|Notes=As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the [[m:Research:Newsletter|Wikimedia Research Newsletter]] (now in its [[m:Research:Newsletter/Archives|eigth volume]]). Help is welcome to review and/or summarize the many interesting items listed [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201807 here], as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, [[User:Tbayer (WMF)|Tbayer (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Tbayer (WMF)|talk]]) 10:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have a topic you want to write about yourself, check out our Quick Start page. If you need a topic to write about, take a look at the suggestions page, check down below to see if a regular feature still needs to be done or ask in the general discussion.
Enforcing "no declarations of support or opposition"
Each candidate's page has this notice:
Please do not cast votes or issue any declarations of support/opposition here. This section is for neutral discussion. Voting will take place using SecurePoll from 25 October.
I'm wondering how this will be enforced, and if we should mention either the notice, or the intended enforcement, at this issue's News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election guides
I suppose we aren't going to link to election guides prepared by members of the community, but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only four columns have been started, and we are about 76 hours from our writing deadline. Just putting this out there in case more starts are on the way. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: I didn't come across your own thread, so sorry for that... I've also noticed that the upcoming issue is currently a bit thin on contributions, and the main columns (especially N&N) still need a lot of work.
Maybe we could postpone the deadline to two-three days later, so we could solve these issues without having to rush it.
I noticed this month several bulleted items at In brief have writer's signatures. It doesn't particularly bother me, but to my recollection we don't think we usually do it that way. Should they be retained, and if so, should we add them to the remainder of the items? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this great illustration of literal "under the radar" flight, but decided not to use it becuase considering the background of world events, maybe we want to un-link this commentary from literal military activities. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism in 2009 book
I added some brief coverage of that new plagiarism case. This could still benefit from some more detail; perhaps we can add a bit of Wikipedia-specific perspective to the general news media reporting on the issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of times now I've added items to In the media, that were not recent. They popped up in Google News tagged as recent: in the latest case, Google News said a nine year old item was from 2 days ago. Just a caution to others not to get caught by this like I was. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google News has been completely cooked the last couple years or so. They have been messing with it for unclear reasons -- if you search for a string with quotation marks in it, it will now just start returning completely random dog shit: blogs, tiktoks, facebook posts, formatted like news sites. Their documentation gives no explanation for this other than the implied "get bent". I basically stopped writing articles about recent events because it's been made unusable, although it is not as bad now as it was a year or two ago (some genius decided that it should just return tiktoks for every search whatsoever). jp×g🗯️20:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away from my computer with IRL stuff. Another book review has been submitted, so I think we should publish them in the in the 'Book review' column with the earliest on top. I can write a humor piece that pokes fun at how we've mentioned this book in every of the past few issues. To make it clear, I support the book reviews being published, so the humor column will be self-deprecating. Does anybody have objections? Svampesky (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping the deadline updated. We have been running a bit late with the preparations for RR, but I should have some time later today to get it in a publishable form before the deadline. I see there is also work still to do in N&N and ITM - I might be able to pitch in there too, but probably not before the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who wrote the bit about the latest WikiConference North America over at ITM? Somebody forgot to add their signature, but I couldn't find any information from the talk page...
There is a late submission, and a bunch of stuff still needing to get done; I have somewhere to be tonight, so I guess I will just put the damn thing forward another day. jp×g🗯️01:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri @JPxG Just so you know, I've managed to go through both ITM and N&N and do some more copy-editing myself: I hope this makes up for my deeply underwhelming contributions this time around...
On a side note, I must say I'm impressed with how the In the media column has turned out: it sounds like a very rich and interesting read! Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Oltrepier! Just to clarify for others reading along who might be inclined to help out too: Both ITM and N&N are still not yet marked as copyedited - see the Article status list - and (more importantly) still contain several open to-do items, look for the yellow markings. (I resolved one in N&N while also correcting a mistake, and may be able to help out with more, but will focus on getting RR publishable first.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started an article on The Editors, duly logged with my other September creations, and it got deleted. IMHO this has nothing to do with anything, but there it is on the record. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20:14 Recent research
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fourteenth 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) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the paper I was writing up during the time I had earlier today turned out to be a bit trickier to review than expected. I'm back at this now, but am also not offended if the issue goes out without it in the meantime. (That said, several other sections also still look unfinished at this point or are at least marked as needing copyedits.)
Is there somewhere the intermediate versions of the column are kept? It may help things out for others to be able to contribute to it during the writing process. jp×g🗯️01:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I always post the Etherpad link here inviting people to contribute, which also helps to keep track of which papers are being worked on (and which are not). As for posting partial drafts and unfinished notes on-wiki, we don't do that for most other Signpost stories either, and I'm generally unconvinced that it would speed up the process (in fact it might well slow it down). That said, I did in fact post an intermediate version yesterday after seeing JPxG's question (and knowing that I would not be able to resume work on it for a bit), with remaining to-do items marked - but except for one typo fix (thanks Smallbones!) this doesn't seem to have had an effect. (Btw for context about this particular review and its timing: This is about a very recent paper which I had tweeted about on Monday based on a quick skim only - as we usually do on the WikiResearch feed -, and which has received quite a bit of attention since, e.g. [3]. After reading the paper more fully, I think it would be valuable for us to provide timely context in form of a full review; in the "Wikimedia AI" Telegram group, folks raised questions about the paper's results too.)
I'm back at this now and should have RR publishable within less than two hours from now.
Hi fellows. I think that this book chapter deserves a mention in Signpost. Its available from WPLibrary. I tried to summarize the findings from chapter 4, that deals with our entries. Learn about it after this excerpt in Retraction Watch: "A look at plagiarism at the Pontifical Gregorian University".
^Kidane Dawit Worku (2012). The Ethics of Zär'a Ya'eqob: A reply to the historical and religious violence in the seventeenth century Ethiopia. Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Filosofia 30. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. ISBN978-88-7839-222-9. OL43974394M. WikidataQ126414328.
The article contains a big pile of MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE violations. However a) I know that The Signpost doesn't necessarily follow formatting rules employed in the rest the encyclopedia article space and b) I might be going out on a limb already in aggressively addressing this in beauty pageant articles so I will stop with this comment. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @Bri & @Smallbones for helping copyedit. that section of the article is a copy-paste of a talk page comment not written by me, and i have no opinion on whether the flagicons stay or go - it's not in mainspace, so i think it's up to our preference more than anything in the MOS. courtesy pinging @GreenLipstickLesbian in case she has any thoughts. ... sawyer * he/they * talk21:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tourists taking photos of a horse's ass at Rievaulx Terrace, Yorkshire" would have made a good Humour illustration.
@HaeB, JPxG, and Bri: With a few exceptions, I think this issue is ready to go!
HaeB, I know you want to complete Recent research, but your review is pretty good already.
JxPG The tripartite book review needs to be copyedited (bottom 2 reviews only IMHO). Also we need to let the reader know that 3 reviews are coming about the same book. Otherwise they might be surprised. So a Simple 3 line editor's introduction up top would be enough, explaining why we have 3 reviews (without overwhelming the reader). Yeah, there might be a few things with pics, titles, etc.
Bri Just 'cause I always ping you when something needs to get done.
Sorry, I misunderstood what this was in response to. I wasn't aware of any reasons to object to the humor column. My Yes was based on thinking that Because of humour, or something else? was a response to JPxG's waiting on a final submission. Per the request of JPxG, it was reviewed offline to determine if it was suitable for hosting on Wikipedia and publishing in The Signpost. I haven't been communicated any reasons to not run it. The joke is that it's in the style of an opinion piece from the misinformed-view that The Signpost must adhere to mainspace article policy and guidelines; published in The Signpost, lambasting The Signpost. What's the issue with this? Svampesky (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, Svampesky, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: Until the last edit at "Humour" the main issue was that it is not funny, there's no humour in it. Please see this essay that's linked to our Humour resources here. It's not humour mainly because it's just whingeing. There's no surprise or misdirection. Just constant complaint. Not funny! Other important issues with it are supposedly linking to research papers which are not there and impugning the honesty and credibility of The Signpost and all its staff. We have a reputation to protect and having a staff member write that The Signpost is total garbage is the exact opposite of what we want to do.
There's another issue that goes beyond that: you've continued to edit the "humour" after publication without checking with anybody here and just making things much worse. Before adding to an article - it's not just copy editing - at a minimum you need to get JPxG's approval. Everything that's published must be approved by the editor-in-chief. The additions just look like provocations. The worst by far is that last edit. It looks like you are accusing me and others of paid editing. Anybody who wants to accuse me of paid editing, can make that accusation where I can be expected to see it, say it to my face. And then I can give you a proper response.
I'll suggest that somebody should delete that last line until JPxG can decide what he wants to do, then we should not respond, either here or at the article talk but just leave that garbage alone, only reverting future edits to it. Smallbones(smalltalk)17:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think the word you were looking for is "reduced"; to deduce is "to arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion." (Oxford) ... sawyer * he/they * talk17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than my error (changing a word on a line that was added by JPxG), I don't see the any issue with the content. In fact, a commenter on the book review column (Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-10-19/Book review) actually agrees with sentiments of the humor column, that The Signpost has launched an "outrageous promotional campaign" for this book. Svampesky (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest and say I don't actually know when or how it was decided that we should use the noping templates. It doesn't seem like a very good idea (indeed, I haven't used them in a very long time). If we're writing about someone, if anything, we ought to go out of our way to ping them so they can see it. If they have anything to say, at least in my experience, every time it is to make a correction and say "actually that was on the 12th not the 13th" or something of that nature. A couple months ago there was a brief discussion on this topic, I believe because Piotrus had been mentioned in some article and said he'd have preferred a ping when it was being drafted -- this was when I found out that just linking a username in an edit didn't ping, only if you signed it... jp×g🗯️09:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About when "noping" began. I don't know, except that when I started as E-i-C it was one of the first strange things I noticed. Strange to me - that is. I starting out wondering what the verb nope-ing meant. It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what it is, and most of what it doesn't do. In any case it was here in spades, and I figured "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but be consistent about it.
Something else similar - I noticed then that some people used "The Signpost" and some used the "Signpost". I didn't have time to get into an argument about it, so I decided I'd use "The Signpost" for myself wherever it was comfortable to use until I could decide. It would be easier to switch to "Signpost" from "The Signpost" than vice versa. It became quite comfortable after 2 or 3 months. End of my knowledge of copy editing history.
Two issues a) I think it's good practice to use the full name of The Signpost at least on first mention b) I don't see why using {{noping}} is an issue. At worst it's unnecessary, but harmless. I use it myself while I'm typing so I can clear a mental flag "do I need to remember whether or not I'm signing what I'm writing right now", because I often don't want to ping editors in other contexts such as sockpuppet investigations. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF office action for Delhi Court
notice that the Wikimedia Foundation has removed access to a lawsuit
Well, that quote about OFFICE actions from The Hindu is clearly not factual for our history. Most such actions involve blanking the related article while the issue is resolved. I remember the same thing being done with Choose Your Own Adventure thirteen years ago (and many of us being really irate about it). SilverserenC17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: I interact off-wiki with many professionals in online media, including university faculty, lawyers, and software developers. When I talk with Wikipedia editors, the editors are often surprised when I say that highly trained and experienced Internet professionals have difficulty understanding the difference between a platform (like YouTube, Instagram, or Wikipedia) and its user community (like YouTubers, Instagrammers, or Wikipedians). Based on what I have read in the media, the court's public statements express a lack of awareness between these two, which I feel is a totally normal misunderstanding, although the lack of distinction is strange to Wikipedians. I think the court presumes that the Wikimedia Foundation's staff journalists wrote this article, and again, I think that is a very typical perspective which would be common in the courts of any country. Bluerasberry (talk)15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading a bit about this in the press now. I think we should consider running a special issue just for this, as historic government control of enwp contents and our community process itself. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a special issue seems like a good idea - people have been talking about this quite a lot and it stirs up a ton of opinions. it would also then get its own comments section, which i think would also be beneficial ... sawyer * he/they * talk15:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest publishing offwiki somehow, give the office action. I'd assume the office action will be applied broadly, and cover the Signpost as well - causing even the Signpost to be censored perhaps. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same logic applies, though, and as soon as the court notices the other conversations they could issue an identical demand, and the WMF would be likely to make the identical response. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think its very unlikelely that the WMF will nuke the (by my count) nearly 100 pages (and growing by the hour) with content related to the case... And we both know how wikipedia works, more and more coverage just means it gets included on more and more pages until Wikipedia and India themselves get nuked... You can't fight NPOV across the system, just look at all the coverage we already have from just the one page removal[4][5][6][7]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't apply precedent to a situation that is unprecedented. This is literally the first time that WMF has blanked a page at a government's demand. At this time IMO we're just assuming that the court remains technically inept at enforcing their own contempt orders (like this other editor said). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that it is, but the discussion in which people listed precedents (which I believe were all either pre-2020 or on other language wikis... There was a French pornography house) was I think on the now vanished talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs at fr.wiki. is WMF's statement; I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish they had posted the original in English, which was machine translated to French and posted. Because now I'm reading a machine translation back to English, which ain't good. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship / publishing restrictions on The Signpost
There are currently no publishing restrictions on The Signpost and I have no reason to believe that there will be. However, the Wikimedia community is discussing the possibility of such a thing happening.
The Wikimedia Foundation has restricted Wikipedia from publishing an article about the lawsuit. Questions:
To what extent does the Wikimedia Foundation restrict The Signpost from publishing journalism about the lawsuit?
To what extent does the Wikimedia Foundation restrict Wikimedia community discussion in the Wikimedia platform about the lawsuit?
I anticipate that the answer to both of those is "not all all, and the Wikimedia Foundation encourages the Wikimedia community to set its own ethical and social governance principles", but because the issue is being raised, I wrote to WMF legal yesterday asking for clarification. I woke up this morning thinking more that it would be better to share that I asked the question at all.
If need be, The Signpost team can migrate the publication off-wiki to an independent platform, and the Wikimedia community can practice independent journalism. Right now there is no reason to do this, as the Wikimedia Foundation has always protected and encouraged The Signpost's community journalism. If anyone ever feels a Wikimedia Foundation restriction on The Signpost, then please call it out and share it, but personally, I have never felt anything but support. (Aside, I always have wished for more WMF transparency and access to information as it is challenging for journalists to get access to information, but I do not see journalist restriction on journalist values.)
As stated above, JPxG has an alternative publication methodology planned for The Signpost. I hope that there is no need to migrate off-wiki. I really do not want to encounter any friction with WMF legal efforts in India, which I support. I believe that the WMF legal team completely supports The Signpost mission. I simply am unsure of what the lawsuit means for Signpost journalistic freedom.
Proceed with routine journalism Right now this is my recommendation. JPxG as editor-in-chief may share their views. The Signpost organizes Wikipedia volunteer editors to produce and publish journalism. Right now, please help to recruit more contributors to produce journalism in any of the suggested format types listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. If you need assistance, then please message here. It would be very helpful to have multiple diverse Wikimedia community perspectives, including journalism reporting facts, opinions and editorials, reviews of comparable situations, and statements of our values.
@Bluerasberry: I saw your very rough draft at from the editor (next issue) and I disagree with some of it. First we should realize that we are NOT a newsletter! The connotation of a newsletter is something planned by some boss to get out the organization's semi-official news out, organized by the boss's secretary who farms out the writing assignments to the officially trusted folks who will give the official story in a down-home folksy manner. That's not us, we're newspaper. We've been a newspaper since the 2nd paragraph of the 1st issue (right after Welcome!) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/From the editor
"The name, The Wikipedia Signpost, was chosen to be like the name of a newspaper, since a newspaper is what I would call this project. Though it will almost certainly never appear on newsprint paper, it will nevertheless take on this role for our community. It should have some resemblance to the other newspapers you may happen to read in the course of your life (which I venture to guess many of you read online anyway, rather than the paper copy)."
So let's call it what it is: a newspaper.
There's also the material about nobody ever trying to censor us. Unfortunately there used to be something of a minor tradition of admins or other bigwigs coming into the newsroom and telling us what we should or could or couldn't publish. I've even seen cases of pre-publication censorship (I won't be able to link to most of these but see Itm in late December 2020 for one). It's not the WMF who did this, though I've seen a mild suggestion or two and one expression telling me they thought I was flat out wrong (all fair enough). We're an independent newspaper so I think the E-i-C's job on this is to start out trying to smooth out ruffled feathers at first, while gently showing the intruders the door, but vigorously defending the journalists' right to publish what they and the E-i-C think is proper. It's not that we are above WP rules, just like any journalists we have to follow the law of the community we live in, but that we don't have to follow the whims of the bigwigs, nor meet special requirements made up just for us.
I think of The Signpost as being something like a small town newspaper, with say a target audience of about 3,000 people, all living near a major amusement park, where most of them work, located just off the exit of the main branch of the information superhighway. We may not know all the inhabitants, but we almost surely know somebody who knows somebody who knows anybody we can name. Our "police reporter" (if we had one) might have a brother or a couple of uncles on the force, so we can't be purely objective on every story, but bringing in outsiders who don't know the town wouldn't work too well either. We just do the best job we can, and call 'em as we see 'em..
What does this have to do with Indian courts? Well, sometimes strangers wander into town and don't know our small town customs, but we should make an effort to AGF. We don't have to follow what the state governor (initials W.M.F.) says we should do, but at least in the short term they may be in a better place to handle it. Moving our printing press out of town might not help much, and would probably just put us in the same position as those woeful people who tried that a decade ago. It's better IMHO that we stay in the community to try to serve it, rather than just hurl insults and try to tell the townfolks what to do. Smallbones(smalltalk)01:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We ARE a newsletter (i.e. a small publication focusing mainly on the activities of an organization and its members [8]). That doesn't mean we cannot also have journalistic aspects or that we don't deal in objective reporting, or that we should be censored or that we aren't editorially independent or whatever. The connotation Smallbones wants newsletters to have is his own projection. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}22:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough. On the one side I want to support independent discussion and the integrity of The Signpost. On the other hand, a lot of the discussion I see at VP could quickly become essentially bear-baiting. It feels like going around in the dark without knowing what the repercussions are of continuing to discuss the court when they have ordered us not to. And part of what's tough is I don't feel individually compelled to follow the Indian court, but there is potential blowback to the Wikimedia movement, which I am part of and care about. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Please edit. I was just drafting content, because we need a statement. I do not need that "from the editor" piece in my voice, but we do need such a piece. Now is the time to define this publication, so let's be a newspaper. Bluerasberry (talk)01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think my thoughts just above @Bluerasberry:'s should replace his, but it was good getting a few things off my chest. But the tone of my comments would not be good for the "from the editor" article he started. The point is that we can and should maintain "The Signpost's" independence, but we can wait if we want before taking a step that might upset the whole apple cart. Ultimately that decision will be made by Signpost staff, with JPxG having the final decision. There's no point doing something that could cutoff Wikipedia's 3rd largest national group of readers (Indian) from Wikipedia access. It's no secret right now what's going on. Patience can be a good strategy. Smallbones(smalltalk)15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say we publish as normal. If WMF Office blanks the page, we still have The Signpost mirror. This is very different from pages deleted/blanked by community consensus, or pieces formally retracted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the consideration, but the Signpost team and the functionaries are all grown adults, so if we all decide we feel like rolling around wrestling in the mud, I think we are capable of arranging the event on our own. jp×g🗯️17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, something reasonable that takes into account all perspectives -- I can see why people demand this guy be gone. jp×g🗯️17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, i just actually read the article which i hadn't done before for some reason. Probably a good reason to be able to see the content is to ask if it was following P&G and was really content for readers. fiveby(zero) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby, even empty it's gotten tens of thousands of clicks over the past couple weeks. I think readers are interested. I created the article, and when I write I typically do follow P&G as closely as I'm able; what are you questioning re: P&G? Valereee (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that editors might wish to look at the archived content. But we can't really discuss that content, can't see the history or talk page, can't quote any content here. Wouldn't you look skeptically at content generated about some other case if an editor was invested in the outcome? Believe i can say here on WP: the tone of the "Background: WMF" section seems a little off. I really just read citations in WP articles tho, so don't like #2-b, opinion piece cited for fact. Also #3, not sure that should be used at all. General distaste for news and how citations are used. Minor stuff but may appear strange to readers not familiar with WP style, like providing 5 citations for something you don't really need to cite at all. Minor stuff. But i do see how an outsider looking in might have a more critical opinion not really knowing the P&G's and how content is generated. fiveby(zero) 13:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are getting at with Wouldn't you look skeptically at content generated about some other case if an editor was invested in the outcome??
I agree it's hard to write about Wikipedia. So meta. Which is why I moved to article space within, IIRC, hours. So others could help tweak things like tone. Often when I'm first writing an article, citations get added to a sentence because the most recent citation includes a new bit of info but not all the info previously in the sentence. So, yeah, a work in progress.
It's not like i'm in any position to say it if i am getting at something. Didn't edit the article but added a link to a news article on the talk page about hostage taking laws because i happened to like the content. Perhaps "take a critical look" would have been better wording than "look skeptically". That critical look is the only way to say with confidence that there were no or just minor P&G issues with the article. fiveby(zero) 14:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I'm not invested in the outcome of the case. I don't think I'd ever heard of ANI before this brouhaha. Made my first edit there October 10. So I'm not one of the editors ANI is asking for PII on. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A
I can imagine a Q&A style section of our writeup on this that would cover:
What is the Delhi High Court
What is its jurisdiction
Can it be appealed
How do its judges gain office there
Who is seeking Wikipedia content change (blanking/deletion) and to what end
Is the court an independent actor themselves, specificaly wrt contemptuous language about the court
If this applies, what kind of language is likely to trigger blanking/deletion demands
Exactly what pages (or suite of pages?) are subject to blanking/deletion
Also, in what language editions
What is the potential and likely duration of blanking/deletion
Who is seeking Wikipedia editor information from WMF and to what end
What kind of editor information does WMF hold, and for how long
Editing what page or pages would put an editor in the class of editors whose information is demanded
How does contempt of court differ in India from other countries with English law tradition
What would lead one to think a court order may extend to a non party to the WMF/ANI case, especially if the non party is not an India resident or corporation
What is at stake for non compliance with this court
Does WMF have offices there
Does WMF derive significant revenue from Indian sources
Is a full WP ban likely or even possible, in case of non compliance
The closest alignment I see at the Signpost content guidance page is In Focus: Usually a submission from a Wikipedia editor or group of editors that focuses on a current specific feature or process of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or concern of the editors that does not fit into Op-Ed, Special Report, or any other regular rubric. "Process or concern of interest" sounds about right to me... ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did a quick read of the In Focus, and I like it. One thing I'd recommend spending a little more effort on -- what is sub judice in non-US jurisdictions and how does it work, maybe contrast to the US protocol where the First Amendment pertains, most especially to the press and other third parties. Does this imply that court ordered speech restrictions come in two flavors a) one that is permanent as the result of the plaintiff's claims of harm b) one that is temporary for the duration of the lawsuit? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
confused
No idea where I should note this, but the draft at [9] was just wrong. It's not the blanked page that the courts are asking for information on the editors. It's the ANI article. Those are two different articles. I wanted to at minimum make sure we weren't posting something that is completely incorrect. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Thanks and yes. I have a more detailed story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. Are you available to check that? My intent was to tell a story for a general audience including non-Wikipedians and journalists, which they could understand and use for their own storytelling. That version distinguishes between the two articles and the differing challenges to each. Bluerasberry (talk)02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an editorial there, promoting the views of Wikipedia editors, to an audience of Wikipedia editors. Is there a separate news story? Oh i see it, right below. fiveby(zero) 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ANI v. WP", "in the usual way, brief". Lists threads and pages which may be of interest, and pulls out the statement. But it doesn't really attempt to summarize any of the information, to allow the reader to quickly get pertinent information with a "brief" reading.
"Wikipedia editors face defamation accusation", a section named "In focus" would imply to me more in depth-coverage, still mostly informational content with probably some "news analysis", but not editorializing. A "narrative for non-Wikipedians and journalists", it seems that most journalists outside India are not really interested. I would title the current item here "To Journalists in India: an appeal from Wikipedia Editors".
Wikipedians, non-Wikipedians, and journalists all need much of the same informational content. I don't think either of the current articles do a very good job at providing that information. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: thanks for the edits, thanks a lot, really. @Fiveby: I might not be able to do a good job, but I am trying to be satisfactory and either be the best in The Signpost, or attract anyone else to Signpost to do a better job. If you have constructive criticism or can make edits yourself then advise. Also, check out other drafts in the next issue and see if you can critique. Thanks a lot for the feedback, please keep it coming. I will write more tomorrow. Weekend deadline. Bluerasberry (talk)02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the headline needs to emphasize about WMF agreeing to provide user data to Indian Courts rather than something more generic like "More ANI vs WMF, this time as questions and answers". TrangaBellam (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of coverage
Here is my proposal for ways in which we report this story:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editor - I think the important thing to emphasize here might be editorial independence. Confirm that The Signpost does not need or seek permission from the WMF/WMF legal/the WMF board, and that the WMF encourages The Signpost's editorial independence.
(any format) - overview on the state of Wikipedia in India, including links to mailing list and feeds, something about grants and funding, list of Wikimedia community organizations, and notice of WikiConference India 2025
Do you really think the involved Judges — or someone else from the High Court — will give you a byte? Also, the Embassy, huh?!
Barring ANI, nothing makes sense in this list. And even in the case of ANI, contacting them will only serve to provoke them. I appreciate Signpost but nobody outside WP has any interest in understanding (and appreciating) Signpost's journalism. I also fear that engaging in journalism like this will affect WMF's claims in Court about being a content aggregator, etc.
Prediction: The diplomats will reply with 'no comments' in a diplomatic manner. The High Court would go something like 'are you serious now? sub judice, round 2? let's go'. ANI being a party to the case would also not comment, unless their legal team allows it. – robertsky (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: You make it sound like those responses would be a bad thing, and fruitless. I disagree. Even a non-comment on record is better than speculation about what each side is up to. I laid out the Q&A above because this thing is so baroque, I'm having trouble with it. And you never know. This might be a diplomat's opportunity to diplomatically tell Indian courts to go piss up a rope when it concerns regulation of U.S. people and entities. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fruitless, yes. A bad thing? Honestly I didn't think much when I wrote the above comment, in fact, nothing at all. A passing jib, if you may. If you want diplomats to stir the nest, I won't look at United States since the nation has to contend with the upcoming elections. The government and diplomatic corp wouldn't want to rock the boat too much on the international front when it is clear that there is going to be a transition in leadership at the top, be it either way. (Canada is another matter though, if at least one of the three editors turns out to be a Canadian.) – robertsky (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming musical Humour page
I think including a satirical song about the ANI court case is a very bad idea. I understand the reasons for including it in News and Notes, but the Humour seems like it could easily be interpreted as mocking the court, which does not sound like a good idea. IANAL, but I don't think we should post that Humour page. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that this is a copyright issue, but at any rate it seems highly inadvisable. Firstly, as it includes stuff written in a language the author does not speak, aimed derisively towards people who do speak said language. Secondly, as it involves AI in some way, which means that it will cause people to mald -- nay, to norwood -- if it is published. Thirdly, because it seems to be a deliberate attempt at provocation that does not bring any useful benefit to us -- if this gets deleted, which it obviously will, and I am forced to come up with some convoluted way of hosting it offwiki (a thing which we have never actually done before), the person who gets nasty letters and an ANI thread over it is me, which I am willing to do for reporting that actually serves the public interest, and maybe even for a joke that is funny, but this is neither of those things. jp×g🗯️17:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship is a very serious matter. It is contrary to Wikimedia positions on human rights, freedom of the press, and access to knowledge. The Indian courts are incorrectly treating censorship lightly in this matter. It may not be authoritarian or fascist in this case, but it is an error, an encroachment of community rights, contrary to Wikimedia values, and encouraging to any authoritarian, fascist, or ill-meaning others who now have an example which demonstrates success in censoring Wikipedia.
One correct reaction to this kind of oppression is humor. The correct kind of humor may not be the humor that I demonstrated from AI, but humor is an appropriate response.
The worst possible response is lack of reaction. @QuicoleJR and Svampesky: for the reasons you state, my attempt at humor missed the mark, but please support the use of humor and invite other kinds of responses to censorship. Please help by soliciting other kinds of responses as you can. If you can imagine any kind of humorous response which you could support, then describe it to the extent of your ability. I am doing what I can to recruit other contributors to this next issue, and I take the censorship very seriously. Bluerasberry (talk)14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I like the current content on the Humor page. I think it is an effective way to poke fun at the court order without causing any major problems, and it is also pretty funny. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
feedback about humor from editor in India: use humor that has the Wikimedia community poking fun at both the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Indian courts. This clarifies that Wikimedia community and Wikimedia Foundation are not the same. Also it raises light that the Wikimedia community in India has serious complaints about Wikimedia Foundation and has its own set of unanswered requests, which the Wikimedia community supports. Among the complaints: Wikimedians in India want the Wikimedia Foundation to not encroach in community growth in India, and to leave the community in India to speak for itself rather than relying on WMF for statements to media, etc. Having a humorous statement from someone outside of India can be ideal because people in India may not feel comfortable using humor, even if they want to do so, but people in India would give feedback and comments if asked. Bluerasberry (talk)15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20:15
The solution to the various issues that've been raised is for someone to contact the WMF directly to clarify what The Signpost can and can't/shouldn't publish on WMF servers (either by email or on a public forum), and if publishing off-site is allowed, as it will still be under the Signpost/Wikipedia/Wikimedia branding. Svampesky (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, we should operate as normal. Until and unless WMF Office takes an official Office action, it's both the simplest and most straightforward thing to do. And if it does take action, WMF has absolutely zero say on what happens off site, and we can just keep the story on the Signpost mirror. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}18:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that JPxG consult with the WMF and keep them updated on the next issue drafts before publication, especially if this could potentially escalate into a legal matter. I don't know how the WMF should be contacted for these kind of potential legal matters, but I assume JPxG is already familiar with the process. Who actually owns the Signpost branding, and would it count as an extension of Wikimedia to publish it off-site under this branding (in a legal context)? Svampesky (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend that JPxG go around and ask if anybody wants to censor us. If they have any recommendations they can come to us. I certainly wouldn't recommend that he submit stories for pre-publication approval/censorship. If they want or need to censor us - that's up to them. But submitting to it as if we are their employees or serfs would be way over the line. Smallbones(smalltalk)22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns the Signpost branding, and the WMF has zero say in what the community does, both on and off wiki. The only time the WMF has "a say" in anything is when it is legally required by law/courts to do something, as described in WP:OFFICE. And, unless the Signpost engages in copyright violations, systematic harassment, other forms of unprotected speech (privacy violations, defamation, etc...), or dumb-ass trollery (like re-publishing the contents of the WMF-blanked page), the WMF will have no business interfering with anything we do, unless ordered by courts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}23:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no option to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation@Svampesky: It would be a huge help if you could author a submission which described how you imagine The Signpost could contact the Wikimedia Foundation, what sort of support you imagine they would consider offering, and how you imagine this relationship works.
In my view, a major reason why this censorship is happening at all is because the court in India - and much of the world - incorrectly assumes that the Wikimedia Foundation has editorial input and interaction with the content on Wikipedia. I would like to address this notion intensely and directly in the next issues of The Signpost. The reality that is see is that Wikimedia community members - including our on-wiki roles for administrators, stewards, checkusers, bureaucrats, Arbitration Committee members, and our off-wiki roles for Wikimedia chapters, outreach coordinators, grant recipients, and the rest - all completely lack any relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation which involves editorial oversight or advice.
Svampesky, you are not wrong for asking, but please sound any alarms you can find and call over anyone in authority whom you believe may see otherwise. Not only is there no editorial relationship between community journalism like The Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation, but also, it is fundamental to Wikimedia community values and journalistic ethics that there never be any such relationship.
A great line of discourse to explore is the extent of the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment to hosting community journalism. The Signpost advocates for the Wikimedia community of editors and the users, whereas the Wikimedia Foundation has another mission, other values, and other priorities. The two are not the same. I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation's values include a commitment to hosting The Signpost in the Wikipedia platform, but that could be explored and discussed.
Svampesky - to be clear - I am unaware of anyone in the Wikimedia community with whom the Wikimedia Foundation would be willing to discuss the topic you raise. I do not think any such person or role exists. I think it is a misunderstanding to imagine that the Wikimedia Foundation would agree to discuss the topic you raise with the Wikimedia community. Bluerasberry (talk)14:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the single-sentence response to your comment, but my recommendation is that JPxG email the appropriate WMF staff member to ensure that anything published on its servers won't violate the court order. Svampesky (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky and Bluerasberry:. We're supposed to be covering these folks - reporting on what they do wrong as well as what they do right. This includes WMF employees such as folks in communications, legal, on the board, even the ceo. And it also applies to admins and arbs. Feel free to ask these folks about facts (try not to ask about things that you *know* that they can't answer or ask about very time consuming but trival matters - you'll have to sometimes ask about serious matters and they should be able to take you seriously). It's quite natural to communicate with them, but it's absolutely wrong to ask around to see if they want to censor you. @JPxG: seems to be handling this very well. Trust him. Ask him questions (usually in private if they are very serious) or ask your Signpost colleagues. But never ask around to see if somebody wants to censor you - on any important story somebody will - and then you put your self and The Signpost in a false position if you and the E-I-C decide it needs to be published. You'll have some input, but ultimately it is not your call. Your call is to find the facts, triple check them, find out the E-i-C's view on sensitive stories, and write it up to publish if they want it. We usually want all the factual stories we can get, but some stories can have unintended consequences if we publish. That is the E-i-C's call. And never ask anybody to censor you. Smallbones(smalltalk)03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20:15 publishing this weekend is imperative
Since many of us are U.S. based, I think it would be a really Good Thing to finish publication before the 2024 United States elections happening on Tuesday. There's going to be plenty of distraction then, and potentially a push to include more timely content that would end up delaying publication. @JPxG: what do you say? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not JPxG, but I concur heartily with Bri. If we have 4 or more articles in a fairly complete state by Friday, we should publish what we have by Sunday night. There's always some excuse not to publish on deadline, but let's make an absolute commitment to publish by noon Monday, come hell or high water. It looks like we'll have more than 3 articles ready, but if not - we just don't publish until the next Sunday. Dragging it out never works. Smallbones(smalltalk)02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News and notes
I'm inclined not to include in this issue a community ban of a 10+ year editor, that resulted from bad behavior at RfAs. It doesn't seem to be related to the new elections process, just everyday bad behavior. Bringing it up here in case it merits more discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
