Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Published

Published, seems to have gone correctly. Let me know ASAP if not the case. Thanks all, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks all, esp. @Eddie891: Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
We had a moment of edit conflict on RR but it looks OK. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I guesstimated next issue publishing on September 26, feel free of course to adjust the countdown clock widget as appropriate. - Bri.public (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 7 (August)

All: You can use the button above to monitor feedback on the August 29 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Traffic report anomaly in August issue

This edit just before publication seems to have introduced a second table labeled August 15 through 21, but with different contents. It's probably the unpublished August 22–28 articles, but not sure. - Bri.public (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed, this appears to be Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/August 22 to 28, 2021 not yet published at WP:TOP25. Do we want to remove or ...? - Bri.public (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
While I'm discussing this item, this text (introduced in same edit) makes absolutely no sense to me: YouTube - it's a perenially popular article, numbers are never suspicious. But better put something we can explain the inclusion! - Bri.public (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We exclude from WP:TOP25 entries that have fishy viewership numbers, whether because the percentages (too much on either desktop or mobile) indicate artificial views, or because no matter if the numbers fit there is no reasonable explanation for so many visits (even if the mobile percentage was 57%, why Skathi (moon) had 2 million views in July?). The only suspicious part of YouTube is how it went for 60k hits a day to 80k, but I decided to start not including an entry that doesn't have any further explanation than "perenially popular" (the annual deaths is enough). And this week, YouTube's views would've been #9, which even qualifies for the Signpost's reduced list. But you didn't understand it, and it's not a particularly necessary explanation, so I cut it. igordebraga ≠ 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bri and Igordebraga: I don't view this as a crisis. No harm, no foul. But it's not a good practice going forward. I'm real surprised nothing has popped up in the comments. I was expecting that anything said about Afghanistan in this issue would cause an uproar - even if it was "Mary had a little lamb" Well it hasn't.
That said, it's probably a good time for Igordebraga and I to get together and review our expectations for the column - what we both want to accomplish in the future. I don't see any problems, but this might be the time to talk about formatting and the "overall look" of the column. I'll send Igordb an email within the week. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Just Igor. And you really think it needs change? The only way I'd think of reinventing would be a single monthly one instead of the four weekly ones. But not in a way that requires extra work, and given the tool only compiles at a month's start while the Signpost is published at the end, can't even consider it. Better stick to the easy and still effective current way. igordebraga ≠ 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

In the media

Tripodi

I've commented on your bit in the latest Signpost: "TRIPODI: From above: "Dr. Tropodi, a researcher at the University of North Carolina, reports that biographies of women are more likely to be nominated for deletion than similar male biographies." - not true at all. Tripodi's paper neither tested this proposition, not made any such conclusion. What Tripodi's paper was actually about was well reported in the last issue, with an excellent analysis of the statistical flaws in her conclusions." - please either correct your text, or say where you think she says this. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is virtually a direct quote from the summary of her research published by Marketplace, There are about 1.5 million biographies on Wikipedia. Only about 19% of them are about women. And those that do get published are much more likely to be targeted for deletion, compared to biographies of men. CBC similarly stated A new study by American sociologist Francesca Tripodi shows that its volunteer editors nominate women's pages on Wikipedia for deletion at a higher rate than men's pages. Maybe Smallbones will tell me I missed something here, but if not, I don't particularly see a need for correction. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
So is Marketplace, whatever that is, an RS on this? It doesn't sound like it. So journalists are too lazy to get their sources correct? Hold the front page! Either the statement should be attributed to these sources, or better, it should be removed, as it isn't true. Or doesn't Signpost care about that? Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Marketplace is a nationally syndicated, Peabody Award-winning radio program with over 10 million listeners, distributed by American Public Media. So yeah, it's a reliable source. In my book anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I'm pretty sure I got this right. If not, could you restate in layman's language (a requirement for The Signpost) what you think she said (of similar length to my statement). Wikipedia is not usually a place for "appeal to authority" but if @HaeB: says I got it wrong, I'll issue a correction. I don't think it will happen though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much what she said, as it wasn't a conclusion from her research, which you covered properly last issue. It's probably unfair to expect journalists to challenge obscure stuff that's wrong in their interviews. Jess Wade went on the BBC's Woman's Hour (multi awards, some 4m listeners) a while ago and kicked off the interview by saying that 90% of Wikipedia was written by white American males (nonsense of course, that's a known unknown, but one can estimate it's likely to be 35-40% taking the various factors). They didn't challenge her. I've edited the page to remove the wrong & misleadingly-presented sentence, & made further points on talk. Since you have people like HaeB & Piotrus, I think you should leave this sort of thing to them. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for a reader to jump past this conversation, which includes the EinC stating that he is considering a correction, and make his own personally-preferred revision to the publication [1]. I see it's been reverted by EinC already, but noting it here for other Newsroom folks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing content after publication

I appreciate @Bri:'s comment above and I've been extremely puzzled by @Johnbod: comments all the way though this. Johnbod is an extremely valued contributor to Wikipedia and likely knows as much or more about the gender gap as anybody. I do not attribute his actions to bad faith, ignorance, or anything like that. But we have to conclude sometimes that even well-intentioned experts can make seemingly amazing mistakes, as he himself points out above. A journalist's job is to challenge those mistakes, and we have in this case. I'm at least 99% sure what he wrote is incorrect and we'll leave it there for now. Let's all move back to a somewhat more civil tone now. (Not that anything really got out of hand.)

There is one thing else and that is changing the content of a Signpost article post-publication. It just can't be done without the agreement of the writer(s) and the editor-in-chief. I'll note that I wrote the sentence Johnbod objected to while I compiled several parts of the story mostly written by Bri. We cannot allow post-publication changes in Signpost content without the agreement of the writers, and in almost all cases, the editor-in-chief. To allow such changes would be to lose our independence and allow folks like the WMF, Arbcom to censor us. No way. We make the final decision on content, The community or Arbcom can delete the page if they think it breaks enWiki rules, but they can't dictate the content of any page here. And nobody - absolutely nobody - is going to dictate what appears under somebody else's byline without the writer's approval.

Unfortunately this seems to need repetition once or twice a year. I wrote the following version on the "In the media" talk page on the run. Perhaps we can standardize it and put it on the About page. It's a bit too long and a bit too harsh. Comments welcome. 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as readers - or anybody else who is not on the staff of The Signpost - making post-publication "corrections" to the content of an article, that is inconsistent with the project's rules and 16 years of The Signpost's practice. We are an independent newspaper that presents the news truthfully to the best of our ability as well as our contributor's opinions. We do not necessarily represent - or claim to represent - the views of the WMF, its affiliates, ArbCom, admins, or even non-staffers who are part of our very diverse community. I believe that our readers would not want it otherwise. That means that The Signpost has the final say on our content. Please do not ever change our published content in opposition to the views of our staff. Of course the overall rules of enWiki apply here. The applicable rules are those that apply to WikiProjects and talk page content, e.g. do not change the content of another user's signed content. You may make a request at WP:MfD or even ArbCom if you disagree.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Extremely well said, Smallbones. The solution is to either full protect every issue of The Signpost by default, or, as I and others have suggested many times, host it on a server that is not owned by the WMF. It would then also be possible to pick-n-choose the readers' comments like all other news media do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Smallbones. hosting it off-Wiki would be easier than you think. A WordPres CMS site (which is what the WMF uses these days) is very easy to edit and no mark up to learn and no complex 'publishing' procedure. A mass message could still be sent to all the subscribers wth a teaser: 'The new issue of The Signpost' is now out with exiting stories about x, x, x, and x. See it online at xxxxxxx and read it on any computer or mobile device, or download your PDF copy here.' Soooo easy... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek on War in Afghanistan

Newsweek's August 31 article we reference says they "reached out to Wikipedia", I think to confirm that the article can still be edited by anyone. Seems to me it has had a WP:SILVERLOCK since September 2. Anyway the commentary may need to be adjusted. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bri, feel free to adjust, it may be overly snarky as-is. Bad writing on my part. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm going to keep some distance from this one. Just wanted to point out our commentary may have missed the point of their question to enwp, namely it was about protection, not content. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I just looked at the article with mobile viewer – which the majority of WP readers use if I'm not mistaken. I don't see the lock icon. Not great communication on our part. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • New consideration for Signpost staff – there's a related "who won" RfC at Talk:Flag of Afghanistan that doesn't have a lot of activity (yet). Should we mention it? Maybe worth a mention as a comment in the In the news or a separate item in another column? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong /national security Law incident

moved to Signpost suggestions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

meta:Requests_for_comment/Ongoing_issues_at_Chinese_Wikipedia_-_Resorting_to_legal_threats_and_the_personal_safety_of_HongKong_Wikipedians
zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#就WG在qq群威胁其他wiki编辑诉诸法律一事，敦请公布调查结果。

In short:

An investigation report compiled by neutral zh admin Antigng is complete, and was sent to some other local admin, although the report itself will not be made public due to privacy concerns. The screenshot is real and unaltered and Walter Grassroot made false statement.

Specific phase:

  • 截图纯属无中生有，该对话或类似对话实际未于QQ群组发生：本人认为该断言成立的可能性几乎为零（即其成立的可能性可描述为1- 已确认）；

The screenshot is fake and that conservation or similar conversation did not happen in QQ group: I believe that the probability of that conjecture is true is almost zero (That the probability of screenshot is real is one - confirmed)

  • 截图基于真实QQ群组对话，但有所篡改，以至于当事用户Walter Grassroot君实际并未发表“举报香港用户至国安”或类似言论：本人认为该断言成立的可能性很小（即其成立的可能性可描述为1- 很可能）；

That screenshot is based on conversation in the QQ group is real but is edited and or modified, so much that involved user Walter Grassroot did not in fact made a statement of "Reporting HK user to National Law [authority]" or something similar: I believe the probability of that conjecture is true is very low (That the probability of screenshot is real is one - very likely)

  • 涉事用户Walter Grassroot君未在本案中提供不实信息：本人认为该断言成立的可能性很小，且该种可能性小于b)部分所涉断言成立的可能性；

That involved user Walter Grassroot did not make false statement in this incident: I believe that the probability of that conjecture is true is very low, and that probability is lower than the probability of second point.

Someone told Antigng that staff in Wikimedia foundation believe that this incidnet should leave at local Wikipedia level.

SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Two big paid editing articles for September issue

These articles, in theory, should not be difficult to write, but the more help and the more eyes on them the better. Much of both of them are already documented in the mainstream press.

  • Buntestag paid editing/COI editing scandal ahead of late September election. in the news Wikipedia - Mit freundlichen Edits aus dem Bundestag and on deWiki de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Olaf Kosinsky; Subteno. According to the news article deWiki is already working on a plan. My plan for The Signpost is that somebody who speaks German (definitely not me) summarizes the news article(s), as well as the deWiki plan, interview briefly a few German Wikipedians, and watch what the further election and Wikipedia news is in the German press. "Simple" article to write, but lots of work. Any volunteers?
  • Owners, execs of Renaissance Technologies have settled with IRS for a record $7 billion in back taxes, interest, and penalties. Previous overall record was $3.45 billion, individual record (covered in The Signpost $1billion+)Coverage in NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, AP etc,) This part of the story is already rock-solid. I've only spent 1-2 hours looking at our articles Renaissance Technologies, Robert Mercer, and Jim Simons (mathematician), but all the usual signs are there, e,g, one declared paid editor, lots of banned socks. The also 2 big political connections. I'll need a bit of help on this one.

Together the 2 stories will likely blow a lot of socks off. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosinsky

  • Bayerischer Rundfunk (state public radio) covered the first story here. I think we will see more of this in German press, English sources maybe not so much. By the way, Jan Böhmermann's reporting (or entertainment/satire? he reminds me of John Oliver) called the phenomenon of COI editing schmutziges Wikipedia-Geheimnis, a "filthy wiki-secret". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Bri's comparison captures it well - it's a comedy/satire format with some serious journalism mixed in, with a lot of parallels to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.
The dewiki story is indeed important to cover, with several angles to it. I'll hopefully have a bit more Signpost/WP bandwidth this time than last month and should be able to help by summarizing/translating relevant bits from various parts (although probably not by interviewing people).
Note that according to his user pages, Kosinsky has been an (or the) organizer for Wiki Loves Parliaments from its very first edition on (which, btw, I covered briefly in "News and notes" back in 2009). And from 2012 to 2014 he was paid as a project manager for these efforts out of a WMDE grant. The Wikimedia Foundation also funded one of his grant requests in 2014 ("Wikipedians in European Parliament", see also these 2019 comments by a WMF program officer).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Am I reading that grant page correctly? 10,000 Euros granted and according to the WMF employee we have tried to contact Olaf Kosinsky both here on the grant page as well as over email many times over several years. Unfortunately, he has never responded and we were not able to get an interim or final report on this project? Our readers are going to go nuts over this. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Olaf Kosinsky was active, he organized and carried out the state parliament projects where MPs were photographed. Also in the EU Parliament. He must have used this contact and probably the idea with the PE has grown over time. It became obvious when Jan Böhmermann (quite popular in de), after doing some research, tried to get in touch with the PR agency of Kosinsky and then commissioned three rather stupid additions. They did that, he delivered with the sock and on Friday it was broadcast in the evening program. – Itti
Olaf Kosinsky was a very prolific and experienced editor and a significant part of his contributions were apparently not paid for. As far as I can see, Olaf Kosinsky was using sockpuppets for paid editing but used his main account to support these activities by moving articles from draft to main space (at en:wp, example), by reviewing new articles (at de:wp, example), and by processing VRT tickets which were related to his paid activities (example). The problem is that we just know some of the socks but there are probably more which did not come up in the CU results at de:wp as they weren't used in the last three months. – AFBorchert
Sadly, it looks like not a lot has improved since The Signpost published Manipulation of Wikipedia a "problem for democracy" over seven years ago, also concerning covert Wiki manipulation by PR firms, documented in a German television exposé. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, on that same 7 year old page is this "The 38,650 Euro project led by Olaf Kosinsky was funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, which contributed 10,000 Euro ($13,650), and several European Wikimedia Chapters." Copy –editors should note that "euros" should not be capitalized. BTW2, there should be another paid editing German scandal on Deutsche Welle (DW) video in Itm in the last 2 years. I think I have somebody who speaks German to write the Olaf article, but we're still talking about the general approach. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones, Zarasophos, and Bri: I just made various correction and additions to the piece. It had a lot of good material already, but e.g. the circumstances of Kosinsky's blocks were covered rather misleadingly, and several central facts from the summaries quoted above (e.g. his sockpuppeting) were missing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: E-in-C should be aware that an image of Kosinsky IRL was added to the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

thank you! When will you be ready to go. I've got an hour + work to do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wired article

I came here, looking for a link to the Wired article, didn't see it here so I found it myself. Wired article on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: already in the draft In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject interview - Random page patrol

Hi Smallbones, I had thought of doing a Wikiproject interview with members of the WP:RANPP - the Random Page Patrol. Would you be ok with inclusion in the next issue? Ganesha811 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Go for it! Something similar that somebody might want to do is a joint interview with the 4 Board of Trustees election winners. See News&notes for their names. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Report idea

Hi Smallbones,

This review of the RfA process seems like it might be a good fit for the discussion report. Would you be OK if I were to start drafting the report to be focused on this discussion? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this discussion would just fizzle out. It doesn't seem that way. In fact it looks like somebody, e.g. @Mikehawk10: is needed to make some sense out of all the verbiage. Go for it! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I pinged the EinC this morning about the same issue, forgetting it was assigned here. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a lot going on this month! I hope everybody will realize this and step forward knowing that there is help available here. I hope @Bri: will step forward and help sort things out. All good faith efforts are helpful! I feel like there are at least 8 possible disinfo articles - that suggests saving some for next month! I also feel like I'm putting in 60 hours/week and barely keeping my head above water. That means I have to focus and actually get some things written. There will be a "from the editor" tentatively titled "And there we wept" Anybody object to the title being taken from a recording of Rastafarians singing Psalm 137? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Smallbones, no objection from me! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


Hey, Smallbones, the discussion report is going to be long. I'm still in the process of writing it, and I will get it in before the hard deadline, but I want to give you a warning that it's probably going to easily be >13K characters based off of the structure I have for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 I won't give you a hard word limit, but we've got a lot of really long stories this month so i'd appreciate keeping it under 1,500 words (10k? - check). The problem with long stories is that most folks won't read a real long story all the way thru, they'll start dozing off unless the prose is very exciting. There may even be a backlash effect - they might think that you're BSing if it takes so many words. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I will do my utmost to keep it around an upper bound of 10K characters. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Conversion factor is usually 5 char per word. 10k characters would be 2k words, or a few pages if printed. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Passing of Richard Meyers (2012)

Very sadly, it has only just come to my attention that the editor User:Richard Myers passed away in December 2012; an obituary appears here, there was discussion on Daily Kos about his passing and a memorial event organised in 2013. He was active in the Organized Labour and Colorado projects (and intersections of the two projects such as Ludlow massacre). He was also a very early Wikipedian, beginning his contributions in 2004. May I contribute a small piece about him for the next (or an upcoming) issue? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: This would ne difficult to publish in the best of circumstances - it's been 9 years since he died. We just got overwhelmed with news (per suggestions page), so I'll say no for this month. If you want to try for next month, you may - but the underlying difficulty remains. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
More appropriate for WP:DECEASED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WMF bans and desysops around "infiltration concerns" with Wikimedians of Mainland China

  • https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6ANVSSZWOGH27OXAIN2XMJ2X7NWRVURF/
  • Selina Cheng (14 September 2021). "Wikipedia bans 7 mainland Chinese power users over 'infiltration and exploitation' in unprecedented clampdown". Hong Kong Free Press.
  • Simon Sharwood (15 September 2021). "Wikipedia bans seven Chinese users amid concerns of 'infiltration, physical harm': Removes sysop privileges for another dozen, warns more about doxing, frets about preserving freedom to edit in the face of hostile regimes". The Register.
  • Chris Vallance (September 16, 2021). "Wikipedia blames pro-China infiltration for bans". BBC.

Announced by Maggie Dennis: WMF has banned seven users and desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of Mainland China and [because of] the kind of infiltration we describe above in the project...we know that some users have been physically harmed. I don’t have time to research this today, is anyone else in the newsroom available? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I've got a bit so far, other help appreciated! 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Plus we have ... [Smallbones]
    • I started an item at News and notes using the text above. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The Register is covering this now too. The piece mentions "hostile regimes" in the title & "the ruling party" and "Chinese authorities" in the text, without actually naming Chinese Communist Party. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • BBC also. Looks like they got statements from WMF employee who posted to wikimedia-l like the infiltration had threatened the "very foundations of Wikipedia". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a duplicate thread about this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 33#WMF actions regarding users in China.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Per Smallbones, use this thread for editorial discussion, and that suggestions one for piling up sources. --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Now the Chinese Communist Party has stated a reaction throughh their English language propaganda outlet Global Times, essentially stating the WMF was enabling "secessionists of Hong Kong and Taiwan". Good for WMF if so in my opinion, but what should The Signpost say about this? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    WP is still blocked in China, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Bri: - Who can we quote, who can we link to? Global Times is black-listed IIRC, but if it is at least a semi-official CCP mouthpiece, then I think we can, for *this story* quote and link them - they are effectively a participant in the story. I think we need to get permission to link though. There's a long open letter on the WMC website signed by a collective pseudonym- my feeling on this is that we can paraphrase it, briefly quote it - since they are participants in the actions covered in the story, but we should not link to it, as it *may be* written by banned editors. Everybody cool with that? I'm more concerned using The Register as a source. They can be good, but too many times I've seen some incredibly biased junk. I'll say check out anything you want to use with another source - and then quote the other source. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It's still available to those who can use VPNs. I'd guess most mainlanders who follow the internet about the internet know what Wikipedia is, so the Global Times mention doesn't surprise me. An interesting part of the WMC open letter is that the WMC suggests that they'll start a hard-fork of zhWiki, presumably taking out or changing some stories and publishing the rest as is. This could open up a pseudoWP in China. That's perfectly in line with our rules, as long as they don't use our name or trademarks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        Well, it wouldn't be the first time. I remember Benjakob writing about an Israeli (?) group that did something similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
        And this just in: Centre ropes in experts from IITs to develop Indian version of Wikipedia. "Initially, it will be available for providing information related to science and technology and based on feedback would be expanded in other fields." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Maryana Iskander to become WMF CEO starting January

I bet we can get an interview in a month or 2. In the meantime, a large section in News and notes should do.Volunteers? Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And she's already saying some pretty weird stuff in the press. I've summarized over yonder. Probably the first time my extremely occasional mini-newsletter has ever beaten Signpost to a story, LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish COVID-19 won't be around forever (hopefully). Having a CEO who is not located in SF, or the USA, who will not/cannot relocate, will be a boon to someone's air miles even if they are not going to become a fashion icon or endorser for luxury goods or stop off on their business travells to buy oriental carpets. However, the new incumbent might, just might, show more interest in what goes on on the factory floor and exercise some management instead of being a non-executive president, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Um, okay. I don't see how any of that relates to the concerns I've initially raised about what Iskander's been saying to the media.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly not, SMcCandlish, but it relates to her own claim that she intends to spend a lot of time in airplanes. We, the volunteers pay for that out of the donations our work provides. Problem is, if anyone dares to say a negative word about it, they'll feel the sting of Arbcom's whip for misoginy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'd thought maybe you were happy it was a non-US person. Missed your meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, yeah, sometimes I'm overly subtle instead of usually being blunt and to the point . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Um … better put the brakes on the "happy it was a non-US person". Iskander is an American. Soros Foundation said somewhere she is naturalized. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Fine; non-US-residing. Kudpung's point is that it's going to be travel-expensive, and that's a valid issue to raise, but was not among the concerns I'd had initially.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

3 days to publication on Sunday Sept. 26!

Sorry I didn't update the deadline template earlier. We have a very important issue this month, and it looks like we're on top of it. But we still have to deliver on the promise. There will be about 10 articles or more, Copy editors please get ready for a rush! @HaeB, Bri, and Ganesha811: Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like especially to ask anyone available for copyedit and filling out the big stories at in In the media. Don't be afraid to wade in there and take authorship! ☆ Bri (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
As if we don't have enough on our plate - there's a Jimbo story just come out. I don't know the source, but by the terms of the story somebody will have to follow it up. Let's leave it alone until a known source covers it conservatively, Let's not blow it out of proportion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this about the Online Safety Bill? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian has a good article on it. Jimmy "had to personally ask Twitter’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, to deal with a particularly vicious online troll, after the company’s initial response was to do nothing." is particularly good. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a friend's wedding this weekend and will be mostly unavailable! I'm going to finish up the WikiProject report I've been working on, but other than that won't have time to do much copyediting. Just FYI. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I did do some copyediting on the traffic report, though it could use another look. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Positively Pandy is helping copyedit too, if credit is due. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Do you want to publish around noon NYC time on Sunday? I can adjust the countdown timer; it says 4 pm now, which is not our usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we throw in a link to the discussion report within the News and notes section that deals with the requests for adminship? It seems like a natural thing to include. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea, I've added a link+sentence. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Op-ed fact check

The op-ed references an unresolved Phabricator ticket having to do with VPNs. I looked through all open tickets containing the word "VPN" and couldn’t find a corresponding ticket. I see a few options here:

  1. Another Signpost editor locates the ticket and footnotes the op-ed
  2. Ask author to indicate the ticket number, failing which, remove the paragraph
  3. Add a footnote on our failure to find the ticket
  4. Do nothing, let readers look it up

☆ Bri (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  • If we can't find the ticket and the author can't provide it, I think we should take your 3rd option and note as such in a footnote. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Got the ticket. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, I did a little cleanup so both editorial insertions look consistent. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost done

Every section but one is either marked complete or ready for copyedit. The exception is Recent research; Tilman says it is coming. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HaeB: will you be ready? I'd like an hour and told @DannyS712: we'd more likely be ready to publish at 20:30 than 20:00}} @Bri: perhaps I missed the significace of the photo? I just attributed the iop one, Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of anything that could be attached to drama in the future. Sometimes our readers surprise me with a reaction to unfavorable material regarding another editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Yes, I'll have RR publishable by 20:15 (had a larger piece for it in the works but will postpone that).
Bri is right to call for diligence about the photo, but I'm comfortable about it (the editor has been a quite public persona, e.g. giving TV interviews as of this year - excerpted in the linked Magazin Royale piece) and his name tag is discernible in the photo (alternatives though in case someone is interested: [2][3][4][5]).
I think the main concern is rather that the piece needs to avoid the impression that other people visible on the photo were somehow involved in his questionable activities, hence the wordy caption. (Still wondering if I should dig up some quotes of the enraged reactions to the current revelations by some of the dewiki volunteers who had spent a lot of time volunteering alongside Kosinsky in those Wiki Loves Parliament projects back then.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I may need 40 minutes more. @HaeB:. 19:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs)
I'll be back to check in around 20:25 UTC, will assume the publication order should be the same as on the newsroom page unless told otherwise --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones and DannyS712: RR should be good to go now, but I might use the extra time for some tweaks - ping me when it's pencils down. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm ready but waiting for a) all articles to be marked as approved, and b) signal from smallbones to send them. Also, I tweaked the links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion at the same time that it was marked as approved, Smallbones are my changes okay? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HaeB and DannyS712: I'll just go to make last approval within 30 seconds. 20:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs)

@Smallbones and DannyS712: yup, I've stopped editing (Smallbones, keep in mind that pings don't work when the signature is missing). Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

got it Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay to publish, and in the same order as seen in the newsroom? DannyS712 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones ? DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Yes - the same order is fine (or anything approx in the same order) Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 sending... --DannyS712 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes Sent --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Halloween theme

I see that the EiC has selected Halloween as the publication date. It would be fun to follow this with a low-key theme, maybe blurbs and illustrations could be selected with a bias towards seasonal references? - Bri.public (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Agreed! I was going to make a crossword puzzle for the 'Humor' column and it could be half spooky and half Wiki themed! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not very sure that this fits my current mood (which may be too ghoulish). But low key sounds ok for now. {ping|Ganesha811}} do you know how to do the graphic for a crossword? I don't. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Smallbones, Your ping to Ganesha811 didn't work, so here it is again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to do it the same way as this previous crossword, which inspired me. So just an image and a series of clues. We could also link to an online crossword generator. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That was a fun edition. I miss working with Barbara Page. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

NPP

There's a story here to be made again as a wakeup call for NPP. Nothing has been written again about NPP since this seminal Signpost report in 2018 which had some minor success. A rapidly growing major backlog again and increasing discovery of corrupt patrollers, and 90% of the work being done by only 10% of the rights holders (many of whom are ostensibly hat collectors). The very articles that are supposed to be stopped dead in their tracks risk slipping unnoticed into the corpus after 90 days. However, with no clear leadership or coordination NPP is pretty much in disarray again; a dynamic talk page, admittedly, and plenty of good faith, but à la Wikipedia, too much talk and not enough action. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiConference North America coverage

Is anybody attending WikiConference North America this weekend who can write up for Signpost? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey will be presenting, and has begun a Signpost draft "On smaller ways to contribute"! ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I boldly suggest we at least cover Maryana [Iskandar]'s Listening Tour, 9:00 AM - 9:30 AM (West Coast time) Sunday. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree this would be a nice thing to write about. I didn't attend a lot of the sessions (because I was busy working on my own, and helping out on the volunteer end), but I'm sure someone who went would be interested. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

June 27 In the media may need correction

Per Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/In the media, the image that is the focus of the fist story is probably about to be deleted from Commons. The story was about how a print of the image was a gift between world leaders, so the recipient – the US President – is possibly holding a copyvio (ironically a crime which he is charged with enforcing). Maybe an update to the article is in order? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling staff to cover BBC story

As posted at their blog, the BBC should be coming out with a story this week on the Wikipedia/China story that we covered in the last issue. See BBC Click! on YouTube, the first showing should be Saturday 0130 GMT or Friday at 9:30 pm Eastern in the US. Smallbones pleads time pressure and a possible small COI and doesn't want to write or edit the article. Would any Signpost regular contributor like to step up to cover this? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to cover this if I can get access to the report - I don't have cable or another way to see BBC America. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The YouTube link above should work shortly after the broadcast. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Great, that'll work - wasn't sure if they were likely to post the full segment online. Were you thinking that this would be as part of "In the Media" or a standalone article? Either way is fine by me. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It could be standalone if it’s really good – but hard to say before seeing. Let’s decide after it shows? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWmKB8pEMU . @Ganesha811: do you have an editor for this? Is it Bri? Maybe @Indy beetle: if Bri's not available. In a pinch I could edit it. I no longer feel that I have a COI, but still there could be a perceived COI, so I'd still prefer to stay away. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Either way, I'll watch it tonight/tomorrow and write it up. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, since it involves mostly the affairs of zh language Wikipedia, there's very little for us to add other than what's in the Click story. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, I've written up my report at News & Notes and would welcome editing from anyone interested. I don't think we need any standalone coverage. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    The BBC have followed up the broadcast with a written article (which probably summarises the broadcast) [6]. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nthep: Thanks, I would have missed that. It's mostly the same material in the broadcast, but reordered a bit. I wonder though if they are giving Yan a bit too much credit. He can be very persuasive and I've felt the same way about my own reporting. I also remember how he threw Walter Grassroot under the bus in my July article (quote from Yan near the bottom). Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Negrin steps down from WMF

Letter of resignation. Why did he give such short notice of wanting to quit? Why has he quit? How high was he in the pecking order? What was his salary? What did he actually do? Is his vacant position from 1 November one that really needs to be filled? Is there a story here for The Signpost? Could he be interviewed? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: He headed the Product department, which deals with basically all the parts of the site that we actually see. The official description is that they "build, improve and maintain the features of Wikimedia sites". In contrast, the Technology department (the other software-focused part of the WMF) deals with infrastructure things like security, performance, site reliability, etc. The Product and Technology departments are by far the two largest WMF departments. --Yair rand (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting is that this leaves the WMF with less than half of the C-team that was previously around: The positions of the heads of the Technology, Communications, and Operations departments are all still vacant, as is the CEO. --Yair rand (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Which probably demonstrates that they were never needed in the first place, Yair rand, hence my emphasis 'do' in my original post. The post of CEO has however been populated and will take effect from January - unless of course she changes her mind...
Probably one half of the bloated 500 employees/contractors could also be vacated. With the money saved, there can be no more of the routine arguments that the WMF is strapped for cash. There is probably an article lurking here for Bri or Smallbones. A chance to beef up The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn’t a before-and-after org chart look good in The Signpost? Anybody good at graphics? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It's easy enough to do for anyone who has time to sift through 500 employees. The problem is the sources - WMF have always deliberately avoided publishing a proper org arborescence so no one can really tell who does exactly what, and exactly what they do - if anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It's no longer as transparent as it was when the WMF website was a wiki (where basically every staff change corresponded to a public edit on that wiki) and employees were expected to have a user page with information about what they do, but the Foundation still maintains a comprehensive staff list with department and teams at https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ . Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I basically copied what you wrote to News and notes. Do you want credit on the byline? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bri: Your call, I'm okay either way. --Yair rand (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Pending any better graphics I'm thinking of taking the image from WMF leadership team (CC-SA 3.0) and putting a gray box over the image and striking out the name. Would that be crass? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bri: Hmm... leadership? I think the WMF is already aware of what the community already thinks of them. I remember writing a paragraph or two about a senior staffer who quietly left by the back stairs without any explanation. Unless the C staff are so handsomely paid they want a break and can afford to take a year or so off, it's curious why they would want to leave such an apparently comfortable, embracing cradle as the WMF. Perhaps since COVID-19 they are bored with the lack of junkets (that's why the CEO resigned, wasn't it? Metal tube grounded...). Crass? No, not really, but the way The Signpost gets torn up and chucked in the trash can these days by vindictive individuals, be it on your own head. In 2018 when I was E-in-C, I would have risked it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Report

Would it be OK to do a follow-up to the previous discussion report in that area? I'm thinking of covering the solution brainstorming period for the review of RFA, though I wanted to make sure this would be OK since it would be covering the same set of discussions two issues in a row. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 and Bri: go for it. Bri seems to have something in mind for this in News and notes. We don't have a rule that we can't have overlapping stories (and I prefer we don't have such a rule), but check with Bri to make sure you're not both reporting the exact same news. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking the News and notes item would be terse and factual. Could Mikehawk10 do something in a medium-long form? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Request review of Technology Report

I posted three stories in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. I would appreciate any feedback or if anyone would, just edit the text I drafted.

Here are my requests: remove my editorializing when it is too much; make things concise; make text simpler and easier to understand.

This section is not ready for final copyediting because there are some standard update sections supposed to go here which I did not touch. All I did was report some timely tech updates of broad interest to wiki community.

If for whatever reason any of these updates are not suitable, then cut / refactor them. I think all of this is on-point but I am just submitting. Thanks for any review anyone can give. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This draft seems to contain a lot of opinions and speculations that may not be shared by everyone on the Signpost team, so I would suggest to write it in the first person (like we usually do for other opinion pieces or reviews) rather than in the Signpost voice and second person.
Also, some claims seem factually dubious, e.g. already the first sentence ("Until now [the Toolhub launch] Wikimedia projects have never had a search feature for tools") - to quote from the original announcement of the Toolhub effort: "We have also been researching existing methods for organizing lists of tools – at least 14 of them, including popular tool catalogs like Hay's Tool Directory."
Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for notes, I will revise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I came here to mostly say what HaeB has said, the Toolhub announcement specifically called out Hay's directory as prior art for this work.
Also I don't think "In the past tool developers hosted such tools completely outside the Wikimedia ecosystem" is accurate, in my experience post-2010 most tools have been hosted on the Toolserver (run primarily by WMDE) and then moved to Toolforge (run primarily by WMF). And, thank you for working on the tech report! Legoktm (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the "Wikimedia Community Wishlist" story: my thoughts when I took a quick scan yesterday are as follows. Maybe I got confused by the presentation of the bulleted list "what we don't know" followed by numbered items "what actually happened" adjacent to "what Blue Rasberry would like to see happen". It was a little overwhelming. It would help me to visualize the process if there was a simple flowchart to go with your proposed process, with the missing pieces called out in a special tone or something. Would that be overkill? - Bri 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed the community wishlist story, left the other two which are more neutral and ready for Signpost. I expect to return for in a few hours but deleting the most unready story is what I can do for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: I attempted to change the text to reflect what you said. I tried to take your suggestion, which made sense to me. If you like, change it again or ping me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to add the launch of Topic Subscriptions in Discussion Tools, which allows you to receive a notification whenever someone replies in a section you've subscribed to. I think it's the biggest and coolest feature to be added to Wikipedia in a long, long time. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Enterprisey and TheDJ: You both contributed to this, and you both are experienced enough to know that if you want editorial credit then you can add yourselves to the byline for authorship credit. Credit is always appropriate, and I have not excluded you. I am leaving you off because you did not add yourselves, and I know there are reasons why sometimes people do not want their names repeated so much. Re-add if you like. Thanks again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Facebook Metaverse have a Wikipedia/Wikimedia angle?

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if WMF is talking to Facebook about it. - Bri 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

a well disguised press release quotes WP for the definition of the concept. Let's say there's a nominal connection. What would WMF say to Facebook? It wouldn't be about the price of lobsters, perhaps Wikipedia could "donate" some props to Facebook, e.g. a really big library with lots of books? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Lobsters in virtual reality has already been done, sorry ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Banned editor almost wins RfA

Former section title: Pitch us an idea: lopsided RfA votes

Inviting someone to write about why RfA votes appear to be increasingly lopsided. The currently open RfA is running 117:1 and as I wrote at December 2019 News and notes, this appears to be the new normal. It's a chance for someone to do some more analysis on the year's RfAs maybe?? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news: The RfA was closed at 123:1 with the comment This was unsucessful due to the candidate being ArbCom blocked during the nomination process whaaaat? Announcement (I have not read yet) here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just read the announcement. How about a Signpost headline "banned editor almost wins RfA"? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Certainly deserves some coverage! Here's a link to the ArbCom noticeboard discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
can we avoid the use of the word "win" ? it is not a competition. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It was semi tongue in cheek. Maybe "Banned editor almost unanimously selected to be administrator" is better. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a few good quotes in the discussion like this one: This was a very determined, carefully planned attempt to fool the community, and it nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. (Beeblebrox) ☆ Bri (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion column

It looks like someone started an Opinion column a few hours ago ...? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I just realized this is likely connected to the RfA "hoax" in the section immediately above. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed they are writing about the RfA. @Smallbones: we should probably let the writer know yea/nay if this shall be published. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll suggest we do this as a news article, or perhaps even a special report, if somebody can get the news or have something special to report/ No opinions yet - I'll inform the submitter. Do we know the committee member who tracked this down? Perhaps we could convince them to write up the story from a 1st person point of view as a SReport. Without, of course, violating any of their commitments to privacy, etc. I'd be tempted to change the headline to "RfA candidacy favored 123:1 Closed as unsuccessful, candidate blocked" or maybe "RfA reaches a new low" but I'm afraid my humor would be misunderstood. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "wins" is the apt verb to use for requests for adminship that are approved, so I agree with using a different headline. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: How do I delete my draft? I just relized that I may not be able to finish it. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 09:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's ok, @NightWolf1223:. There were only 2 paragraphs and we can get it back anytime. Just ask and tell me where to park it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones Can you please move it to my userspace? NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 15:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting more than 20 times at WPO, Eostrix, unable to use his talk page, tries desperately to clear his name. There is no reason why The Signpost can't include this in its article. The drafter/author may wish to get Harry Mitchell's name right, Currently it links to a blocked user. Clearly a big article I would love to write, but... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kudpung:. If you've got anything that clears Eostrix, please let me know via email. I've done a bit of my own research and haven't found any reason to doubt Arbcom. This type of info ("doesn't contradict Arbcom") is a bit hard to print however - people want hard "positive" evidence (what we know), not "negative" evidence (what we don't know), please let me know. If I were to wrire this story today, it would be only 3 paragraphs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      Smallbones, if you take a look at the Wikipediocracy thread linked by Kudpung, you'll find that some of the regulars there have dissected Eostrix's posts and essentially come to the conclusion that he is Icewhiz based on textual evidence. At least that's what it seemed like when I read it. Might be worth a look. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks. I doubt that I'll quote WPO though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      Both accounts are in the habit of using the somewhat formal or old-fashioned word "albeit" and misspelling it "all be it" [7][8] – not a particularly common misspelling on Wikipedia. [9] --Andreas JN466 13:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      I haven't hinted at my conclusion regarding Icewhiz/Eostrix. However, this level of possible corruption on Wikipedia has always intrigued me and was in the back of my mind when I lauched my investigation into RfA 11 years ago, and NPP and ACTRIAL around the same time. It might even unearth a drawerful of socks. There is no harm in mentioning the material at WPO, after all, Signpost articles are not BLP and no more need sourcing and footnoting than a column in any newspaper. WPO might be populated by some of the most hardened and bitter banned users, socks themselves, some who have trod the boards (pun intended), but when they get their teeth into a topic like this they go for the jugular. Their behaviour might be sometimes quite nauseous, but their research can be excellent - what a waste of talent. There is far more than just 3 paras to be written here and it could be a major feature about it and this kind of thing, the extent of which, if known, would be quite scary. Unfortunately the appetite for crafting decent magazine-style reportages has been quenched of late by The Signpost's on-Wiki critics and detractors. Now if The Signpost were to be parked on an independent server, like the Wikimedia Foundation went to WordPress... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost does have to follow WP:BLP, just like everybody else on Wikipedia. I've written up my 1st draft of this story at the top of news and notes. It's tough because there aren't a lot of facts to cite. All the solid facts I know of are posted above my note (check the above and get links). Feel free to fact check these (and tell me about it here) and link to on-Wiki sources. If you want to add incontrovertibe facts and link there, please do, but I'll edit them strictly - no editorializing please. I've added below that 2 "facts" that I consider "pretty solid" - e.g. I consider it a very safe conclusion that Icewhiz's responses was "Wikilawyer-like" when he wries approx. "I will not deny or confirm that" but others might theoretically disagree. The WPO evidence is there too. If there is any further evidence like thisemail it to me, don't post it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the current headline misses the lead. Perhaps something like "RfA candidate blocked as sockpuppet by Arbitration Committee"? isaacl (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

News and notes

@Smallbones: You wrote this up at News and notes, I'm suggesting you have a look at the somewhat robust discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#CU as a matter of course for RFAs to see if it's worth mentioning in The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossword

Hello! I've created a crossword for this month's humor column, but before I start the page, I just wanted to test it with you. Can you actually play it at the following link? If so, I'll include an image of the crossword and the clues in the actual column, so people can print it out if they want, but also include a link to the site so people can play it online. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that if one person plays it online, it will display the solutions for any subsequent user who visits the page. Testing it out with incognito mode, that seems to be happening. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, after mucking about a bit more, I'm pretty sure that is not the case, so I think we're good! The focus mode link is also more visually pleasing, so that's the one I'll use. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone knows more about Wiki-formatting than I do and can get the clues to show up as two side-by-side columns, I would appreciate the help! I tried and read up on a bunch of templates but couldn't get it to work. Thank you. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I got stuck about halfway through. Do you want to know which items I don't have answers to yet? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm curious, though I probably won't edit it at this point. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
not solved: 5, 9, 12, 13 down; 10, 14, 16, 22 across. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Interesting! I thought of 5-down, 13-down and 16-across as some of the hardest, while on the other hand 10-across and 14-across were supposed to be on the easier end. Goes to show that everyone thinks differently. In any case, as a hint (which I will likely give in the comments to the published piece as well), the answers to all of your missing words are found at Wikipedia:Glossary, along with pretty much all the ones you got. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The ones I've been unable to solve, for whatever it's worth, are 10, 16, 18, 22 across; 5, 12, 13, 15 down. This is after a glance through the Glossary page. My overlaps with Bri are 10, 16, 22 across and 5, 12, 13 down. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 and Bri: please share your solutions with each other to see if you agree (or can make changes that you can agree on) Ganesha's answers don't have to be the absolute best answers, but they have to be more than just plausible answers. Correct "Surprise answers" are ok, just part of the fun. But if we make mistakes in the answers, cross cross-word solvers will be all over us. Consider that the equivalent of copy editing for cross-words. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll email them over! @Bri: if you have any suggestions for new clues you think are too hard, just email me back! Ganesha811 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Will check first thing in the morning (Pacific time). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, no problems with most of the crossword. There's one I don't think that I would have ever gotten ("lie detector skeleton") and since neither did ezlev, it might need some tweaking. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the clue for that one and left the original clue as an alternate to make it easier. Thanks for checking them over! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Internet Archive's "IA2046" campaign: "2027: Wikipedia is driven underground"

The Internet Archive is running a campaign advocating open knowledge and internet freedom, imagining a dystopian future seen through a "Wayforward Machine" (contrasting with their popular "Wayback Machine"). See https://wayforward.archive.org/ia2046/ : The page is led with the line "Imagine a future without access to knowledge..."

The dystopian timeline includes this: "2027: Wikipedia is driven underground. In the wake of the new copyright laws, Wikipedia faces myriad lawsuits for making “copyrighted facts” freely available. It is forced to shut down on all centralized networks, but articles are still written and accessed on the Decentralized Web."

The campaign lists the WMF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Mozilla, and others as partners. Might be worth a mention. --Yair rand (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Nice! --ssr (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Enterprise has launched

The Wikimedia Enterprise logo --Andreas JN466 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/pricing/ --Andreas JN466 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting at $25,000 a year! Well, seems ripe for a section at News and Notes - good heads up. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Related press release: [10] There was no announcement on the day on the Wikimedia-l mailing list. [11][12] --Andreas JN466 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Contrary to the implication of the previous comment - community notification of the impending 'launch' was indeed provided 2 weeks earlier on various mailinglists. Of specific interest to the community was the associated information updates that were included there - you can find a copy of the full text (with the relevant links for further details at: M:Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Update. This included:
- A statement from the Board which reaffirmed the operating principles, notably regarding finances such as: the revenue shall not surpass 30% of total WMF annual revenue, major contracts must be reviewed by the Board (equivalent to the way major gifts are handled); and the revenue is treated like all other WMF revenue for the purposes of oversight and eventual spending.
- Reiteration that the existing APIs and methods of accessing Wikimedia sites remains. The creation of this optional commercial service, designed for those with specific high data-volume demands, does not change the experience (legally or technically) for anyone else.
- Free copies of the dataset are available for anyone at Wikimedia Dumps (fortnightly) and via Cloud Services (daily+hourly diffs).
Separately, I would also like to point people to the extensive FAQ page which covers lots of specific issues (technical, legal, financial...) and the project's MediaWiki page which has all the API documentation, monthly development updates etc.
With regards to the 'starting price' - it is interesting that some consider this to be "low" and some consider this "high". Equally, valid community concern is that this service should be designed to more than cover its own expenses (otherwise, it would be donor money subsidising the infrastructure demands of very profitable companies), but also not too profitable (to ensure we do not become dependent upon one revenue source. The aforementioned 30% cap, and the commitment to publishing the expenses+revenues of Enterprise (independently from the WMF general financial report) are designed to address that. Moreover: It is important that the existence of this service not be seen to diminish the value and utility of the existing (and continuing to exist) free APIs. The "added value" here is not just the different metadata format being used, but also the provision of SLAs and customer support - neither of which can be, or should be, offered as a free service subsidised by donor money. If a company is not at a scale to require that high-volume and high-speed of Wikimedia content for their business, and those contractual services, then the existing APIs are more than adequate for their needs.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Relatedly: Here is an independent report/essay on the topic published by OpenFuture.eu https://www.openfuture.eu/wikimedia-enterprise/ I note, the text there is licensed PD, so you could copy as much of it as you wish into an article. I feel that the Signpost audience might particularly appreciate quotes from the subheading titled "lowering the playing field", for example. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Liam, an announcement of the website's impending launch two weeks in advance – i.e. at a time when there was nothing yet to look at on https://enterprise.wikimedia.com – without a URL, without a firm launch date, buried in the second half of a 900-word post recapping many different aspects of Wikimedia Enterprise, will not have been a very effective means of getting volunteers to look at the site once it got launched.
It would have been good if someone had posted the URL to the mailing list on the day it went live. It is, after all, a major new "face" Wikimedia is presenting to the world. Informing the Signpost team might have been an idea as well. As it is, most volunteers are probably completely unaware of the launch – nothing was posted to the Village Pump (or anywhere else on en:WP, to my knowledge) either. Just an occasional pointer to Meta (where you do provide up-to-date info) would be good whenever there is a significant development. Regards, --Andreas JN466 13:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I note your assertion that relevant information was "buried". I disagree, but... that's your opinion. The community-facing notification two weeks ago was a compendium of information/updates to community questions and suggestions over the last 6 months (board statement, financial transparency principles, how to access if you're a volunteer... etc.) and notification that the actual website/service would be going live soon. Yes - we did delay the launch by a few days from the original plan - hardly a change worth re-announcing. If it was a change that where the volunteer community is the intended audience (e.g. an election timeline change) THAT would require updated notification - but not in this case.
Equally, the publicity of the launch of the service was a press-release, not a blogpost (like the announcement back in March) because the audience is different: The audience for the launch of the commercial service is its [potential] customers. The audience for the things like financial principles is the community - moreover, not any particular language edition of Wikipedia, but the communities that are interested in these 'meta'/strategic issues. Hence the notification location for that update was to places where people interested in those things are - most notably on wikimedia-l and on the talkpage of the project itself. The service's URL itself has been published in the infobox of the Meta page for many months now and the website has been live (just a simple 'signup for more info' form) since March - and that meta page was linked prominently in the community announcement. Not "buried". Equally, the texts of the new website itself were reviewed in advance by at least a dozen different Wikimedia volunteers - who helped pick through the texts to ensure consistency, accuracy, appropriate phrasing/licensing etc. Equally, there has been lots of conversations and question over on Meta (including many by you) and also in live conversations at various community forums, over many months.
Nontheless, you're right: most volunteers are unaware of the launch this week, and that's fine - the volunteer community isn't the intended audience for the launch. What's important is that most volunteers are aware of the existence of what this project is and roughly what it's about. Whether the website is 'live' or not doesn't change that. We can't expect everyone to have read everything about this project like you have, but a rough awareness that "this is happening" as well as "how and why" is important. To that point, I am happy to say that I have not heard any feedback expressing surprise. Some people like it, many appreciate the changes and improvements based on community feedback since March, and some like yourself have expressed disapproval. But and most people are not particularly interested because it's not a project that relates to them (and that's fine). LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liam: You may say that volunteers are not the audience, but I think that simple common courtesy would involve letting the volunteers know, given that they create the content. The back end should know what the front end does.
I'm not sure I have expressed disapproval other than about the lack of notification of the website's launch. What I do recall expressing in the past, on Meta, is a concern that a steep entry-level price tag for the service is likely to make it unaffordable for smaller players, thereby tending to benefit the big, existing players. Given that even the most basic service costs $25K p.a., I can't say my concerns in this regard have been altogether allayed. Similarly, I expressed a hope that companies that do NOT track their users to hell and high heaven, e.g., or are in other respects compatible with movement values, might be offered preferential rates. I'm not sure that's happening either. Regards, --Andreas JN466 20:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Fortunately for us both, since neither of us are experts in the field of API licensing and SLA contracts, there are people working on this project who are. You may say that the entry list price is too high, but equally, others are suggesting it is too low. In effect we're offering an on-demand API for all of Wikimedia + 24/7 customer service + Service Level Agreement of guaranteed uptime for slightly over $2k per month (minus any discount that might apply for things such as mission-alignment or non-profit status). If a company is unable to afford that kind of supply service, then they are probably not able to ingest the kind of volume and speed of data that this service provides anyway. Equally, it is important that the pricing model of this service does not try to 'steal' people away from the free version - which is, and has been, perfectly adequate. And yes, the WMF legal department have done lots of work to ensure our standards of privacy compliance are maintained, as far as we are able to do so on third-party platforms. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liam Will companies which, like Wikimedia, commit to not tracking their users (DuckDuckGo, say) pay less for the service than a Google, Facebook or Amazon? And what are "packaged metadata exclusive to Wikimedia Enterprise"? (I'll ask these on Meta as well, feel free to answer there rather than here.) Regards, --Andreas JN466 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
For the benefit of documentation, these two questions are answered on Meta. Respectively here, and here. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If "lowering the playing field" were in a Signpost article, I'd correct it to "leveling"... ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes normally that is the phrase - they're modifying it deliberately for artistic effect. Tut whether it is a successful piece of artistic license is up to the reader to decide! LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I do tut at this usage. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Ha! Whoops, I meant "but". however... on second thoughts tut works too. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
BTW I scrub news pretty often for mentions of Wikipedia for our In the media feature, and would have seen this story in several sources including WMF blog this week. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ganesha811, Thank you for writing a text about Enterprise for the forcoming edition. I see the draft text for the edition with this edit, and I respect your editorial right to describe it how you wish. I want to just suggest a clarification that there are three different API services available but they're not "tiers" - as that implies one is "above" the other and can only be accessed in that order. Rather, they're different services for different use-cases and different customers might chose to use any combination (or just one). So, for your consideration, I propose that you change the description from "three tiers of service" to simply "three services". Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've copyedited the Serendipity column and am happy to take the Traffic report as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Last night I took my usual "tourist drive thru" (not really looking for typos) of the 1st 2 or 3 weeks, before being called away. There weren't any serious problems, there seldom are. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've done my copyedit, but it could always use another once-over before publication. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The WikiProject report has been copyedited, hardly anything to do there. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The In the Media section has been copyedited. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Newbie question

I'm new here. Attempting a copy edit of "In the Media". I noticed there were some placeholder bits in the Angel Merkel section and I filled them in to the best of my knowledge. I hope that's okay.

The original line was: Angela Merkel gave up her job as prime minister(?) of Germany which she held for xx years.

I updated to: Angela Merkel gave up her job as chancellor of Germany which she has held for 16 years.

I also changed it to "has held" because it appears she's technically still chancellor until election results are final? Not really certain. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I see now that this article may not have been ready for the copy edit stage. If that's the case, my bad. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It's OK Pyrrho the Skeptic, thanks for helping. You can also contribute news stories about Wikipedia if you see them. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Publishing in 2 days!

@DannyS712: Will you be available to publish? Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: will you be available for publishing at 20:00 UTC SundaY? Danny seems to be unavailable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones Yes if you still need one.I don't have much going on today. 20:00 is 4 pm in my (New york) timezone, right? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Thanks, yes 4pm NY Time, about 5 hours from now. It looks like we're all ready, last minute checks, a bit of copyediting, and Recent research excepted. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sunday, Halloween, October 31 2021, 20:00 UTC (4pm NY time).

It looks like it will be a very interesting issue. 12 articles submitted (all could be great) plus one more I really want to do which I haven't written yet! Probably in Op-ed, but I could move in th "From the editor". I should be able to finish In the media today. News and notes has a lot of good stories that need work' Feel free to jump right in!

@Bri, HaeB, and Ganesha811: and any copy editors! I assume you're all available and worling on the usual schedule. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'm available to copyedit as needed. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

News and notes

Just looking over the unfinished News and notes ... is someone doing a separate piece of the RfA review? We could beef up this seciton in NaN, if not. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion report 2 parts?

@Mikehawk10: will you have a discussion report this month? I apologize for my lack of organization on this. I meant to contact you about 5 times this month on various topics. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes; I plan to write it over the next 24 hours. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Smallbones: The report is up. I'm having trouble figuring out how to format blockquotes that involve ordered lists. There are two such lists in the article. Would you be willing to have a copyeditor reformat those lists? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Mikehawk10: Thanks! I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. If I can't do anything I'll ask @Bri:. If he can't do anything, I've got this list of folks right in my pocket! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Happy to help if someone can point me to the spot. I don't see a problem at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Actually, I see the identified section where you wanted blockquote. Are you sure? It looks fine the way it is, at least to me. I made the requested change in this edit which you can leave or back out. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
          • So I looked over it and it had broken the ordered list. Ordinarily, I'd try to fix this with a nowiki tag, but I can't seem to get it to work. As a result, I've removed the blockquotes. I wanted them in there to better indicate that they aren't my original writing (the first list comes from the hub page for the 2021 review, while the text of the second list comes from the verbatim text of the proposals themselves). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Other question: I have directly referenced an idea from a user in my article, and looking at the draft of News and Notes I now realize that the user writes for The Signpost. Is there specific language that I should include in my draft to indicate that the individual has worked for The Signpost (as a sort of potential COI disclosure)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • cped feedback: @Mikehawk10: could you double check the highlighted date in the lede paragraph? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bri: Ope! Fixed that; thank you for pointing that out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
      • You guys seem to be handling this. I'll go back to NaN. No COI that I can see. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech report

I wrote this and it is ready for copyedit. I incorporated previous comments already as seen in history. There were some recurring sections in this which were unfamiliar to me and I deleted them. If anyone wants to re-add the routine reports then please do. I understood one of them and updated that one, at least. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble editing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. Grammar and writing style are fine. My fact-checking so far is non-existant because I just don't know the topic well enough. If there are any techies out the who can help - please just be bold and do it - or email me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    I might be able to get to it. Incidentally, does anyone else see the text of the first section ("introducing wikimedia toolhub") as a smaller font size than the next section? Enterprisey (talk!) 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I did a bit more than fact-checking :) @Smallbones, I've probably changed it enough that another check for spelling and grammar would be appreciated. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Final countdown to publish

I'll guess we'll be ready to publish at 20:10 UTC (4:10 NY Time) in about 45 minutes

Earlier would be better for me @HaeB and Eddie891:. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ten minutes late. Horrors!! Just kidding, it will be a good issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It's Halloween and my son is going as a monster. We'll be a matching pair. trick or treat everybody. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones Ready whenever... Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: RR should be publishable at this point (I did some copyedits myself). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891 and HaeB: ready to publish! On time, every time! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
On it... Eddie891 Talk Work 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_19&oldid=1079487092"