backlog over the coming issues? (That said, we should of course be careful, since someone at the foundation doing particular work is by definition unable to report on that work as an outsider, so we should use opinion or other perspective labels as needed.) Sdkb talk 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
this is annoyingly unfunny. ltb d l ( talk) 14:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HaeB: Is this the first Ph.D. thesis to come from research on Wikipedia? I came across it at hackernoon. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! First of all, sorry for not being able to help with the up-coming issue: I've been pretty much snowed with other tasks and priorities...
Since the first ever election cycle for the newly-established Italian ArbCom has just come to an end, I feel like it would be nice to talk about it next time, so much that I'm considering to write a full Special report about it, by even reaching out to some of the most notable users involved in the process. However, if you feel like we should rather stick to a shorter blurb in the "News and notes" column, I'd be up for it, as well!
How do you all feel about this? Oltrepier ( talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
See User:Bri/Signpost Opinion1. It's sort of brief, a little bit tongue in cheek, but a little bit not. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Generalissima and i are working on a featured content piece for this issue. we talked about this briefly in the discord with @ JPxG - the "start article" button for featured content on the newsroom page doesn't give any pre-loaded content currently, which would be a good thing to fix. we also may do something similar to jpxg's arb report and split it between two issues, as there's a lot to get through for the last 6ish months. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any links that broke- not sure how you mean that, e.g. the WLH list currently still points to a broken link from this talk page discussion (which btw provides some additional context on how that intro came to be). And as you indicate, there may be other uses that are not visible in WLH. I seem to recall various prior discussions on this page about disruptions to the Signpost's processes caused by over-eager admins deleting pages in what they considered to be uncontroversial cleanup. In some cases this might have been avoided by simply leaving a redirect in place.
The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost- actually there are more such pages which are not yet included there (and which we might want to mark as obsolete), e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (news) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (opinion) ...
It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template- I hear you, but is there a more elegant solution for generating those buttons in the newsroom page ? In any case, that kind of convoluted and opaque codebase is yet another reason to tread carefully with non-essential cleanup operations and merely optical improvements, unless one is prepared to check thoroughly that they don't lead to unintended consequences.
It's in
here, and starts with An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet walk into a bar...
☆
Bri (
talk)
03:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Or another, Larry and Jimbo walk into a bar...
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I prepared Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour with the original version of the bar joke. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Should be covered. If not in this issue, the next. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Just holding some things here instead of shoehorning into issue #8. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Among U.S. counties, Essex County in Massachusetts has the highest number of preserved First Period architecture buildings, according to Wikipedia), not sure this is worth covering.
Is there an estimated time for publication?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the piccy on this one ... having an individual's portrait below the title "disinformation" probably won't fly. The same term never appears in their biography. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece- I think you're mistaking me for somebody else and would like clarification on that, I joined after he left and there is no ongoing dispute - I nommed an AFD for a POVFORK of his that quickly passed 8-1 (the 1 being an editor who encouraged him to write it) in a week in January this year and openly state so in the article.
Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light.- which really confused me: this is a disinformation report piece on how a professional quack used WP to promote WP:FRINGE views, attack his opponents, edit with COIs, and sockpuppet. He is notable IRL for his anti-trans advocacy per multiple RS, and this was an investigative piece about how he used WP to do it. ARBCOM ignored evidence of issues with his editing and didn't give him any real sanctions (just an IBAN, which he still ignored with socks). What do you believe I'm leaving out and where should the focus be?
getting to work with y'all in the last issue- not quite sure about the precise meaning of
work with y'allhere (I for example wasn't involved there at all). But it's interesting that you bring this up, considering that concerns were voiced there already (by SashiRolls, an editor not involved in the discussion about your current piece), e.g. about fact-checking and your decision to insert yourself in the Signpost's journalistic reporting on the deletion debates about your own essay. May I also that remind you that this apparently highly controversial essay is still slated to run in this Signpost issue. So it's not exactly like your views in this area ( WP:GENSEX, which you had previously been topic-banned from and are still under various restrictions for, in particular regarding
articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed) are being censored by the Signpost.
Noticed two weird things during publication.
jp× g 🗯️ 13:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
this draft had been made some way other than by filling in the draft template: I guess one could blame the editor who manually formatted the page in preparation for publication, yes. But it should always be possible to create story pages without using the preload.
Hello! I just wanted to point out a very interesting article from Il Post about the difficulties encountered by newly-registered Wikipedia users during their first contributions, and the tips they can take advantage of to improve and keep their confidence up.
The article was written by Viola Stefanello – who we already cited on the Signpost before – and it's very interesting and informative, especially considering the context of a seemingly ever-shrinking base of users and admins on this platform. It also cites a recent video tutorial by Molly White and contains several brief interviews, including to Wikimedian Marta Arosio and admin Sannita.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to add it myself, but it should make for a pretty engaging lead story! Oltrepier ( talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Jayen466 and JPxG: On [third] thought, I've decided to focus on pushing my original idea through for the next issue, since I've had quite a hectic schedule in real life as of late; plus, the ITM column for this issue already looks quite filled up, so let's not make it too bloated. I hope this isn't a problem... Oltrepier ( talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not on the byline for the upcoming issue's "Wikipedia editors deem Anti-Defamation League unreliable on Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and think it's best to keep it that way. But wanted to note: Jewish Insider has a piece just posted yesterday, titled "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia", with this quote: "the exchange, which took place in an online community dedicated to editing Wikipedia articles to better reflect a pro-Palestinian narrative, offers a glimpse at how ideologically motivated actors operate behind the scenes to shape the knowledge shared on Wikipedia". ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have written User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js for the sake of more easily formatting images in draft templates (and by extension, on the front page/archives). Basically, if you add this to your commons:Special:MyPage/common.js
importScript('w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js'); // Backlink: [[w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js]]
it will give you a little dropdown on file pages that says "Use in Signpost template", which will gives you the properly formatted params for using that as an article image in a draft template. That is, from this file, you can generate this:
|piccyfilename = File:Čerčany, nádraží, z nástupiště k budově.jpg |piccy-credits = ŠJů |piccy-license = CC BY 4.0 |piccy-xoffset = 0 |piccy-yoffset = 0 |piccy-scaling = 403 }}
This automatically parses out the filename, author, and license shorthand, as well as computing the minimum scaling to make it fit in the snippet templates.
Of course, the scaling can be whatever (if you want the article's piccy to be a small portion of an image), but the minimum scaling factor (i.e. to have it fit in the 300x300 box and not be letterboxed) is computable from resolution -- for portrait-style images the minimum scaling number is 300 because MediaWiki prevents pillarboxing, but for landscape-style images it is some arbitrary number based on the aspect ratio (e.g. a 3:4 image sized as "300px" will be letterboxed with blank space below it, you have to scale it to at least 400... but Commons doesn't give aspect ratios on the file page, just resolutions, so this required manual computing every time... well, no more of that dumbness.
Anyway, if anybody wants to let me know if there is anything stupid or busted about this script, I am still expecting to have to revise it somewhat, although from clicking around on a few dozen random Commons files it seems pretty robust. jp× g 🗯️ 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Different people describe the meta:Movement Charter in different ways. My own view of it is that it contributes greatly to justifying who will decide how to spend the the upcoming US$billion in Wikimedia revenue.
The big public ratification vote for the Charter will run from 25 June to 9 July. I started a draft article on the vote at
On 10 June the drafting committee published the final version of the Charter. I posted to the Charter talk page asking for community reactions for publishing in The Signpost.
The April 2024 Wikimedia Summit produced a list of dealbreakers which attendees demanded that the previous version of the Charter must fix, or that they would recommend against ratification. I was an attendee there. Summit organizers set up a simple gradesheet for anyone to use to mark yes/no on whether the revised Charter addressed those deal-breaking problems. I am seeking for someone, or ideally a group, to come to consensus on grades for the revision.
I generally have this story under control but if anyone wants to help coordinate, especially by reaching out for community comment to anyone who will speak up, then please join. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: Note the board will likely reject the Movement Charter anyway:
-- Andreas JN 466 12:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Bluerasberry: Thanks for attending to this. The current charter draft has lots of rough edges, and yet is designed to make amendment almost impossible. It is not ready for ratification. It primarily needs to define something flexible that we can refine as it starts to take effect.
A refrain by drafters in the past weeks has been that it is "safe to try", but I find that not to be so. (Given our fondness for rules-lawyering and the siren song of policy creep) In particular:
I'll try to write up more coherent thoughts tomorrow, but these are quick thoughts. – SJ + 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
moved from
#20:8+1 News and notes:
I have added an endorsement to the article, which was unsolicited and received off-wiki from one of the drafting committee members. We didn't discuss whether this would be part of the article, so bringing it up here for discussion, if necessary. ☆
Bri (
talk)
18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
end of moved part
HaeB (
talk)
00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
hi all. very pleased to see the recent message by @ Blueraspberry, at meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#c-Bluerasberry-20240614153000-Request_reactions_to_Charter_for_Signpost_newsletter.
I would like to add to and support your request for feedback and input, from the community. in that note, may i please invite you to join the discussion, at the MS forums? the url is below. I consider this to be a highly valuable resource for the entire communuty to hold ongoing discussions. please feel free to make any comments here on this. thanks!
url: https://forum.movement-strategy.org/
thanks! Sm8900 ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit late, but could we run an obituary for Hanif Al Husaini? He died on May 27, but this was not reflected on the site until yesterday. I think we should run an obituary for him. QuicoleJR ( talk) 21:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I need anyone but me to cover the meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024 because I am standing as a candidate.
I covered this in the past, and I would not want anyone to expect me to do it this time because I have a conflict.
Some other reporting
Here are what I think are all the important dates to know
Some of this is relevant in the next issue.
For questions and to get comment, ask meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections committee. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on military history, but I see some potential errors in the description of the invasion of Normandy. If this is important enough to go over, let me know, otherwise I'm probably not going to invest more time in it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Salazarov, an administrator on the Uzbek Wikipedia, has apparently passed away. I think it would be appropriate to run an obituary, but I will not be able to write this one, as I will be on vacation. I would appreciate anyone else who wrote an obituary for them. I believe there is precedent for publishing an obituary with multiple people in it in the Signpost. Thanks, QuicoleJR ( talk) 10:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The publishing deadline is currently set to Friday morning Pacific Time. Is this correct? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I do (finally) think this should be published, pretty much as is. I will pre-publication make a comment, in the comment section, featuring Mikhail Bulgakov's dictum "Manuscripts don't burn", since this story gives a minor example where the dictum is incorrect. Smallbones( smalltalk) 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
There are two excellent opinion pieces and an interesting tech report in the submissions, which will make a varied issue if all three are included. There might be an issue with the columns. I'm getting a fellow Wikipedian to proofread my Discussion report, to not cause issues as it touches on a contentious topic. It will be submitted by the deadline. Here are my thoughts:
Which is more appropriate for the op-ed column and which is better suited for the opinion column? My initial thought is that the WMF BoT is an op-ed, and Etika is an opinion. Svampesky ( talk) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't get the joke. Svampesky ( talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 20:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Moved one comment to the existing section above: #Movement Charter Ratification vote. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I've recently found out that Hyacinth, an admin, passed away last December. See his talk page and his obituary on the deceased Wikipedians page. Graham87 ( talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)