Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Brolga proposed for removal within a week of gaining Featured status

See Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Brolga. Definitely newsworthy. expanded comments on the Featuring process could be included. Circeus 21:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "within a week" thing comes from. It's been a featured article since at least 15 Feb 2004. --iMb~Mw 22:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, and I just realized where the one week thing came from. It's a year and a week. --iMb~Mw 22:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My bad then. I though I had seen it in the FACs recenty. Circeus 00:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the others

What is going on with the late addition of the super-short article on TBSDY? Though I'm sympathetic, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Was it an oversight that was corrected in a rush, or was it not vetted by the editor? The Signpost is useful because it is concise, which requires some centralized coordination. If the addition of the article was not coordinated, can it be removed, perhaps with the contents tacked on to an existing article? - BanyanTree 15:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool wrote and added that article. I am not certain if it is "official" or not. Jordi· 15:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I commented out the link to the stub story, for the moment, as it seemed not to be an offical entry (being badly placed on the page as well as very short). Worldtraveller 15:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. Perhaps User:Wonderfool could submit an article to Michael Snow for next week's edition? — Matt Crypto 16:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've let Wonderfool know on his talk page, including your suggestion. Jordi· 16:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not "official" in the sense that it didn't go through me, and I agree that it's not much of an article right now. However, having an article about this would be fine, and to keep things timely it would probably make as much sense to fix it up now as to wait until next week. So I'll work this one up little more, and anybody else who wants to contribute is also welcome to (the stub is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-21/Top admin leaves). Then we can run around saying, "Extra, extra, read all about it!" --Michael Snow 17:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of popping in a new article? Something like this:

Ta bu shi da yu has given a brief call for help on maintaining WP:Press. He outlined the following procedure:

  1. Go to
  2. Search for Wikipedia
  3. Setup an alert for new articles on Wikipedia via email
  4. When an Google alerts you, put it onto the Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source page (next year, can someone change the redirection to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006?) - please link to the article in question! If it is an article that references information in a Wikipedia article, or to Wikipedia:Press coverage if it is an article ABOUT Wikipedia. There are some other categories, but I'm sure everyone gets the jist.
  5. If the article is due to us being a press source, go to the article talk page and if an author is provided, use Template:authoronlinesource2005. An example is:

{{{{authoronlinesource2005|section=March 21-31 | author=Dan Ackman | date=March 21, 2005 | title=John DeLorean, Car Man Of The Future | org=Forbes | url=}} (this is on John DeLorean).

If no author is provided, use Template:onlinesource2005. An example is:

{{onlinesource2005|section=February 1-10 |title=Veritas Lux Mea. |org=The Feature |date=February 9, 2005 |url=}}

(this is on Mass media).

The reason that Ta bu shi da yu has asked is because noone had updated the page for a while (except for himself, often anonymously), and as he's left the project he would like somone to fill in for him.

  • For someone's who's left the project, you still seem to be hanging around a lot :) Anyway, as it happens I've already got a Google news alert for WP, so I'll try and remember to do some of this myself. sjorford →•← 11:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Final tasks. I still look at the site. Thanks for taking this over! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Old Wikipedians never leave, they only fade away :) sjorford →•← 17:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

As I'm sure someone will be writing something about this, and the fenzy of editing on it. The busiest period so far lasted about 53/4 hours from 19:26 UTC until 01:09 UTC, during which time there were 429 edits made to the page - an average of 1.25 per minute. On two occasions, there was a staggering 6 edits in a single minute (1 every 10 seconds) - 20:25 and 20:59; on another 5 occasions there were 5 edits in a single minute. 596 edits were made in total on the 2nd of January - an average of 1 edit every 2 minutes 25 seconds. Thryduulf 03:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be cool if someone made a movie of the progress made in one week of the article, similar to the heavy metal umlaut movie. I think if we can show how wikipedia can improve over just a few days people will be very impressed. Jacoplane 14:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How many of the edits were reverts? I counted 57 of them in the last 500 edits, implying that 1/5 of the edits on that time period (18:37, 2 Apr 2005 to 13:08, 3 Apr 2005) did not improve the article (assuming an average of 1 reverted edit per reversion). The article had not only rapid-fire editing, but also rapid-fire vandalism. The same happened to a lesser scale to other related articles and current events pages (with a surge of editing everywhere after the death was officially announced, to update tables and tenses).
The method I used to count reverts was: assume good faith and count the number of edits with "rv", "revert" or "reverting" in the edit summary. Assuming an average of 1 reverted edit by reverting edit, double the number to find how many of the edits contributed nothing at all.
To look at how much the article changed: [1] --cesarb 16:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tabloid wiki-story

  1. User:Ken_Bogan
  2. User_talk:Ken_Bogan#hey
  3. [2]
  4. User:Calles_loco
  5. [3]

Sam Spade 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite incredible! I'm glad I had a look through all that. Wikipedia gets more and more insane with every day that goes by. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Glad to be of service ;)
Sam Spade 00:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Damn. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


uh, it is of course obvious that User Ken Bogan is not the real Kenneth Bogan? So we will block this user for impersonation, right? I mean, he just copied the police mugshot as his personal portrait. nobody would do such a thing. dab () 12:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i agree. it's absurd. --Alterego 16:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've had my doubts from the beginning. -Willmcw 20:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. But it was very well done and great entertainment to see these disputes from the 'hood spilling over into Wikipedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hehe, sure seemed to fool ol' RickK ;) Sam Spade 20:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but it didn't matter, all I cared about was a User spouting personal rhetoric against somebody else. If they turn out to be the same person, oh, well. RickK 06:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

This incident reminds me of the net.legends.FAQ [4] which was written back in 1994, about the time I gained my first tenuous access to the Internet. Every community seems to eventually acquire, er, characters. Would it be a violation of WikiLove to compile our own list of wikipedia.legends? -- llywrch 22:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we'd have to call it Bad Jokes And Other Revertable Editors. --FOo 23:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be really hard to NPOV, but it could be useful. In fact, something like an encyclopedia of Wikipedia lore would be interesting. It would be a good way for newcomers to learn of things like (to cite just a few recent ones) Pelican Shit, Willy on Wheels, the Autofellatio vandal(s), the GRider case, and so on, without having to resort to Wiki archeology. Of course, not only negative things would be listed — the history of the most important wikiprojects, the changes VfD went through before its current 3-level-templates implementation, proeminent contributors (not the ones famous outside Wikipedia, but the ones famous inside Wikipedia), and so on. --cesarb 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, Wikipedia:Banned_users could be a start / lead / resource. Sam Spade 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest any such activities be carried out offsite.Geni 00:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, did you ever think about maybe putting periods after the things you write, you know, so your signature isn't smushed up against it and all? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of brief history of Wikipedia for editors sounds like a good idea explaining how the internal mechanics (WP:FAC, WP:PR, WP:FARC, WP:COTW, WP:VfD, etc, etc) work, how we got to where we are, what we used to do (presumably the Wikipedia article is not the place for this sort of thing). I'm not sure we need to have a history of infamous vandals - surely this would be a magnet for people trying to make a name for themselves? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For better or worse, some vandals did change how Wikipedia works (for instance, AFAIR, WoW and PS did cause the current page move restriction, and the Autofellatio vandal did cause the creation of the bad image list). --cesarb 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I threw this idea out for anyone to run with but if I were to compile such a list, instead of focussing on only the bad, I'd try to give equal time to the good -- & the just plain weird. Despite his recent efforts, I'd list Larry Sanger with the good -- IIRC, he & Jimbo together formulated the concept of NPOV. And there are a number of long-time contributors who do an awful lot behind the scenes but new Wikipedians may never interact with: Maveric149, Ed Poor, Anthere, Martin/My Red Dice, Sannse, Dante Alighieri, etc. In fact, there are many Wikipedians in the top 1000 contributors who labor on without any recognition of their contributions -- & a Signpost profile would be a wonderful reward for them.

As for the weird ... there was a now-forgotten user whose only contribution to Wikipedia was to use his/her webpage to exchange flirtation with other Wikipedians. And the case where an editor left a note that she was going to commit suicide (IIRC the details correctly) -- which prompted a flurry of concern on EN-wikipedia back in 2003. I'm sure there are more, but I tend to become more & more tied down in the small parts of Wikipedia that I focus my attention towards. -- llywrch 02:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they are the person I think you mean they went of to wiki infoGeni 15:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have taken all these ideas and thrown them into the skeletal stub Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people. It needs expansion by more knowledgable and experienced people than me. --Theo (Talk) 11:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theo, always take care to verify information offered with qualifications. I saw that you added the incident where a user left a suicide note, & took the time to verify that my memory was correct. (I added some references to Wikipedia-EN to verify its truth), but for a moment I wasn't sure whether it happened as I told the story.
However, I spent the last hour or so skimming thru the mailing list from that distant time. It was truly a different climate back then, with a surprising number of different names. -- llywrch 23:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Err, I did check your facts. I found a WikiEN-l message from Anthere (Thu Oct 9 2003 12:47:37 UTC), which ended "That reminded me of that suicide note last year." This was sufficient verification for me in this context. --Theo (Talk) 00:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The plot thickens

Take a look at this --cesarb 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that blocking any of Ken_Bogan's accounts is/was a very bad idea, and contrary to blocking policy. Sam Spade 16:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We block impersonators. I don't see this as being any different to a hundred similar actions in the past. Ambi 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With no evidence? W/o asking them to clarify? Sam Spade 18:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ken Bogan has a total of 60 edits, the large majority of them to talk pages, all of them within the last month. The edits that are not in talk pages are quite stereotypical, e.g. Fuck, South Central Los Angelas, Compton California etc... As a matter of fact, all but one of his edits were made on his first day here, and there has been a one month break inbetween, where he has commenced editing only talk pages. Further, only 31 minutes after he first edited, his account was "vandalized" by autofellatio troll oftheball. Despite being a brand new user and being educated in one of the, if not the country's worst high schools, even his very first edit seems to be worded quite up to standards, including linking dates, a somewhat arcane practice that new users are likely not often aware of. Beyond that, it seems clear to me that the above linked comment he posted on his user page expresses a knowledge of Wikipedia that is unreasonable for a user with only six edits having only edited on one day to have. Clearly, we are being trolled. Let me also point out that if this were the Ken Bogan, and even if he is not, this joke (even if it's real) puts Wikipedia in a dangerous legal position, as he is a wanted felon. I quote from the sex offender page, THIS SEX OFFENDER HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS SINCE 11/19/1996. --Alterego 19:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how Wikipedia could be subject to any legal action for allowing a sex offender to edit. We could provide his IP if police asks for it, and not much else. It's not like we're responsible for anything he does.

As long as his edits are of quality (he links dates after all), I don't see any reason to block ALL accounts. Block the socks and let one account open. He's not trolling VFD with fake sock votes and he's not impersonating himself (if he's not who he says he is, we need to prove it before blocking). Of course, he can be blocked for civility or vandalism violations on talk pages, if he should perform them, but only for 24 hours, unless the arb com gets involved. Wanted felons have the same rights on wikipedia as anyone else, as long as they adhere to the rules. Mgm|(talk) 21:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wherever this conversation should be taking place, I'd like to suggest that it's not here (I'd consider WP:AN). The only question here, I think, is whether or not this is a story...and I'm not convinced it is one, yet at least. Jwrosenzweig 21:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, this conversation started here. I have pointed the admins to this new development, though (as Sam Spade notes below). --cesarb 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cesar, I understand that it started here, and that's not a wrong thing, in my opinion. But if we're going to start posting arguments about whether or not someone is blocked, that needs to happen in the appropriate forum so that everyone can have their voice heard. Jwrosenzweig 16:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ken_Bogan_again. Its definitely a story, even if it doesn't make the Signpost ;) Sam Spade 21:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might make the Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people ;-) --cesarb 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re: for allowing a sex offender to edit. He is not just a sex offender. He is a sex offender who has been in violation since 1996. --Alterego 22:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
he is not a sex offender (or if he is, we have no way of knowing). He is having fun playing mind games by posing as a sex offender. dab () 09:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned that we were being trolled a few posts up --Alterego 14:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm almost certain its a troll, but until were certain we should give the benefit of the doubt to the guy claiming to be a rapist ;) If it is a troll, its a rather good one, btw, and regardless its a notable and intruiging incident. Sam Spade 14:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Coming from you that's quite a compliment, being no slouch in that department yourself. 20:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
no we shouldn't, and no it's not. Or only for people who are here to play mind games. I thought it was mildly amusing, but not really worth mentioning. Keeping the topic alive only means feeding the trolls. Sam: the point of WP is not playing detective games. dab () 10:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100 pedias

I'll be leaving the wiki for a time soon, so I won't be around to monitor. If someone wanted to, however, keep an eye on meta:List of Wikipedias. Nauruan just became the 99th language with a Wikipedia past the first milestone of 100 articles, so it will soon be 100 languages (the next will probably be Mongolian, Yiddish or Nahuatl). Recent growth in new languages has mostly been in South Asian languages like Gujarati, Kannada, Urdu, Malayalam, Tamil and Bengali, as well as regional minority languages in Europe, like Corsican, Cornish, Breton and Sicilian. If Nahuatl is the 100th language, it will be the first Native American language, unless you count Haitian Creole. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there in case someone wanted to put it somewhere in the Signpost. Tuf-Kat 16:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nahuatl has just reached 100 articles, making it the 100th Wikipedia to do so, and the first Native American language. As Tuf-Kat says, Yiddish and Mongolian are not far behind, then there is a bit of a gap. The African languages are getting interesting too. Swahili is still in the lead, but Bambara is seeing some activity and is catching up fast. All have some way to go yet however, but we can probably expect the first African language (not counting Afrikaans, which has nearly 4000) to hit 100 articles in the next few weeks. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Just thought I'd mention that I was surprised the adminship story didn't mention the controversy over Weyes' request for adminship (and the subsequent resetting thereof). →Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)

GNAA vote

I have created an article on the VfD done for this. See User:Ta bu shi da yu/GNAA. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

External site promotes an upcoming featured article

The Norman Borlaug article that is scheduled to appear on the main page on July 27, is being promoted on this sitein their July 25 news. This might be the first time such an adverisment for an upoming feature has appeared, and makes an interesitng bit of trivia for the signpost. First discovered by User:BanyanTree.--nixie 04:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Added to The Signpost page

I reverted and moved to here the following comment which was added to the current edition of The Signpost by User:Mydogategodshat. Perhaps this can be used for the next edition?

New Business and Economics Portal started this week. 

-- Longhair | Talk 13:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again. Many people do not check Signpost after the Monday publication and it's just confusing to add things in the interim. Far better to add it to an actual article coming out in the next issue. - BanyanTree 13:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Or add to Wikipedia:Goings-on, which is updated continuously. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Goings-on or Wikipedia:Announcements would have been a good place for this. I don't mind people who want to contribute (in fact, I highly encourage it because we need more help), but the links on the page are headlines that take you to news stories, not announcements that merely take you to the subject of the announcement. If someone wants something included in The Signpost, it's incumbent on them to draft a story about it, or else submit it to the newsroom and let the people writing the stories decide whether to include it. --Michael Snow 15:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Having noticed the article about the Wiki-like newspaper that the Asheville newspaper is going to start, I'm wondering if the Signpost has mentioned the page which is run by the Denver Rocky Mountain News. There are several hubs, depending on what Denver suburb you live in, and anybody who is registered can contribute photos, articles, etc. Zoe 05:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

a dubious milestone

Ha! There is a word for word copy of the Esquire article at I've sent an email to their online manager informing them that they should explicitly attribute it to Wikipedia, but I was a bit taken aback that an external site was reading our newspaper and not just our article content. - BanyanTree 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That is truly bizarre. There was a little "For more information, go to" sticker when I looked, but that hardly ammounts to credit.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, legally, it was released into the public domain...I don't agree with it, but the contributors did release it into PD. Ral315 WS 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahh. Forgot about that. --Sean Jelly Baby? 00:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Nyet. The Esquire article was released into the public domain - but this is a copy of the Signpost article, which was not. Ambi 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. This is weird...--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not that weird, there are a number of simple words which apply: intellectual dishonesty, plagurism and copyright violation. The article is currently being attributed to [ Joanne Kelly] at the top. -- Joolz 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
They've taken it down, it appears. I'm fascinated by the fact that someone would take a Signpost article and use it, though. For what it's worth, I do release all my contributions into the public domain, and so I guess, in theory, it's legal for them to use any Signpost article which only I edit, and since I was the only one to edit the Esquire article...however, I doubt they necessarily checked up on that. Ral315 WS 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I sent them a polite e-mail, and Ms. Kelly sent me a very nice e-mail back. She apologized and took full responsibility, and that she is a fan of Wikipedia. She took down the article and asked how she should cite it properly or do we have a press release or something they could use. How should I answer: That they may use it, but they should say something like "Taken from" or what? They were very polite and took action immediately, and I for one appreciate the publicity. — Knowledge Seeker 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that it was under public domain because of Ral315's release. In that case they don't have to explicitly say that it is from Wikipedia at all, though it would be nice of them. Simply removing the misleading author by-line, which makes it appear that it was written by Ms. Kelley, would appear to be sufficient, though I'm not an expert on intellectual property by any means. - BanyanTree 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer having the byline removed, although in all honesty, the reporter can do basically anything she wants with the article. For the time being, I'm not licensing any of my contributions into the public domain anymore, until I can figure out what I want to do in this regard. Ral315 WS 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Make it easy on yourself. Use {{WikimediaAllLicensing}}. Titoxd 05:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

On the Television Set

Do you think that the community is aware of this interview on TV? It's very watchable and easy on the brain. --hydnjo talk 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we were aware of the interview, I believe it took place two weeks ago. Zach (Sound Off) 05:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki mentioned on BBC radio 1

If I heard correctly David Vitty thanked wikipedia in regard to his Tedious Link on the The Chris Moyles Show this morning, if someone wants to verify that you can "listen again" on the BBC website, the Tedious Link is about 2 hours into the show I believe. btw The Chris Moyles Show has about 7-8 million listeners! Martin 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Guardian article

If someone decides to discuss the Guardian article Can you trust wikipedia? in a future edition, you might want to look at the discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia (one of the articles discussed) for some info. I couldn't find any other discussion of it at the moment. flux.books 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Does anyone know if there was ever an article about the grant that Wikimedia was given to establish Wikijunior (currently residing over at Wikibooks)? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that was just before signpost appeared. The grant has been mentioned in passing though.Geni 23:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Maybe if Wikijunior ever gets published, Signpost would be interested in doing a bit on it. If it ever gets published... --LV (Dark Mark) 14:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
As soon as we find someone who know something about dead tree technology we will be able to move in that direction quite quickly.Geni 17:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Server loads/orders and new/malfunctioning/setting up

I use to frequent OpenFacts to get updates on hardware status, I tried it just now but was refused connection. I don't check often these days because it usually is difficult to find the skinny on current events in that realm as it is buried in discussion or server status notices. Could there be a weekly/bi-weekly or even monthly update on our precious servers and their relative performance vs. traffic. Actually that gives me an idea... call it the Wikipedia Traffic Report, or something like that. Since the Signpost already does updates on Wikipedia's popularity, server info could simply be added to that; or it can be broken off as its own section. And in case you don't know, Signpost = sweetness! - RoyBoy 800 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, that would be interesting. I'll try and talk to a dev at some time this week. Ral315 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
They're not great about updating it with timely news, but there is a "Wikitech" livejournal that some devs post to at times -- and yes, it IS on livejournal, Kate just wrote an LJ style that makes it look eerily like monobook...! {There's also a non-tech, community-oriented "Wikipedians" journal.)
There's also the Server admin log, Stats center, Zachte's stats and Ganglia in addition to OpenFacts -- no, I don't know what half of it means! That's why I agree that this would be a useful feature for the Signpost. Advertise for a tech-savvy writer, or talk to the devs about the best way one of us could put together a weekly skeleton article on "this week's Traffic Report", based on some of those sources. Then we might be able to send it to a dev who has a few minutes to proofread the skeleton and add any significant behind-the-scenes details (if any); perhaps that way this wouldn't take up too much of their time.
I think something like this would really help the average Wikipedian stay in touch with the weekly technical challenges we face, and see how hard our devs work to keep such a rapidly growing site functional.
Another thought -- this report might periodically include news from Meta:Hardware orders and Meta:Budget (and related pages) on hardware and other expenditures -- help people see where their donations are going. Maybe check in with mav (our volunteer CFO) to see if he has suggestions. — Catherine\talk 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Would be good with a weekly note on; traffic, new boxes, significant downtime and what's being done about it, size of content (in Gigabytes) could also be something. The various info can be found, but various places, and good if it could be a kinda standard report on it. Ulflarsen 21:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

two ideas

1. add a wikipedian of the week section 2. add a BJAODN of the week section --Urthogie 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In the news...

Not sure if this has any importance or if it's listed but... Wikipedia, specifically List of Half-Life 2 mods was listed on Steam's December 30th update... is this notable? no idea... but, there you go. gren グレン 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? I found the article without the steam update and am quite happy with my recent downloads of Garry's Mod and SourceForts. But that's not why I'm here... —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Police blotter?

Something like, major developments in enforcement not involving policy changes or arbitration cases? Sortof like, "the articel warez was attacked between 9 and 9 45 AM on the 11 by a mass of different users who were later tagged as sockpuppets of "DickyRobert", who has been banned etc etc...". 17:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

News and notes: dates and stuff

This message:

<!-- Please do not change the's in (rough) order based on time the milestone was achieved. -->

Appearsatthe beginning of the Milestones section of the News and notes article. If that information is sopertinent,why do straight out give the date and time, if at all possible? It would be nice to be able to list the pertinent page too, if possible. Circeus 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not pertinent, and on most of them, the date and time is not given on the source I get them from. I added that message because someone had taken the habit of arranging them in order of either the number of articles, or of perceived importance, and I don't feel that we should make some projects seem more important than others. Ral315 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that would make sense, if only to mimic the style at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics. Circeus 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

Do you think that you guys could do a story on the redisgn of the Main Page occuring here? It's a great way to get new contributors and imput.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that and I cross posted this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Content - Ravedave 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


It was mentioned emergency Captcha was used to keep vandalbots under control. What is being used? I was expecting cool graphics and stuff; which I would like to see as any extra step in the registration process would further discourage mass sockpuppets. - RoyBoy 800 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an apparent graphic and discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Captcha. - BanyanTree 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ice Storm

A LOT of Wikipedians will be affected by a expected ice storm on Fri-Sun, 2-17-06 to 2-20-06. For more, go to the Weather Channel Website and/or Accuweather Website for more information, news. Martial Law 08:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A large chunk of the US will be taken out by power failures, infrastructure failures caused by ice accumalations, freezing temps. There will be downed trees and other structural damage as well. Martial Law 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought that this potential natural disaster would make "the news". Martial Law 08:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may make suggestions at the tip line. The Signpost usualy only covers news relevant to Wikipedia and its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Traditional "news", such as weather and such, are not included; they are more appropriate for current events or "In the news". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource News

Wikisource very recently created Wikisource News, the local variant of the Wikipedia Signpost. Many of the stories, such as email confirmation, are likely to apply equally well to both wikis. I'd like to occasionally use content from the Signpost in WN stories, with appropriate credit. Signpost editors are free to use WN content, though the relationship would no doubt favour the more undermanned Wikisource. Would do you think? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think collaboration would be good; also note Wikizine, a news source more focused on meta and issues surrounded all Wikimedia projects, not a specific language or project. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me, certainly. You're certainly welcome to use any of our articles under the terms of the GFDL. I'd appreciate a note on this page when you borrow content. Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
A section from Wikipedia in the news, "Interesting mentions", prompted the Wikisource News story "New database to identify public domain works". Thanks. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 12:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to mention this new development at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think it's necessary there. Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Given the byline policy, I suppose I ought to check that people don't mind me making small changes to Signpost articles (often wikilinking dates, for preference purposes, but occasionally adding other links or minor titbits - I can't think of an occasion where I have made an amendment that I would consider major).

Please let me know if you think it is out of order for me to carry on doing so. (I trust it is a useful thing to be doing, in lieu of actually writing articles?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do continue. To the extent that it matters, the bylined author should usually get the final say if there's a disagreement about the article, but otherwise it's still a wiki and we're happy to have the benefits of other people touching things up. --Michael Snow 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed -- I've always appreciated the improvements you've made to "my" articles. Sometimes it's stuff I've overlooked, and sometime's it's stuff I meant to link after looking up the proper article title, and forgot to come back to. Your additions are helpful, especially to future readers looking through archived articles. Please carry on! — Catherine\talk 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh good - I'm glad I haven't offended anyone. I really appreciate the effort that all of the "proper" authors put into their Signpost articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

More news regarding economy and hardware

I have used Wikipedia for some time, written articles in both Norwegian and English and supported the fundraisers. However, after the last fundraising there is really very little news about how the money is spent. No new hardware orders, and its not even a budget for the first quarter of 2006, even though we are soon in Q2. I believe it would be good to have more writing about this, both factual information but also critical writing - as the situation as now seems to be far from the transparency one would expect from an organisation as Wikimedia foundation.

In short, seems like we who work on the project is the last to get informed, whatever goes on within this area. I must say that I believe added hardware is a must for the continued growth of the project, and that transparency regarding budgets is an equal must for future fundraisers. Articles like "this is how we spent your money" would at least be something I would be very happy to read. And when one cant even find a budget? Well, it does not smell well. This better be fixed before the mainstream press starts to dive into it - and I believe the signpost could play a role here doing some good and informed articles about it. Ulflarsen 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. The current lack of information discredits Wikipedia. Osomec 18:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ashenai 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Suffice it to say the people that do work on this for the foundation are working very hard and are either unpaid or not getting paid nearly enough for the work they do. Should there ideally be more updates on the financial and hardware situation? Of course, but try to be patient. - Taxman Talk 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several points in response to this. First, The Signpost is a community newspaper that sometimes reports about the Foundation, not an official product of the Foundation. So we're not going to do "this is how we spent your money" articles because nobody is giving us any money (unless you would like to start doing so, in which case we'll be glad to oblige). We do try to report what we can on official statements by the Foundation that we're aware of.

Next, I would point out that to some extent, no news is good news. Hardware is much more newsworthy when it breaks down than when it's working. Early in The Signpost's existence, I was reporting on hardware issues almost every week because there were a lot of problems. Things aren't perfect yet, but they're a lot better, so you hear less about it. Buying, installing, and maintaining hardware is happening all the time, just like encyclopedia editing, but it's harder to say anything about either of these subjects in news fashion when things are routine.

Finally, from a personal standpoint I agree with Taxman's response. We'd like to hear more from the Foundation and have more to pass along to our readers, but I think some level of understanding is appropriate. Greater transparency is an appropriate goal, but the expectations you're suggesting are much more than is normally provided by organizations elsewhere, including charities, and the Foundation doesn't have that many resources to devote toward providing that transparency - it has to focus on keeping the site running. --Michael Snow 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the information is not that hard to find on the official Foundation website ( -- the sidebar to "About Wikipedia" and the TOC item "Expenditures" leads you to many useful links:
The financial and tech teams do make an effort to keep this stuff up to date, but it's a big task, and it's sometimes behind. Anyone who feels motivated to write up a Signpost article on budget and hardware issues (or a section for the B.R.I.O.N. feature) can feel free to step up to the plate -- just write it in your userspace and mention it in the Newsroom, and if found to be accurate and professional in tone, it will be included in a future issue. — Catherine\talk 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I really dont want to start a discussion here, but I think Michael Snow and Taxman dont get my point. First of all - I know that the staff is miniscule, and that its not easy to follow up on all fronts (I do know quite a bit about working as a volunteer). I do however believe that this is one serious part of what we do. No money = no servers. There has been a huge fundraise, where a lot of people have given the largest amount of money yet (and I was one of these). So what has come out of it? Not easy to find out - and as far as I can see from the pages of the foundation, not even a budget for the quarter that is soon finished. Did the money go to buy servers? Did they use them for staff? Or something else? With all respect of all the people doing good work here, this is something that needs to be adressed. Ulflarsen 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Most money still goes for servers and hosting, as I understand it. Not nearly as much for staff, which as you point out is miniscule. That's more or less what I know, and it doesn't make for much to say in terms of a news story. Anyone who wants to know more is welcome to look and ask around, write up what they find out, and if it's suitable we'll include it in the next issue. --Michael Snow 23:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds as if Ulflarsen wants something sort of like a quarterly report. Not unreasonable, if you consider wiki volunteers to be the equivalent of stockholders - some big, some small. It's our time that gives the site value, just as it's individual stockholder's money that gives a public company value. - DavidWBrooks 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Not unreasonable, but I would think the function of a quarterly report belongs to a more official source, like Wikimedia Quarto was intended to be. Unfortunately, efforts there seem to have stalled. This isn't the place for the job, and the people to produce such a thing likely aren't paying attention to this discussion, though I will certainly bring it up with them when I have the opportunity. --Michael Snow 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
People are complaining primarily about a lack of updates from the Foundation, not from the Signpost. If the info isn't there, the Signpost can't be expected to report it, but it should be there. Surely it is more important for a charity that needs to grow its income rapidly to engage in good donor relations (which is what this is about) than to spend its time on some of the spinoff projects of dubious value that Jimmy Whales spends his time talking about. Hawkestone 12:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Middle of April, and still no new servers, no budget and no news about what the money from the last big fundraise was/is used for. Interesting. At least the response time is good, so either the servers have been tuned, new ones installed, or Yahoo/Google is lending us a big chunk of theirs without anyone telling us. Yes, I know that its the foundation and not the Signpost, but maybe someone here could ask politely what is going on? Has to say that it is not the transparent running of the business that invites to further donations on my part... Ulflarsen 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Registered users/accounts

I realise that this is verging on nit-picking, but I think it is an important distinction to make: on News and Notes and elsewhere the numbers of registered "users" is given. However, shouldn't this be number of registered accounts? You noted this when you reported on English Wikipedia reaches 1,000,000 users: "such a stat is really insignificant, due to inactive and sockpuppet accounts." Shouldn't that be made clearer when reporting these stats in future? --G Rutter 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


A minor quibble, but the section of the current Signpost containing "In March, Answers filed a claim in a Tel Aviv court against Babylon Ltd., another Israeli company, seeking 1 million sheqels in damages (about $210,000)" could be made more international by specifying which country's currency is being used to describe the amount of damages (I'm assuming it's in US dollars). '$' as a description is imprecise, as there are more than twenty countries using this symbol for a variety of different currency types. Cheers, Ziggurat 02:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also converting to a couple of other currencies (perhaps GB£, € and AU$) would give more people a better idea of the amount than just US$. Obviously converting to every currency is OTT, but I suggest that at least one of those four will have some meaning to the vast majority of people reading the English language articles). Thryduulf 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure "$" means US$ in the cases where it has been used so far. Although GBP, and AUS$ are used more or less widely, I suspect that the US$ is most widely recognised and understood of all; unless the context told me otherwise, I would usually expect "$" on its own to mean the US dollar. It certainly would not hurt to say US$, though.-- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Uh guys, this is wikipedia, the page is editable by anyone. Fix it if you find it annoying. -Ravedave 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it would be helpful to agree a consenus approach for the future too. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think US Dollar is fair enough; perhaps adding the pound would be good too, but not altogether necessary. I'm not worried about adding the euro or the Australian dollar; we can't cover all currencies. Best to hit one or two well-known ones in the English-speaking world. Ral315 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the dollar on its own, especially when giving an equivalent for a local currency in the first place, but the euro is certainly the best-known and most widely-used international currency apart from the dollar, so it would be the obvious alternative. And many of our editors are not from English-speaking countries, while a fair proportion of those that are are still probably more familiar with the euro than with the GBP. Palmiro | Talk 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be up to the editor's discretion which currency to use as a rough description (on behalf of a country with one of the less well-known currencies, we all know the rough conversion rates with pounds, US dollars, and Euros already; adding them all is overkill), but it should be clearly signalled as such to avoid confusion. Ziggurat 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured content details

Could I request that in the "featured content this week" section there be some details for the more notable featurings/de-featurings? I am always interested in that section and the go through and check out the recently featured articles/pix. However, I'd love it if there were a bit of context about the article's history/nomination process too. For example, Singapore is up for it's 5th FA nomination this week. If it does indeed get FA'd, could there be written something along the lines of:

"Singapore was also featured this week in its 4th attempt. Previous nominations failed due to insufficent bribes to the FA committee. This is the 9th article that user:singapore guy has edited to featured in the last month - a wikipedia record."

Clearly I exagerate but you get the idea. This would be much more interesting than a simple list (though I realise that it would take more time to research!)

Cheers, Witty lama 14:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it really relies on someone familiar with the FA process being willing to write such a piece each week, or at least write a sentence/paragraph for us whenever there's a particularly interesting promotion. Why don't you mention it on the FA page? Items of note can be left on the Suggestions page. — Catherine\talk 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That actually gets at what I was going to say. I do like the Signpost, and I have been pushing for the communications committee to use it at a venue for publishing more foundation-related stuff. However, it seems like a number of sections - especially the featured content section - have over the course of months degenerated from discussion into simple lists with little commentary or analysis. Raul654 17:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia itself, the Signpost is a volunteer effort, and the breadth and depth of its coverage fluctuates with the free time and the fatigue factor of its volunteers -- I think User:RoyBoy would welcome some help with the featured content. As it is, any part of the newspaper can be improved by the enthusiasm and effort of interested writers, and the Signpost could only benefit from a larger regular staff. It doesn't require a strict weekly commitment, or previous journalistic experience -- just a willingness to report the facts of situations you're familiar with in an interesting and unbiased manner (and as with everything else here, a willingness to be edited mercilessly).
We would very much welcome more input from the Foundation, the Communications Committee, the ArbCom, or anyone else who feels our coverage could be improved, even if it's just in the form of pointers to other sources of information. — Catherine\talk 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to keep an eye out, but how nominations are archived can make it difficult to immediately see its being re-nominated n-times. As I'm not involved in the FA process; analysis would be welcome from a co-writer for notable improvements and happenings. Especially now that there are fewer articles being featured each week. - RoyBoy 800 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Globe & Mail on Wikipedia

The Globe & Mail wrote the following about Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia model is not perfect, but its success has implications that go far beyond how people conduct research. It puts a question mark over the whole idea that information must move from credentialed producer to passive consumer. That presents established companies and organizations with a big challenge. Media groups will have to find a way to emulate Wikipedia and bring readers and viewers inside the tent, as this newspaper is trying to do by, among other things, inviting on-line comments and organizing question-and-answer sessions with journalists. Political parties will have to use the Web to involve an alienated public, as Howard Dean managed in his Web-driven run for the 2004 U.S. Democratic presidential nomination. Government itself, that ultimate control freak, will have to open up to the views of its Web-empowered citizens. In the same way that Wikipedia presumes "collaboration among users will improve articles over time," government should learn to accept that collaboration among citizens can change things for the better. (source)

Not a bad review, if I may say so! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

100 x 1000

This week's News and notes, um, notes:

The most recent Wikipedia to reach 1,000 articles was the Wikipedia in Northern Sami.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. The Urdu Wikipedia reached 1,000 articles on June 19th, 9 days after Northern Sami (and a week before the date on the article). And by my reckoning, Northern Sami was only the 99th Wikipedia to reach 1,000. This is supported by the tables at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics (which I help maintain) and m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias (which I mostly don't). (Note that the Venetian Wikipedia just broke 1,000... and 2,000 — it actually shot up from 150 to 3,500 articles in one day!) - dcljr (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


This section has gotten a bit large in the last months, so it would be kind of nice to break it up a bit. How about into article milestones, user milestones, etc? Ingoolemo talk 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of article milestones, and since I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, we're going to hit one and a quarter million articles in the next day or so... Shimgray | talk | 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE not covered

I was expecting to read the executive summary of the User:HolyRomanEmperor death scandal, which was probably a major event in the world of English and Serbian Wikipedia this week. -lethe talk + 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual, lack of coverage basically indicates that we could use more people helping out and writing stories. In this case, I'm guessing nobody who works on the Signpost can read Serbian, so that kind of inhibits us a bit. It also seems to be a particularly challenging incident in terms of sorting out what real facts can be reported. And given the appearances, it may be the sort of thing that responsible journalism would avoid covering unnecessarily, so as not to reward manipulative conduct with additional publicity. --Michael Snow 05:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate that this is difficult to report on, because it's difficult to separate facts from rumors. But given the massive response (mostly here on en:, in English), culminating in an OFFICE action by Danny, I thought a mention was obligatory. Of course this is a wiki, so your response is a good one; if I think it should be there, then I should write it. -lethe talk + 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about, and HRE's talk pages don't help very much - did the user (or an imposter) claim that they were dead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Dont waste your time its not very interesting. I don't belive it should even be covered. Here's a summary (from what I understand): Person A posted info that person B was dead. Person B happened to be in the middle of a request for admin. Much confusion ensued, person B showed back up and claimed that his "cousin" was the one who said he was dead. High ranking wikiperson C blocked B and asked him to verify his identity, person B has not done so and his writing style has changed, so it is still belived that person B had their account stolen by the person A. -Ravedave 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And then person B oppened an account D and claims that his account B was stolen and that he had nothing to do with that. ;-) --Dijxtra 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back as User:HRE. Apparently his account had been hijacked. -lethe talk + 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria was amendment today, discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: listserv reports

I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for the Signpost or not, but I think many readers would greatly appreciate some sort of report/summary of the more significant discussions of problems and policy from the wikien-l listserv. There's definitely plenty of content for a regular slot, but it may be too personality-based for widespread consumption.--ragesoss 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This should most likely go to the suggestion page. Thanks. ForestH2 t/c 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's fine to post it here. The problem I've found with listserv discussions is they too often are glorified IRC banter (coming from someone who uses IRC regularly and reads listserv on a semi-regular basis). When and if they lead to things on-wiki, we cover them (and you'll note that many of our articles on major events contain a link to a relevant listserv posting). But it's hard to say what's relevant and what's just people saying "that's a great idea!" and then never implementing it. If someone can come up with a decent-looking mockup of what an article would look like, I'll consider the issue, but it just seems to hard to decipher the content. Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian Wiki article

I think it needs a bit of copyediting. How can this be done? Anchoress 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to some help, I figured out how to do it. Anchoress 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1.0 Assessment

On the 20 Sept Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment passed the 100,000 article mark for assessed articles.[5] It seems this might be a milestone worth reporting. --Salix alba (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Covered yet? -- Zanimum 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! For future reference, though, suggestions and tips are more appropriate on the suggestions page, as this makes it easier on all of us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Telugu and Marathi error

The news/notes claims that Telugu (21,000) is the first to go 20+ for an Indian subcontinent language. The same page says that Marathi language is now at 35k - so there is a contradiction. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 21,000 Telugu articles and 35,000 Marathi edits. - BanyanTree 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Marathi is 35,000 edits, meaning saved changes, and Telugu is counting articles. In other words, two different, but equally worthy, milestones. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Library Thing

As german Signpost de:Wikipedia:Kurier wrote, there is a increasing number of german wikipedians who share their books on the LibraryThing group "Wikipedia-Bibliothek" (Wikipedia-Library). The group was created on Sept 27., and wikipedians added more than 2000 books yet, mostly german reference books and specialiced books. Purpose of the group is to give others fast access to information and references they need for their articles. How about creating an english "Wikipedia-Library" group? There are quite a few wikipedians who librarything [6] -- 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While the group was created in german, it is accessible from the english version of LT: Unlike Wikipedia, LT does not segregate between its language versions. Circeus 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Material cited by Wikisource News

Hello. The article "Wales resigns chair position as reorganization in progress" was cited in the Wikisource News article "Jimbo Wales resigns amidst restructuring". In a previous discussion, Ral315 suggested a note here when we used Signpost content. Thank you. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiWorld by Greg Williams

Would you consider running these cartoons weekly in Signpost? I think Greg is only going to keep contributing them if they are included or linked to from the English Wikipedia articles, so they might be in limited supply if things don't improve, but you can at least have six weeks worth in Signpost. -- Zanimum 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are great, I vote to include them. I think they should run on the Sunday editions of the signpost. :) -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you'll write 8-10 stories for a Sunday edition, I'll do it; otherwise, you'll have to settle for Monday :) Ral315 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe eventually we'll make it to publishing more than once a week, but we'd need a lot more people writing (hint, hint). In the meantime, good illustrations are welcome too. --Michael Snow 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I third the motion. Kaldari 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, those are excellent. Let's hope he can keep producing at least one a week at that standard. Go for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if they appear less frequently than once a week, it's worth having. I just wish we could come up with a way of getting wider circulation for them. As a way of inticing people to read articles they wouldn't usually consider, it's a sure-thing. We should look upon these in the same way that we look upon the "Did you know..." section on the front page. They serve a similar purpose but in a more elegant way. SteveBaker 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In the news

"Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable"

  • This article may be worth mentioning in the Signpost. Note that much of it is incorrect (e.g. it states we have 100 admins); it appears poorly researched. (Radiant) 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It says 1000 admins and 100 articles deleted per day - It forgets the prods and speedies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't it already included in the Wikipedia in the news section? --Gwern (contribs) 18:22 8 December 2006 (GMT)
I believe this appeared already, yes. Ral315 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

After 18 nominations, they finally got it.

In one of the most disgusting acts I've seen on Wikipedia, consensus was overturned by an admin who closed the 18th GNAA deletion early (after two days!) and then deleted it. A lesson learned: if you want something deleted badly enough, keep pushing to have it deleted. After the 18th or 19th attempt, you will finally have it done. Pity we can't have a Signpost article about this issue. I'm actually seriously considering whether this project is worth my time any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"GNAA" meaning...? - dcljr (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Gay Nigger Association of America meltBanana 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank god. Finally some perspective. Rebecca 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. Perspective. Jimbo informs me in an offhand manner that it should have been speedied some time ago, 100% disagree (not many issues I disagree with him on). I suppose that nothing can be done though. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Plenty could be done, but only if that includes finding coverage in reliable references for all the material that would be in the article. Failing that, then no. I can't figure out what's so hard about that, why it's worth getting so worked up over, or why it took so long for people to reallize enforcing content policies applies to AFD too. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Language milestone

Keep an eye on the Spanish Wikipedia at 178,000 articles. The Swedish one is at 198,000, and will be the ninth edition to break the 200K barrier; with the Spanish edition over 200K, that will make the nice round number 10. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Karl Dickman talk 11:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At current growth rates that will be about the end of February for Spanish, and some time in March if the rate slows like many of the other larger projects have. The good people here at the Signpost rarely miss the milestones for the larger projects, but the heads up is always good. :) - Taxman Talk 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Dutch news

It seems that a Wikipedia in the News item was missed in the recent Signpost: the NOS, the Dutch public broadcaster, had a teletext article about Oscar (talk · contribs) and meta:User:Jan-Bart being appointed on the Board of Trustees: [7] (second bullet). Translation: "Two Dutchmen have joined the board of web encyclopedia Wikipedia. They will take care of financial matters and projects. Wikipedia is being made by volunteers from all over the world." Not much, but this is afaik the first time they've written about wikipedia. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bring that to my attention. For non-English ITN items - I can only include them if they are here since I only search in english for ITN. --Trödel 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on wikipedia in the Dutch media for you. If I come across another mention, where should I post it? Here, on your talk page or somewhere else? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Here works great Sorry I am on a different page than I thought I was - leave suggestions for stories at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions- I always check there several times a week, and always do again right before I mark the complete for the week. --Trödel 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does this mean?

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/In the news, under "Jimmy Wales and New Projects", what exactly does "factually-riddled" mean? 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a strange phrasing, but I think it was meant to be an indication that the media coverage of that "project" has been riddled with inaccuracies and misleading hype. Wikia people say they aren't planning a major search initiative that would compete at the level of Google or Yahoo, and while they have tinkered with community-based ideas for search, "Wikiasari" is an old name that doesn't apply to any effort they might eventually make along those lines. --Michael Snow 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note about minor change on page

As requested on the comment:

I fixed a small typo (Experanza -> Esperanza) which pointed to a redirect. --cesarb 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although the page was intended to be left at Experanza. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiInterview Idea

Good morning (GMT time); I am a regular reader of the Signpost (I read it on Community Portal), and firstly let me say what a good job you guys are doing here!

However - I have an idea. I would like to start up a fortnightly or monthly "WikiInterview" to be posted on the Signpost. The idea is to interview a key member of the Wikimedia foundation - perhaps we could start with Mr.Wales? Perhaps I could ask him six or seven questions regarding ongoing current events on Wikipedia - e.g. his view on the ArbCom nominations, or his view on Esperanza being disbanded. I say "he" as an example of using Mr.Wales as the first interviewee, but next time it might be someone else!

Drop me a message on my talk page, and let me know what you think of me undertaking this.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [TC] 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea; however, we'll probably run out of "key member[s] of the Wikimedia foundation" pretty quickly :) Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it could be for any Wikipedian who went through some "drama" over the past week? --Majorly (Talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That does significantly increase the pool... :) Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, anyone who is an integral part of the community, and whose "problem" caused a lot of discussion, maybe... --Majorly (Talk) 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to make it a little less often (once a month, or less), and have it generally Foundation-only. I think doing regular interviews with just Wikipedians might cause problems, and having a set schedule (X times a month or year) leads us to do interviews because we feel we have to, not because they're relevant to current issues. But I definitely think more interviews of major people is a good thing. I would say this- since we've previously interviewed Jimbo, perhaps interviewing someone else on the Foundation might be appropriate? Mindspillage would be a good interview soon, as she'll be going to her first face-to-face board meeting this week or next. Anthere would also be a good one, given that she's sort of taken the lead on the current fundraiser.
Also, let me say this- things like Esperanza would not be appropriate questions. If we're interviewing Foundation members, let's ask Foundation questions. If anyone's interested, I'll try to set up an interview with Anthere next week. Ral315 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Anthere was interviewed by Wikinews recently. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The interview has been organised; to view the current script, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Interview. For more information please contact Daniel.Bryant or myself. Cheers, Anthonycfc [TC] 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ral315, Mindspillage would be good, much like the Signpost ran an interview with Erik after he was elected. In fact, we have three new board members, each of whom would be worth interviewing. --Michael Snow 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I really don't think a Jimbo interview would be relevant right now. Ral315 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ral315 (and therefore Michael). Mindspillage is the most relevant person right now, given hisher (hey, it's late!) recent appointment. Any ideas on questions? Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Her recent appointment... ;) -- Longhair\talk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
XD. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Michael here. I actually was thinking about interviewing Kat, Oscar, and Jan after their appointments, but didn't get around to it because of logistics. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I pull out, as I can't afford to spend more time compiling another 'Post section when I already do one. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How about interviewing average Wikipedia users also. We could see how normal users feel about Wikipedia--M W Johnson 12:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - I like that idea a lot more than interviewing the 'big names'. How about picking a random Wikipedian each week and having one of the 'big names' interview them! SteveBaker 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
How would you choose'em? I figure a random name from the top 1000 contributors, and the admins, (discarding choices which happen to "big names") would be a good source. --Gwern (contribs) 03:19 24 January 2007 (GMT)
Why even the top 1000? Why not anyone with an account who has done more than a handful of edits. Discovering the motives and experiences of new editors would be informative to people who've been here a long time. It would be interesting to do someone from the top 100 editors one week, then someone from the top 1000, then 10,000 then 100,000 - cycle it around so that we hear from a wide spectrum of editors. The tricky part is finding an interesting interviewer...and for that, we could pick from the most frequent contributors. SteveBaker 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggested that particular group because I think they are more likely to respond, more likely to have interesting and idiosyncratic things to say, have done or participated in interesting things by virtue of their demonstrated longevity and activity, and are more likely to be grounded in some real knowledge of Wikipedia, as opposed to a newbie who is just learning the ropes and hasn't done much at all. --Gwern (contribs) 04:51 24 January 2007 (GMT)
I would oppose this idea; I think that this can only lead to "pick me, pick me", and become a badge of honor for users. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an interview with someone who is doing something of particular interest? Perhaps interviewing new Arbitrators (*cough*Flcelloguy*cough*), or Walkerma, who is working on WP:1.0, which is close to releasing something, might be a good idea. Titoxd(?!?) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

broken mailing list link

The Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-02/More_CSD article includes a link [8] to a Foundation-l mailing list message from Brad Patrick urging more spam and COI reversion. Somehow in the past few days (definitely less than a week or so ago) that link started pointing to a different message, one about the Wikimedia Foundation logo. The original message described in the Signpost article is now at:

I'm not sure what if anything the Signpost should do about updating the archive. I suggest leaving the old link intact but insert an annotation giving the new link. It's also worrisome that these mailing list links are supposed to be persistent but aren't. I'd like to call that to the right people's attention but am not sure who they are or how to do it. 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the link now; the links to incorrect messages are a result of a recent migration (ironically, that message is also from a mailing list) of the mailing lists server, which apparantly caused all current links to point to a wrong message. The links should be stable now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked on wikitech-l and in hononr of the unstable archive I am quoting the message here rather than linking to it ;)
Just so everyone know this apparently will be an ongoing issue whenever there is a rebuld.-- 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Here something to put in the signpost:

WP London Transport has launched DiPTAC. It is a new section dedicated to improving the accessibility of our articles. Today it has launched a competition to design a new logo for DiPTAC intended to bring our members closer together. I think this is great and I hope other projects do something like this aswell. It is called DiPTAC as it is the name of the original Bus interior layout intended to improve accessibility. Unisouth 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft "tried to doctor Wikipedia" article

G'day all, once again. I saw this article in Australia's fairfax papers about Microsoft sponsored editing of Wikipedia, in case no-one's picked it up yet. Jpeob 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned on Slashdot today also. [9] SteveBaker 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About edits by governments...

...are your columns only interested in the tendentious ones, or all of them? 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. During the election season, I used checkuser on government ranges regularly (to prevent any electioneering on Wikipedia) and I would say 98+% of the edits coming from government ranges are totally legitimate. Raul654 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we're interested in the newsworthy ones. That probably wouldn't be "all of them", but if there are some more worth mentioning, I'd love to know. I did point out some of this other activity when reporting on the congressional staff edits last year. --Michael Snow 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The example of NIDA is a interesting one...

(1) Edits such as those by NIDA happen at least as often with articles about corporations.

Out of curiosity, I have started going through the list of S&P 500 companies and picked out a few (not to single out these particular companies, these just happen to be near the beginning of the alphabet):

Do I need to continue looking through articles in the List of S&P 500 companies?

Article statistics can be viewed using this tool:

As Wikipedians, we need to do a much better job of watching over articles about both government agencies and corporations to watch for these kind of edits. Even with those IPs, we shouldn't "bite the newbies" Maybe those folks are not aware of WP:COI. After being informed of it, and they continue the behavior then it is a problem.

(2) The number of such WP:COI edits to articles about government agencies and corporations outnumber/outweigh the number of Wikipedians watching those articles. Many government agency articles (not just the U.S. government) are edited and watched so infrequently that problem edits like these can easily slip by and remain for too long. It's also easy for errorneous information, perhaps libelous information, and even vandalism to slip by the watchful eye of Wikipedians and remain for too long. I think these articles need to be treated like those about Living People and more attention paid to them.

With the NIDA article, last edits before the NIDA IP edits occurred in March 2006. This material was added in April 2005 by User:Rad Racer who has since left the project and thus not watching the article. The next edits occurred between August 28 - September 29, 2006 by person(s) associated with NIDA, essentially stubbing the article and stripping out the controversy sections which was the bulk of the article. I assume good faith of Rad Racer, but don't know enough about NIDA to be able to judge how accurate or not the criticism section was or what (valid or not?) concerns NIDA had with it. I think should have been treated like Living people bios. They were never asked on their talk page about their edits, informed of WP:COI and other policies. After the NIDA edits in September, the next edits were not made until January 5, 2007, and deleted material restored on January 25. While the fact that NIDA blanked the article is regrettable, it's also regrettable that Wikipedians were not paying any attention to the article for so long and no one tried to work with that IP editor back when those edits occurred.

In this respect, I think the the Q-Clearance sitaution was handled better. It was noticed more promptly, and mentioned recently on the enwiki mailing list, I think by User:Georgewilliamherbert, who sought advice on how to handle this. He requested help from Brad Patrick and asked the IP editor to contact Brad about their concerns.

Apologies for lengthy comments, but IMHO these are bigger issues that need to be mentioned. --Aude (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then they go on VP/AN, as noone'll see them here. Anyway, the one that I know of seems to be perfectly legitimate, so I wont bring it up here. 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Someone up and enabled CAPTCHAs on THIS WIKI!!! They're of the "swirly/fuzzy image" type and, despite what Special:Captcha/help says, they do NOT require cookies. 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently true. I asked on #wikipedia, and Raul654 and Ral315 confirmed it. Apparently the developers enabled it two days ago or something. I can't find any discussion though... --Gwern (contribs) 05:36 22 February 2007 (GMT)
I suppose that's the dark side of Wikipedia: Don't worry about performance. — Feezo (Talk) 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a fallback for vision-impaired users? For those browsing low-bandwidth or text-only? Did the developers address the issues raised in CAPTCHA#Accessibility? This obstacle to automated attacks seems appealing "at first glance", but less so on closer scrutiny. --KSmrqT 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vision-impaired users can visit Wikipedia:Request_an_account where an administrator will create the account for them - no password required - just a desired username and your email address. The password will be sent to your email address where you can change it after if you require. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only will the password be sent to your email address, so will an unending supply of junk mail; see the talk page. --KSmrqT 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this; we're taking precautions. Anyone using this page would have to specifically target this page, hitting the history about once a day (since we're deleting history to remove e-mail addresses), and for such specific targeting, would receive about 5-10 addresses a day. Ral315 » 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiWorld comics suggestion

It would be nice to have a wikilink on the WikiWorld comic page to the article it is based on so if one wants to read more one doesn't need to copy and paste or type manually the title of the article. It might make the most sense after the paragraph about Greg Williams, just saying "This week's comic is based on [{Foo]]. JoshuaZ 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually linked in the byline. Ral315 » 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, for some reason I didn't notice that. Never mind. JoshuaZ 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But what about a permalink to the revision being quoted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would include the text in a box, so it could be translated to other languages and I suggest include the comic trips in Wininews also. --Altermike 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews only publishes news. -- Zanimum 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Slow news week?

Was it a slow news week this week? I suppose the ongoing news stories of the past few weeks has led me to expect something in addition to the regular features every week. Oh well. At least it means I've caught up more quickly with my Signpost reading! Carcharoth 13:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was. There's currently the spat over WP:ATT, and the verification thing is slowly rolling along, but honestly now that the Essjay thing has passed into the past tense, there doesn't seem to be too much shocking or headliner news. --Gwern (contribs) 16:36 22 March 2007 (GMT)

You Got Sourced!

The Wikipedia Signpost was recently sourced in a Wikinews article: Two Wikimedia employees announce resignations. 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a backlog improvement drive?

Peer review is suffering -- a year and a half ago almost every article put up for peer-review got at least four comments, but now it seems like more than half don't get any. How about sending your intrepid reporters through the bowels of WP:BACK and please let us, the Signpost reading community, know which backlogs are the worst? Thanks as usual for your excellent work. James S. 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll start working on an article soon. Not sure if it will get into the 04/30 issue; if not then the 05/07 issue. -Phoenix 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation news

Does the Signpost cover Wikimedia Foundation news? I think it covers the big WMF stories, but I'm not sure about the other stuff. The reason I was wondering was that a recent thread (possibly newsworthy in itself) showed confusion over Gregory Maxwell's role, and I raised this here, and after ferretting around the WMF wiki pages (not that well organised, but then they have more important things to do), wondered if the changes in staff and volunteers at WMF is covered by the Signpost? I've failed to find comprehensive coverage of staff/volunteer changes in the Signpost. Maybe someone could monitor the WMF WMF resolutions page and other appropriate pages, and there could be a regular entry on WMF news in the Signpost? If these sort of things are covered more widely, there might be less confusion in future. Carcharoth 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe many though not all of the staff changes have been covered, but I don't remember whether Chief Research Officer (now Coordinator) was, and it's a volunteer and not staff position at any rate. We did report the resignation a couple years ago of the first person to have that role, Erik Möller. But at the volunteer level, such as a lot of the chapter activity, it's beyond our capability to "comprehensively" cover all the comings and goings. And even in terms of paid staff, some things are newsworthy and some are more behind-the-scenes, and the dynamic will probably continue to change as the Foundation adds staff. Resolutions get mentioned periodically, although sometimes the resolutions themselves are pretty bare-bones and hard to make a story out of. --Michael Snow 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. The CRO/CRC resolution is 11th February on that list, if that helps track down whether it was mentioned. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/News and notes

The section about my unreferenced BLPs list seems to stipulate that I created my list as a result of the ongoing conversations that have been going on. While I was definitely aware of the situations OTRS persons have to deal with, I actually was unaware of such conversation until recently. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions about an article...

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-28/BLP,_DRV,_ARB,_IRC - Some questions for the editor/writer... Jenolen speak it! 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

templates are bad

there's a bad link here[10] but I wasn't able to fix it easily because the actual content wasn't there. Mkultra72 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article commas

I think that the list of articles that were/are promoted to FA should be separated by semicolons, not commas. That would prevent any confusion with articles such as Erie, Pennsylvania, which, especially (or rather, only) in the email format, makes it confusing. 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (OverMyHead)

That's something I honestly hadn't considered; actually, what might be better is separating them differently in the e-mail format. I'll try something out this time, let me know what you think. Ral315 » 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions about another article...

Again, some questions for the writer/editor... (not sure if this was noted before)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09/Board elections


Jenolen speak it! 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Urgent issue

I would fix this myself, but I am not sure how to word. On the bug review section, it says documentation on mediawiki's features is on meta. It should not be on meta, and this will encourage users to create it there. It should all be on, where it is in the progress of being moved to. Could someone change this? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, documentation on how to use the features (for users) is and ought to be on meta; see m:Help:Contents and Help:Contents (the local enwiki version, of which many pages are transwikied from Meta). Documentation on how to set up and run a wiki ought to be on (although I appreciate that some of it is on meta by mistake). Compare m:Help:Reverting (correctly on Meta in my opinion) and mw:Manual:Edit token, for instance. The wording probably needs to be clarified further. ais523 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, see the user hub on User instructions etc should be on, the reason it is not fully is the fact that the help namespace on is PD. It is in progress of being moved over, just that dev stuff is a higher priority. Only wikimedia-wiki-specific information should be on meta. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the news

A very interesting BBC article here on Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits By Jonathan Fildes Science and technology reporter, BBC News

An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.

Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.

It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams."

Hmm. Might be an explanation for the way articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army and their activities get routinely sanitised... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Buttons for Fundraiser 2007

I just wanted to draw your attention to the e-mail I sent to the various mailing lists:

Hi, some of you probably already noted that we are starting to work on the fundraiser. Over time you will see some requests for help here and I hope you will do so  :-)

At this stage there are two active tasks and one of it is the creation of the Buttons for the fundraiser.


First examples and translations:

So if you have ideas to create buttons, banners etc: just do it :-)

Wishing you a creative and wonderful day!


If you have a way to get this out to people that would be great - thank you! -- 6 September 2007 Sabine —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the news: Spiegel

No idea if thats appropriate here, but as I did not find a better place I'll mention it here: German Magazine Der Spiegel reports in his online edition about "strife in web lexicon" and "Wikipedia-founder not allowed to write" ("Wikipedia-Gründer darf nicht mitschreiben") , listing another four of the absurdest Wikipedia-Debates, including Vossstraße oder Voßstraße?. See also [11]. No idea whether they put it in the print edition, too (out each Monday). -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POST/N/S is probably the best place to post suggestions for things to cover, but it's likely this post will be seen here as well. --ais523 08:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, mentioned it there, too. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Status Quo related Vandalism

Not sure where to stick this, so here goes:

From the latest b3ta newsletter:

>> Quopedia vandalism << "Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We would like to divulge to you the following very sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of our labour, but for obvious reasons can't reveal the location of each image - so here is a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your newsletter's readers could aid us in our glorious mission?"

There is a weblink in the original newsletter to a photo: the same photo is in the Notting Hill carnival (photo of the crowd) and is vandalised. 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For those of you without eagle eyes - Status Quo are about 4 oclock from the 'Kebabs Fish and Chips' sign at the left of the image, quite small so you'll have to squint 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act rewrite completed

I've finally completed a total rewrite of the article USA PATRIOT Act. Rather than do the editing on the main article and cause it to be in an unfinished state for long periods, I wrote a draft and polished it there. The draft can be found at Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft.

I have worked on this in sections. The edit history can be found at:

What I did, if anyone is interested, was to work backwards. Most people write the article and then create umbrella articles, however I did things differently. I read each of the titles in turn, and tried to summarise them into a usable form. Those articles are at varying degrees of quality. The articles are USA PATRIOT Act, Title I, USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV, USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII, USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX and USA PATRIOT Act, Title X. Then I summarised these articles into a titles section. Before this, I wrote and researched the history of the Act and I hope that this is fairly comprehensive.

The reason that I decided to undergo this mamoth task was because in 2004 Law Professor Orin Kerr wrote a highly critical blog entry about our article. This was then noted by slashdot, which is how I noticed his blog post. So I decided to have a read of the entry, then read the article itself, fully expecting to be outraged at how unfair the Professor was towards the project. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the article really was that bad. It has remained in much the same state every since.

I therefore decided that I would focus my attentions on this article. Precisely how hard could it be? Well, had I known the time and effort that this was to have taken me, I might have chosen an easier topic! There is information out there on the Partiot Act, but much of it is distorted or biased by either supporters or detractors. Another issue is that many of the titles just aren't documented, so I've read the entire Act on my own, aided by Patrick Leahy's section summary, CRS's summary and many other sources that do actually talk about the Act. This took me over two years to do, in which time I neglected editing other articles.

Along the way, however, I've learned a lot. I have a better understanding of how the U.S. Government works, how laws are created, how the U.S. Code is put together and how to read Acts of Congress. I've also learned how to use THOMAS and that the U.S. has this great service call the Congressional Research Service, which does an invaluable job of summarising and providing info about U.S. legislation.

So it's been fun! I do hope that people can get something useful out of this article now, as when I first read it I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the Act did, or why it was so controversial. There were also major gaps and inaccuracies in the article. It should be a lot better organized and informative now. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh? In other circumstances I might have said "Well done!", but why mention it here..? --Kjoonlee 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping that an editor would notice and write a signpost article. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wanting to advertise a different way to edit? Carcharoth 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me that "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" being the full expansion of USA PATRIOT Act is a bad joke? They spent the time thinking up words to fit "patriot" that could have been spent, oh I don't know, gathering intelligence on terrorists? Carcharoth 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No. Call your local member of Congress. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be Gordon Brown, member for the 51st state. Carcharoth 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be a Signpost story, being an interesting follow-up on external criticism of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions is probably the right forum to post this, though. Punkmorten 09:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'll do that :-) Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article citation in movie

If there is no other movie on earth citing wikipedia article, then this Indian Hindi langauge movie Bhool Bhulaiyaa is the first one to cite wikipedia article Shirley Mason although this article is changed since the date of shooting.

TRIRASH 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news

Wikipedia page the latest status symbol

Quite an interesting article by Reuters on the process of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. ArielGold 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fundraiser story

Is there a link where we can see the total money in dollars raised in this drive in real time? • Lawrence Cohen 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think so. I've had to tally it by hand for this week's article... Ral315 » 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's here: I only found it due to a link on Talk:Main Page (in a comment by Eloquence). --ais523 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As of 2007-11-05 Amount of Contributions in USD is 390,829.74 with roughly 1000 contributors a day and 1000 dollars an hour; but to be exact, 27.80 dollars per contribution so far. WAS 4.250 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate statements

I've been reading the candidate statements and I find it slightly odd that the categories for adminship, etc. are listed as "Local rights" and "Global rights". I know this sounds picky, but something like "duties" or "responsibilities" sounds a bit less demeaning to the rest of us, who are apparently not "more equal", as George Orwell would say. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it slightly because not all are rights, but strictly speaking, adminship, bureaucratship, etc. are considered rights within the software; that's where the terminology comes from. To call them duties or responsibilities would not entirely be truthful -- there's nothing requiring an administrator to actually do anything. I think "rights/positions" covers it best. Ral315 » 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. (I thought becoming an administrator did have the expectation of responsibilities, but perhaps I misunderstand.) Awadewit | talk 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly hope that we haven't given up at least paying lip service to the idea of admin responsibilities. Kaldari (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are expectations, but an administrator could conceivably become an administrator and then do nothing, with no repercussions. Certainly there are requirements that one not act negatively with the rights, but administrators who leave the project, for example, do not lose the right for doing so, even though they've stopped helping out. This is a bit off-topic anyway; I was trying to analyze the meaning of the words, not make a statement about administrators :) Ral315 » 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blow by blow coverage

It would be neat if the Signpost did some blow by blow coverage of the arbcom elections. Like asking users why they voted, who they like and why, who they think will win, etc. Mbisanz 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if publishing personal favourites if a good idea, especially if the person being asked is someone well known and influential... enochlau (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
With public voting, the need for polling is not that high. I have thought of how interesting it would be to poll random users a week or two prior to the election to find out who they're planning on voting for; however, that would potentially influence the election (who withdraws, etc.) and since we're part of the community, not independent, I don't think it would be appropriate to do so.
I'm not sure if it would be within the Signpost's remit, but I also think it'd be cool to have a page that lists every single voter, and their vote on each nomination, in a sortable table. Ral315 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what problem such a sortable table would solve. For what purpose could anyone use it for, apart from trying to pick on poor voters who didn't vote a particular way? enochlau (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea. I'm just a stats geek, and would be interested in having voter-by-voter stats. I also have no intention of doing this for the Signpost. Ral315 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My thought was it would be interesting to see how many voters actually read and compared all the candidates, how many were 1 vote wonders, how many voted the same for all candidates, etc. Still, probably not a good idea if users can be singled out for retribution. Mbisanz 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You could get one of the bots giving the regular updates to feed out data on how percentages and number of votes varied over time. The graphs showing that could look interesting. One key statistic would be the number of people who voted and how many people voted once, twice, three time, and so on, up to voting for all candidates. No need to identify the voters. Of course, you could end up with a unique stat like "only one person voted for only one person" (actually, one of the Giano voters has said that already, so that wouldn't be unecessarily highlighting anyone). Anyway, it is quite easy to anonymize such data. Quite easy to do as well, once the voting is finished. If there is interest, I could give it a go, though I suspect others may also have plans. Carcharoth 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Observation for this year that might not have been the case previously. This year seems marked by a rather significant degree of "oppose all except one or 2 people" voting. It doesn't take many opposes to lower the percentages a lot for everyone.

So one observation comparing 2007 to 2006, might be, the possible lower percentages may be in part, a symptom of that. Just a thought and notable observation. Just a thought :) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

A user wrote this on my talk page, posting here:

Not sure if this counts as an "in the news" type of thing, but wikipedia was insulted in a recent episode of the Simpsons. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

enochlau (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Twice in the last month, actually. 2 or 3 weeks ago, Snake told his girlfriend by phone "Someone's been editing my Wikipedia article. Kill him". In the more recent one, (Funeral for a Fiend) Sideshow bob called Wikipedia infernal something-or-other (I can't remember the exact quote). Raul654 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tips or Signpost talk?

Consider whether these discussions belong here or on the Signpost Tip Line. -- SEWilco 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point; the tip line is a much better spot for many of these discussions -- they're more likely to be noticed and reported on there. Ral315 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't a highly visible link to the tip line added at the top of this discussion page? Badagnani (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there should only be one page - because discussion about the Signpost and discussion about future content are usually somewhat intertwined. I suggest that we archive one of the two pages and redirect that to the other? enochlau (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


I discovered the article Surface diffusion through WP:DYK. That article, less than a week old, contains numerous references, images created specifically for it, and other fantastic work. Can't we do something to celebrate creators of such great content, like User:Runningamok19? Adam Cuerden talk 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Its its a signpost thing, thats up to Ral315. But may I suggest your give Runningamok19 a day in his honor on the model of User:Phaedriel/Today/Archive and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_holidays? Mbisanz (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing milestone

I notice that Lir, who was banned in January 2005 as a result of the Snowspinner vs. Lir arbitration, saw his ban finally expire on Monday after almost three years. I only make note of this fairly useless bit of information because the ban of Lir was the first item ever reported in "The Report On Lengthy Litigation", in Volume 1, Issue 1 of the Signpost on January 10, 2005. Congrats on the milestone (such as it were)! --JayHenry (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice; I noticed the expiration, but not the connection to Volume 1, Issue 1. I don't necessarily think we should cover it, though, in fairness to Lir. Should Lir become a problem user, I'm sure we'll report on the ensuing community ban that I'm sure would occur; otherwise, if he's interested in editing constructively, I don't wish to call him out. (The most likely possibility, of course, is that Lir won't edit again under that name, but that's another story). Ral315 (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree it's not worth covering. I just wanted to share at WT:POST because I figured other hardcore Signpost fans (and writers and editors, of course) would get a kick out of it, as I did! --JayHenry (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The arbitration case says 1 year. Ah. I see. One of those frequently reset bans due to block evasion with sockpuppets. That should have been noted at the arbitration case page. But still, it's all in the block logs. Or maybe the checkusers got tired of checking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For next Signpost: one of the best articles ever written about WP

See Badagnani (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it reads like the slew of articles that came out about wikipedia in 2005, with a few grafs tucked here and there about recent complications. It sounds like the author and/or editors discovered wikipedia two months ago. ("Hey - anybody can edit; that's weird! Let's write about it.") - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's still refreshing that people can do human interest WIkipedia stories without going for the teacher or Seigenthaler angle. Circeus (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

I have placed a post on the above linked page explaining some of the rationale for the decision, and would be delighted to answer any additional questions that the signpost editors might wish to ask. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe UC meant to post this link Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Case reasoning and guidance for other administrators Mbisanz (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting post by UC (and I agree entirely with what he has said). It might be an idea if someone points this development out to the editor who writes the Arbitration report part of the Signpost. They might miss it here, or might only be looking at the tip line page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That appears to be User:David.Mestel Mbisanz (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Note left. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed that many of the content and editor conduct RfC's posted lately haven't received much community participation. Perhaps, in addition to the ArbCom case report, you might list the open RfC's with a brief description of each. RfC participation is important because they are one of the most important steps in dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, there's just too many content Rfc's for me to cover. I think Jake should be able to help out next week; though, so maybe we could add something then? If you'd like to add the content/editor Rfc's to DRAMA you'll be welcomed with chocolate chip cookies. :D §hepTalk 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to help out with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue going out on the 23rd is just getting started at User:Stepshep/Signpost. If you'd like to add content to this week's edition that'd be the place for an eventual merge. The cookies are good. Promise. §hepTalk 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Can you talk a bit about the Graphic Labs. That s an interesting graphic initiative, and we just openned a Map lab :] --Yug (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Workshop (make a request) | Map Workshop (make a request)

Couple more things

What do you guys think about adding WP:UPDATE's monthly summary of guideline changes? If would have to be modified a bit to fit with the post's style, but it's very useful information just not widely publicized. I count that at the end of January it had about 40 or so hits for the January report for one page and less than 20 for another. The author might even agree to provide us one in the Posts' format if we ask nicely. Thoughts? §hepTalk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could just a line in News and notes pointing readers to the summary in the issue after each new summary becomes available. I don't see how these digests could be condensed much more, and there's no need to duplicate the effort by re-writing it all over again just to fit Signpost style when a link will do just fine. Just a thought.--ragesoss (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if written in a form that works with the Signpost (i.e., more prose), I think running it as a monthly feature might work too.--ragesoss (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a single link in NN. I just thought that part of the project could use a flashlight. §hepTalk 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion report

This is an excellent addition to the Signpost. Too often, discussions go on with limited input simply because the majority of editors are unaware of them. I think that this should be included every week. I'd suggest following the example of the Lengthy Litigation page by including discussions from prior weeks. Maybe have two sections: One at the top: Newly Listed Discussions and then underneath it, Previously Listed Discussions. Once a discussion has been closed, drop it from the list. Unschool 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepTalk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Would anyone be objected to going over to the Graphic Lab to see if anyone over there would be interested in carrying out WikiWorld. The comic artist seems to want to approve anything that uses "his" name of WikiWorld, but something similar maybe? Of course they'd have to go under the scrutiny of Ragesoss and others before they got okayed, but that always looked like a neat section that brought some light to obscure articles and a bit of humor which we could always use. Or maybe the project was discontinued here for a reason? Thanks, §hepTalk 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it was discontinued was because Greg Williams stopped making new comics. (Actually, the Signpost continued running repeats for a while when new comics were occasional and it was unclear whether Williams would pick it up again.) I'd love to have new comics to run, but producing decent comics is no simple task, even for people with graphics skills and/or writing skills.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some artists over there that seem to have a stream of FPs created. I'll see if anyone would have interest; then post back for you to review if some talent bites the bait. Thanks, §hepTalk 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Humorous wikipedia-culture cartoons are not necessarily out of the question. Fr:'s Rama has made some rather funny stuff. Circeus (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the news

The AJR article appears to be from this time, 2008. Can I ask why it was included? §hepTalk 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No. No you cannot ask why.--ragesoss (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
heh, I read it and thought "that sounds a lot like a similar article I read a while ago" but didn't catch the date :) Regardless, it's a good article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts "news ticker".

Just to let you know we're setting up an "Other news" section for the article alerts (see WP:AAlerts/News). It's not live yet, but since you guys hound the 'pedia for news-related stuff, I thought I'd let you know. What would be acceptable in this (IMO) is anything that WikiProjects would have an interest in, and Signpost releases. I'm also letting you know so you can monitor the "new request page" so you can get ideas for the signpost coverage.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing tip of the week

I think it might be useful to include in each issue a brief editing tip — the kind of stuff that a lot of editors might not know about. For example

  • If you put stub templates after categories, the stub categories will appear at the end of the category list.
  • You can link to a page that starts with a leading slash, such as /dev/null, by including a leading colon in your link: [[:/dev/null]].
  • You can make a multi-paragraph bullet point by using <p> to separate the paragraphs: * Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2.

Hesperian 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Love this week's...

It was great to see some unusual articles in this week's Signpost - love the followup on the Obama story, and really loved the bit about the researchers who analyzed the arb processes.

Well done, really interesting stuff. - Philippe 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to second this btw. Last weeks issue was one of the best ever. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Section title for Arbcom case reports

The title for Arbcom matters ("Report on Lengthy Litigation") might be better changed to "Arbitration activities" or "Arbitration cases and activities" or some such:

  1. Arbcom has for some time deprecated and discouraged words that have "real world" legal meaning such as "probation" and "litigation". They have potential to be assumed to have a similar meaning when quoted off wikipedia, leading to potential defamatory impact if reported using such terms.
  2. A lot of Arbcom activity isnt just "cases", and the section often reports (or would be improved by reporting) the committee's other major activities when there are such.
  3. It sounds pretentious. And nobody calls it anything like that :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

These come up in a quick search of the linked archives. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Past editor-in-chiefs have commented there. §hepTalk 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't sound very pretentious in the abbreviated form, which is actually the point :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My open letter

The article says: "Larry Sanger posted an open letter to Jimmy Wales' talk page last week, outlining his dispute with Wales over the issue of who founded Wikipedia."

That's not how I would put it. I did not outline the whole dispute, nor was my letter focused first and foremost on "the issue of who founded Wikipedia." Rather, I took Jimmy Wales to task for his lies about me. What inspired the letter was not a lack of agreement on the foundership issue, but instead, several specific lies and misrepresentations about me in the recent Hot Press interview, and in other public sources in the past.

Quite poor reporting on the subject altogether. --Larry Sanger (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when Jimmy Wales appeared on German nationwide early-morning TV program Morgenmagazin on April 6, he was introduced by the moderator as "co-founder together with Larry Singer [sic]." The program's web page for that day states, Jimmy Wales, in der Szene auch Jimbo genannt, hat das Online-Lexikon 2001 gemeinsam mit Larry Sanger in den USA gegründet. (Jimmy Wales, or Jimbo as he is called in the culture, founded the online encyclopedia jointly with Larry Sanger in the U.S. in 2001.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject report

I would suggest eliminating or modifying the weekly wikiproject reports. First of all, they are not reports about the wikiprojects, but rather softball interviews of particular (and apparently random) wikipedians who work on projects. The interviews in Signpost simply accept everything the interviewee says as true. How are the editors to be interviewed selected? Why do we care about the interviewee's favorite article and the other personal information that these interviews contain? IMO, including this section, as currently structured and executed, makes the signpost look like more of a frothy club rag than a serious journalistic effort. If we need to add content to the signpost, how about, instead, an actual report on what projects are doing, what they hope to accomplish and have accomplished, and why the project featured needs the assistance of wikipedians more than other projects. How about a report on the projects that have refused to use the C-class ratings, and why? Or, instead of the wikiproject reports, a report on what is happening at wikimeetups and chapters around the world? I like the suggestion of the guy above who asked about adding a secion on editing tips. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in what others think of the WikiProject reports in the current interview format. While I agree that they are essentialyl "softball interviews" and are somewhat at odds with what happens in the rest of the Signpost, my own attitude has been that one doesn't have to read them if one isn't interested, that they put a personal perspective on what people think of the work they do on Wikipedia (and thus may have a positive community-building role), and that because they foster a different kind of self-reflection than the types of meta-discussion that takes place elsewhere on Wikipedia they might be a valuable record down the road for people looking at how Wikipedia works/worked.
All that said, I do prefer actual reports on WikiProjects. But that's a lot tougher of an undertaking than interviews, and the Signpost depends on what people are willing to write.--ragesoss (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see more reports on meetups and chapter events regardless -- if anyone wants to help with this let me know. And please post if you'd also like more meetup coverage; I'm happy to run an ongoing upcoming/reports section in News & Notes at least. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)