Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

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

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-02-29 00:21:38.
January 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 01 02 03 04
February 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
29 30 31 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 01 02 03
March 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
26 27 28 29 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
The Signpost currently has 5503 articles, 690 issues, and 13396 pages (4352 talk and 9044 non-talk).
Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 3 (2024-02-13) · Purge
issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)
Articles and pageviews for 2024-02-13
Pageviews for 2024-02-13 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
Traffic report Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football 426 508 508 508 508 508 508
Serendipity Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi? 725 893 893 893 893 893 893
News and notes Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers 1695 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923
In the media Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part 595 709 709 709 709 709 709
Gallery Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna 485 596 596 596 596 596 596
Disinformation report How low can the scammers go? 871 1103 1103 1103 1103 1103 1103
Crossword Our crossword to bear 446 559 559 559 559 559 559
Comix Strongly 458 561 561 561 561 561 561
Articles and pageviews for 2024-01-31
Pageviews for 2024-01-31 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
Traffic report DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down 433 580 605 605 605 605 605
Recent research Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]" 5274 5556 5620 5620 5620 5620 5620
Opinion Until it happens to you 1004 1232 1269 1269 1269 1269 1269
News and notes Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail 1589 1997 2087 2087 2087 2087 2087
In the media Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race 691 880 917 917 917 917 917
In focus The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2 394 510 542 542 542 542 542
Disinformation report How paid editors squeeze you dry 37803 38533 38858 38858 38858 38858 38858
Comix We've all got to start somewhere 420 549 579 579 579 579 579

The issue immediately after 19-25 Opinion[edit]

@Smallbones Just one more note: your blurb on the latest issue and Molly's video got me thinking about a suspect episode of plagiarism I might have fallen victim of a few months ago, as a soccer team likely copied and translated an article I had created to announce the signing of that same player.

While I didn't have strong feelings about what happened at the time (and I don't have them now, either), I wonder if it might be interesting to write about my own perception of this issue in the "Opinion" column... Oltrepier (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JPxG Should I take your thanks as a "yes"? : D Oltrepier (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JPxG @Smallbones I've finally managed to upload my article, so it's now ready to be copyedited.
I really struggled to write a proper conclusion, so the drop in quality towards the end might be significant, but I hope people will still be able to take home the main message (and a good laugh)! Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bri: Is it too late to ask you if you can try to generate some pics for the article via DALL-E, please? For now, I've gone for Ackman again, but I fear it might become a distraction, considering that I just give him a quick mention at the start of my article... Oltrepier (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could give it a shot. Got any starters for image concepts? I was thinking maybe a student copying from another student's test...? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri Good! And maybe the student who is getting copied might have the W of "Wikipedia" on his/her shirt... : D Oltrepier (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of them look pretty good to me. At first the Manga one looked "too angry" but it may be the best way forward. #2 kinda grabbed me at first glance, but I'm not really sure why. Maybe it's the most realistic. #3 is not far behind. And nothing wrong with #1. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri and Smallbones: I've got a feeling that DALL-E just loves Korean people... : D
Jokes aside, though, they all look stunning!
I would discard #1 because of the non-sensical text right under the W on the girl's shirt; the slight problem I've actually got with #3 and #4 is that, in both cases, the girl who is supposed to be copying is looking at the other student, rather than their home-work. That being said, I would go either with #2 (my favorite) or #4, so feel free to choose! Oltrepier (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I eventually went for #4, as you suggested: thank you so much for your help! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bro in the second one is leaning in for a little more than just copying the answers lmao. We should keep this one on file for if there's ever a yaoi scandal jp×g🗯️ 03:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JPxG Wait, did I do something wrong? Oltrepier (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's all good. I think JPxG is just saying (jokingly) it would not be appropriate for an American workplace. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason, these programs have a real problem with fingers. They just can't get them right. Andreas JN466 10:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue immediately after 20-01 Recent research[edit]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be publishable now if need be, although another pair of eyes for copyediting wouldn't hurt. I am still working on a review of the toxicity paper discussed here last month and some accompanying analysis, which may or may not be ready by the actual publication time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mixed up Newsroom section transclusions (again)[edit]

@Jayen466: FYI, I'm reverting your changes to this and another section heading. While you were completely correct that these sections concern the RR and N&N sections from the issue 2 of volume 20 (rather than issue 1), the weird way in which the transclusions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom are set up requires them to carry the previous issue's number. (Among other things, your edits made it appear that a "Recent research" section has been envisaged for this issue, which is not correct.)

This is yet another instance of the entirely predictable and indeed predicted confusions resulting from this not very well thought out new Newsroom setup, see previous discussions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was pretty thought out, seeing as this is about the fourth or fifth discussion about the specific detail of which volume number should be denoted in the section headings -- it's not clear what the next volume and issue number is going to be prior to publication. It doesn't exist yet. Adding 1 to the number would produce wrong results if it were done prior to an issue rollover. If you want, I can add "plus one" to the end of every section heading, so that this issue will stop being brought up. jp×g🗯️ 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, the template now creates and parses sections with "The issue immediately after XX-YY" in the title. jp×g🗯️ 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Offering congratulations[edit]

The Signpost wishes her all the best. Congratulations Katherine! @Smallbones @Frostly, I find statements like this (which crop up in the Signpost from time to time) a bit unjournalistic. They express a sentiment, which is a type of opinion (even if widely held/innocuous), within a non-opinion space. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sdkb, thanks for catching this. I'm supportive of removal if Smallbones concurs. — Frostly (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've always thought of The Signpost as a small town newspaper. We're first and foremost part of a community - of say about 30,000 people who contribute over 100 edits a month (but there are also lots of people who live on the outskirts of town). We're lucky that we have this community and at the same time we can still aspire to reach an international audience. In the media, IMHO, is a journalism review rather than a straight news slot. It's always had some opinion in it.
Now we typically offer congrats to new admins, contest and award winners (e.g. WLM, Wikipedians of the year), new arbs (with thanks to all candidates). And thanks to people who have run big projects (e.g. Wikimania). Our community can be terribly confrontational at times, but we realize that we're all in this together. Every successful newspaper has its own traditions and character. There's nothing wrong with occasional thanks and congratulations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense as an approach, since we also tend to e.g. have some snark at really bad journalism about Wikipedia. Is there a description of "In the media" in the Signpost's about section that documents this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance has a rather wordy one, which does indeed mention that in ITM one should try to add value wherever possible by providing context or relevant details from an internal perspective.
Inasmuch as they serve this purpose of adding value for the reader, I agree with Smallbones that informed opinions are fine in ITM, although it is certainly possible to overdo it. And separately, we should keep expressions of opinions as "The Signpost" to a minimum - boilerplate congratulations don't do much harm, but contributors who feel tempted to write something like "The Signpost hopes Trump doesn't get re-elected" may want to consider attributing that to themselves instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smallbones@Sdkb Did we ever write anything about what precipitated Katherine's departure? I have heard that it was involuntary (but rumours are rumours). However, –
  • the wording, votes and timing of this board resolution and
  • Victoria's comment here (even though she wasn't on the board at the time)
would be consistent with that, as would the large severance payment and her being at a loose end for a bit afterwards.
As for congratulations, I don't mind those either. It's a friendly touch. Andreas JN466 13:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smallbones: well put. I have zero problems including well wishes to someone who has been a highly visible part of the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, although I do agree that it's important to be restrained in editorial proffering of opinions outside the opinion pages, I think it's within the bounds of propriety for us to wish Wikipedians well in their job search, offer condolences when they die, congratulations when they live well, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anything going on with publication?[edit]

I might even ask for an hour or so delay. @JPxG and Bri: please let me know via email if anything is up! Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm waiting until 9pm eastern for some news, and I really do hope that we can publish about that time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm giving up for tonight. I may have something a bit more about 11am eastern tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd much prefer that we publish ASAP. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm around, but I was hoping to hear something from JPxG before rushing in. Let's evaluate tomorrow. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK with me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me too. @JPxG: If you still anticipate being involved with the publication of this issue, it would be good to weigh in here now (and also to update the deadline template, where I have just provisionally moved the publication deadline to Jan 30 20:00 UTC per the above). Otherwise let's assume Bri will carry out publication this time.
Everyone can still help out by going over the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, take care of any still missing "copyedited" checkmarks, and also weigh in on "final approval" if there are any tricky cases. We should assume that Comix, Arbitration report, WikiProject report, and Web report will not be part of this issue.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like JPxG has started grooming articles for publication today. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Combing and brushing them. I will be here to send it out, although I apologize for contributing more or less nothing for this issue. jp×g🗯️ 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good timing. I've gone as far as I can with the article. 16:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've completed copyediting for the last two columns (N&N and Traffic report): feel free to give them a double-check, if needed! : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

There is a new publishing script that JPxG and I decided I should run for this issue, after he marks pages "ready to publish". I've been using an older edition of the publishing script that has become obsolete, and it's always a good idea to make sure that the tools do not have some unexpected dependency on the user environment. In other words, confirm that we have two people who can actually publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a great idea. (FWIW, the "new" script is already mentioned in our process documentation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Script.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone: is User:Cremastra/crossword supposed to be in this issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is marked as "unreviewed" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Crossword, so technically speaking the answer is no - although if someone were to quickly review it and move it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Crossword, why not.
I marked it approved and moved it to the next issue space. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apropos, there are quite a few other pending submissions at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions that are a several weeks old and haven't seen a reaction yet.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this might actually be worth an article. The old CSS image crop template is so complex to use that just having something that will do all the calculations is enough to make it so much more user friendly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Bri: All the articles are signed off on. It should be good to roam now. jp×g🗯️ 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting... ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No errors on simulated run, using the new script. Proceeding with real publishing in a second... ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it finished. I tried to follow the order of columns used in the last several editions, maybe we should have a guide for that?? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know there's different ways to view reader feedback, but I still use this "related changes" hack. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thank you to both of you! Andreas JN466 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Views for 20-2[edit]

Has anyone got the pageview stats for the latest issue? I'm curious to see how it performed! Oltrepier (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go way up to the top of the page and expand the first light green bar. Recent research R00LZBri (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri Sorry, I didn't even notice it... Thank you!
Interestingly enough, despite not being so viewed in comparison to other articles, it seems like my opinion piece has received a good response, so I'm happy I've been able to spark a discussion. Oltrepier (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I've been able to piece together from pageview stats over the last year or so is that they're basically noise. I mean, they're meaningful in the sense that we know which of our articles are being read the most, but there doesn't really seem to be much correlation between view count and writing quality, or headline quality, or even the subject of the coverage -- by far the most relevant question is "did this get posted on a big social media site or not" ;^) jp×g🗯️ 03:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now overtaken by Smallbones' Disinformation piece, which made it to the Hacker News front page yesterday. Andreas JN466 10:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, Disinfo got 30,000 views in the last day. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the media -Azerbaijan tech[edit]

I'm not sure I have enough for this, or whether we should publish it. The topic just has a smell to it. That's all I want to say. Any advice appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essay in a few weeks?[edit]

Hi! As I recover from my illness I've taken to working quietly on User:Ixtal/Analysis on administrators' activity. I should finish gathering all the necessary data to finish the tables and related graphics in the next 2-3 weeks and was wondering if I could share the results through the signpost. I realized some years ago we didn't have much data on the admin activity from each cohort of admins and that limited our understanding of past admin activity levels as well as our ability to forecast the future status of adminship. I'd like to get some eyes on the finished report as I'm sure other editors will be able to derive better insights from the data, so sharing it here would be very useful. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ixtal, I love the idea! I think that it's great to have more data-based reporting in The Signpost. Once you're done the full table, I definitely concur that it'd be great to have a more detailed writeup (min 2 paragraphs) analyzing the data. Best, — Frostly (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooh, data mining with Quarry, I like it! Looking forward to the conclusions to be drawn ... do you think each cohort will be most active the year they are elected, then dropping off over time? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's too early for me to say anything to that respect but I'd hypothesize that to be the case. I only have complete data on 2007 admins and near-complete data on 2006 admins and they quickly drop off in the 3-4 years after adminship. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue immediately after 20-2 Disinformation report[edit]

90% of the article is a transcript (to be handled as a quote - copy editing would be counterproductive. The quality (or lack of it) of the written text is part of the story) Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About 7 articles are basically ready[edit]

@JPxG and Red-tailed hawk: the following look ready to me. But there really are no copy editors this issue, so I shouldn't do the original writing or formatting and light copy editing and then the final copy editing. About 7 articles should be ready

  • Disinformation report
  • In the media
  • Gallery
  • Serendipity
  • Traffic report
  • News from Wiki Edu (please don't forget it this time)

I don't know anything about crosswords, but

  • Crossword looks done

I don't see much of a future for this News and notes so I think it's best to just leave it out,

fiddle with the pix for the landing page and publish what we have and give everybody at least 13 days until the next issue.

You're not going to be able to create anything that's missing by your self in any reasonable amount of time IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can pitch in on copyediting the things Smallbones wrote. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got the Disinfo report & In the media, and some miscellaneous changes elsewhere. Sorry, that's all I can do tonight. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't have the time to commit to doing copyediting; I began reviewing a GAN yesterday and I'm in the process of updating the article on the Super Bowl. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have beefed up "News and notes" and think it now has enough content to be published. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks much, HaeB. Work ... Andreas JN466 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have some severe reservations about the Wiki Edu piece, and I was in error not to mention them last time. Essentially, the article being discussed is rather concerning. Of course we don't expect student editors to never make mistakes, and some amount of copyediting and formatting is to be expected from others; but the article they wrote is a heavily promotional vanity piece, to the point where it resembles COI/UPE. The fact that a student wrote this for college credit, to me, almost seems worse than if they'd just been paid to post a CV on Wikipedia -- it indicates that we are instructing people to write like this. I mean, here:
His academic pursuits reached a pinnacle when he earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Oregon in 1964.
Smith, who holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry expressed his ongoing commitment to Delaware State University as trustee emeritus. He plans to stay engaged with the university and continue attending board meetings in a non-voting capacity, expressing his desire to support Delaware State University's growth and evolution. Reflecting on his time as both interim president and board chair, Smith highlighted the need for effective communication and a shared understanding of goals between the university president and the board for successful decision-making. Smith's years of working at Delaware State University led the university toward continuous progress, positioning it to become one of the leading HBCUs in the country.
There have been controversies in the past with promotional articles about academics, and specifically with Wiki Edu: my understanding is that, rather than malice, this type of behavior is simply so ubiquitous and expected among professional academics that it just feels normal to them. At any rate, I don't really feel comfortable running a piece in which we straightforwardly endorse this as a work of art. I don't really know if this is something that can be resolved by copyediting, without essentially gutting it and writing a different article in its stead. jp×g🗯️ 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JPxG: Not surprisingly, I completely disagree with you. This was written by a college freshman (it's pretty hard to call him an academic in his first semester) not writing in his first language, probably his first few months outside of Egypt. I don't know the reputation of Rutgers-Newark and I don't want to put it down in any way, but at least technically it can be called an inner city university. Now, I recall my first semester at University without any of those difficulties; the author of the Wikipedia article seems to have done a lot better than I did.
If I recall correctly, only about 2% of Wikipedia editors in America are Black vs. about 12% percent in the US population. And we have nothing else in The Signpost related to Black History Month. Smith, the subject of the Wikipedia article, is clearly notable. A Black from Memphis, TN earning a PhD in the 1960s and getting a job at DuPont - the top chemical company in the world back then, maybe still today - and then working there for 40 years rising to Vice President of Research - yep that's quite an achievement. What I see in the original article related to your complaint is one peacock term "pinnacle" which would have been better expressed as an "accomplishment" or "achievement", but that's just one word. The final paragraph is not a major flaw either, it's a difficult thing for many people to write an article without a conclusion. It's more repetitive than promotional. Finally I think you are wrong in your criticism of Wiki Edu - who else is reaching out to new editors in any similar way. Don't expect perfection, and please don't bite the newbies.
What was it that attracted me to this article? It's really simple. The simple joy expressed by "I felt like it was a piece of art that I kept looking at". I still feel that way when I write a good article, but I'll guarantee you it wasn't with the first article I wrote on Wikipedia.
I think you've still got time to put it in this issue. Please do it. It's a good article, and it doesn't break any rules. Perhaps it may be controversial with some folks - so much the better.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I see that I'm 45 minutes late for getting it in the regular way. And you are more than a full day late, didn't ping me, didn't even show up before the deadline. But don't worry, you can still put it in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean the kid. He didn't do anything wrong: he was doing what the professor said he should do, which is what students are supposed to do. They aren't supposed to know everything (otherwise why would they go to school?)
My issue is that this seems quite similar in nature to a previous incident, where some combination of poor training and bad communication led to students being roped into writing bad articles, which got the axe, and after which everybody got mad online.
My concern here is that, when he took a class that purported to teach him how to write Wikipedia articles, it seems to have instead taught him how to write speedy deletion candidates, and then a bunch of people signed off on this for some reason. Sure, maybe the guy is notable, but the notability is not clearly commensurate with the volume that was written. In short, I don't know what our answer is supposed to be when someone reads this and asks 'but the article was extremely bad, why are you bragging that people got a student to write this and then approved it'?
As for the delay in editing and publishing this issue, that was my fault and I apologize for it.
I would write more here but I will have to sleep first jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-Signposter here). That WikiEdu article is indeed a really bad advertisement for their program. The instructor and the WikiEdu advisor failed the student and Wikipedia. It was flagged at Wikipediocracy and I made two sweeping edits fixing it up: the first fixing extensive repetition and a lack of specifics, not to mention burying his primary claim to notability, his interim university presidency; the second adding another honor and more sources. (The original article was a disservice to the man.) I've been waiting for you to publish the item in order to write a comment. Since the item didn't get published, and is a republication of an in-house blog entry, the kindest thing to WikiEdu would be to not publish it to further cement their bad reputation on-wiki. Alternatively you could write an independent article on the failings of WikiEdu, in which the trumpeting of this article would be just one example. As a news and commentary organ associated with Wikipedia, I think you shouldn't be simply republishing other projects' blog entries anyway, but I'm not a Signposter. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"(Non-Signposter here)": That can easily be changed, Yngvadottir! I think you are pretty well informed on all the topic areas we cover, and help is always appreciated. Just chip in whenever you feel like it. Best, Andreas JN466 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, Andreas, but I would be very bad at it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post-publication (issue 3)[edit]

As usual you can see user feedback on the issue with this link that I created. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20-3 In the media[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to bring you a bit of news that likely didn't make it to the yesterday's issue: After Midnight incorporated a wiki-race from Snoop Dogg to the Great Depression in one of their quizzes from the show's latest episode!

It might not mean much, but I thought it was still pretty funny! Oltrepier (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can't say I have the time to do Vami justice in an obit, but I'd like to at least mention Vami's very voluminous list of birds. Vami approached me some years ago, knowing that I quite like birds, and proposed this list of bird articles which were FA's in, but not He had wanted to take them to FA with me. I'm sad to say I never got around to any of them, because I always thought "I can do it later." Well, later hasn't come. I think the best way we can remember editors is to carry on their work, so I strongly invite people to take up the projects which Vami was working on and see them through to the end. I certainly intend to take these birds through, and would love help from any bird editors to make that a reality. If any of you editorial types want to include this, edited as much as you'd like, in the obit, it'd be certainly appreciated. Vami was a really nice and cool kid, and he's very dearly missed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More -
Bluerasberry (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue immediately after 20-3 Recent research[edit]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the 20-3 issue[edit]

Hello! Do you need help completing or reviewing any of the columns?

I'll try to go through the short entries over at "In the media", at least! Oltrepier (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think any help is welcome at this stage, Oltrepier! Please do whatever you can. Andreas JN466 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm too involved to report on it, but WP:RFA2024 seems like something I'd expect the Signpost to cover. Sdkbtalk 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see that most of the started articles for this issue aren't in copyeditable state, so I think it would be condign to put off the publication for a day (or maybe a little longer). jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JPxG I agree, it would help us work on them a little more calmly... Oltrepier (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will see to get RR into a publishable state within the next six hours, and should also be able to help out a bit with N&N and/or ITM.
Looking at the other blue links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status:
  • Traffic report looks ready to be copyedited (CCing Igordebraga to confirm)
  • WikiProject report has substantial content already but also lots of placeholders - Shushugah, would you prefer this to be postponed to the next issue?
  • Tips and tricks and Obituary still consist mostly of Lorem ipsum and should probably be postponed or removed
  • News from Wiki Edu seems problematic per the discussion above
  • Web report is an inscrutable draft that was last edited in December and should probably be moved somewhere else or be deleted to avoid confusion
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, please do postpone my WikiProject report, I will ping again new/existing contributors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CaptainEek and Adam Cuerden: Are you still working on your respective columns? Oltrepier (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had a ton of paperwork regarding my dad's death. Next issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a need for more articles for the upcoming edition, I'd gladly writeup a report in the next few hours on the WikiCup (first round just finished), like I did a few months back, if there's any interest. @JPxG:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would there be any interest in me writing something up about it for this edition? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't speak for JPxG (who is currently tasked with making the final calls on such questions), but it sounds like a good idea to me! Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]