Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Interview with WMF leadership

This issue

Wikipedia:The last good place

Vami IV last FAC Last issue contained a moving obituary from his colleagues to

Featured Article Candidate—was promoted. Here is the FAC discussion, which saw Volunteers Premeditated Chaos and Guerillero shepherd the piece through the closing stages of the usual robust review process to achieve for Vami the final, finest accolade a Wikpedia writer can earn.

Acta est fabula, plaudite.

——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

An update and new deadline

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I should be able to help you all again for the next issues, starting from next week!

Speaking of new issues, when is the next deadline going to land? And, most importantly... why did the Deadline table got so angry that it started zapping green laser? Oltrepier (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since our cadence is now first Sunday and third Sunday of the month, I set the next issue to 21 April, jumping over the first Sunday which is only 1 week from past issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commit to completing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. If I don't get more participants, I will fill in more trivia/look back at some of the accomplishments/other quirks of the Wiki Projects and their early days. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also back from the shadow realm, as of today, and will be trying to follow up on a bunch of stuff that has gone undealtwith the last while. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next "In the media"

@Bri and Oltrepier: Would the "blind faith" part not go under Recent research, since it was discussing a study? QuicoleJR (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR I didn't add it myself, but I agree: it would serve as a nice opener to the RR column!

@Bri By the way, I think the entries about the ban lift in Pakistan and edit wars on articles about San Francisco politicians both have lead story potential: I can try to work on and expand them in the next few days, if you'd like to! Oltrepier (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you did that! Consider expansion of ITN items a "go" at any time in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, and yes, feel free to move the coverage to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research. Let's make sure to cite the study itself too and not just the media article. In any case I added the paper to the usual to-do list for RR, which otherwise still needs to be updated with new publications; I hope to do that within the next two days (we are bit short-staffed this month). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note here that the Pakistan thing [3] is from last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, 2023. Thanks; I removed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I've finally got the job done for all the lead stories I committed to: sorry for the wait... I've already noticed that Smallbones is working on the Ruviki article, so thank you for that! On the other hand, while working on the San Francisco story I realized how little I know about US political divisions (as a foreign), so apologies in advance for any kind of blunders; plus, I feel like the ending I wrote is pretty weak, so feel free to improve it, as well... Finally, the After Midnight entry should be already fine, but another pair of eyes is always welcome! Oltrepier (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next News and notes

I've added a couple of headlines:

1. The long-awaited draft of the white paper on research ethics and privacy is up on Meta-Wiki, with community feedback invited (this was one of the outcomes of the Grabowski/Klein ArbCom case on the Holocaust in Poland)
2. Former Steward User:Mardetanha has been SanFran-banned

Anyone who'd like to have a stab at writing these up is welcome. I am still under pressure with work and am grateful for any help.

Incidentally, mentioning Shira Klein, she has another, more recent claim to fame now, as one of the authors of the Academics4peace open letter titled "Genocide is plausible; stop arms to Israel". For more see [4] --Andreas JN466 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no discussion of what brought about the SanFranBan, right? I can't help but wonder if MENA was involved. Note, the user is still listed as one of the two primary contacts at Iranian Wikimedians User Group (on Meta). The concern stems from this WMF announcement from December 2022 and our coverage from January 2023 which stated the roots of the December 2022 bans lie in concerns expressed to the WMF about the Farsi Wikipedia some years ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Mardetanha (Mohsen Salek) was mentioned by name in 2019 articles by Radio Zamaneh and Open Democracy.

Note that there is no conceivable outing concern here. Mohsen was a very prominent movement figure for many years and fully out with his name, see Meta-Wiki, Commons categories etc. Andreas JN466 08:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Do you need some help to complete the column? I can work on some smaller parts, if needed! Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume I won't be able to complete this column, so please do whatever you can with it. If I can contribute more this month it will probably be with small things like copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I don't feel comfortable enough to elaborate on the two existing lead entries (being totally unfamiliar with the subject), but I'll try to sort the brief notes at the bottom out! Plus, I'm working on another last-gasp lead blurb, since there has been a significant update on the "Public Domain Wars" over here in Italy. Oltrepier (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I've finished working on my last blurb and submitted it into the column.

Like I wrote before, though, I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the two other subjects to take over those lead stories... @Jayen466, Smallbones, and JPxG: Is there anyone else who might be able to save the day? Oltrepier (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a minimal write-up of those two stories. :/ Andreas JN466 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 Good, thank you! I've copy-edited both of them slightly, and now it's only my own blurb that still needs another pair of eyes. Oltrepier (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something that seems important is buried

Something that seems important is buried: the number of active administrators is again at an all-time low (modern wiki history). I don't have time/energy to elaborate on the item for this issue and it's starting to feel a bit like beating a dead horse. But maybe someone else has a fresh approach? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I feel like we should focus on it in detail for the next issue, to be honest: it would also be a good occasion to break down the proposals that could help improve the RfA process and expand the admin pool back again. Oltrepier (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I'd like to find a way to bring these data into the narrative. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that we are procrastinating on publication of this issue again, I have added a story that follows up on last issue's Technology report (and could also run as separate Technology report again, I guess). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this for publication in the next issue.

• User:Bluerasberry/signpost_wikicon2023_draft

The conference was in November 2023, but just this month I got a collection of conference videos published, and also the event photographer uploaded their images in February.

I have some conference organizers reviewing this right now and I am not ready for copyediting, but can someone stage this with the Signpost markup, or give me a suggestion for how to do that? I could do it with brief instructions. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can set up the skeleton of a WikiConference report for you. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article status roster has a blue "Start article" button for you now at WikiConference report. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked at your draft first. It looks like it's already in Signpost markup. Do you just need it moved to Signpost page space? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed this move is what was really wanted, so I did move it to WikiConference report. The page is listed in the article status roster. These links might be useful later:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-14/WikiConference report
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/Special report

The latter (2023) is the latest Signpost article I could find that is just about any WikiConference; the former (2015) is the latest titled "WikiConference report". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everything is now as I wanted it.

Yes, I wanted this moved to Signpost page space for publication in the next issue.

It is unfortunate that only two WikiConferences are covered here, with one of these in India and the other in the United States. These are annual by region in a few places. I will discuss with others. Whatever the case, I am happy to present this one this time. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

@HaeB: I didn't forget about you, I promise... Since we'll likely delay publication for one-two days, I'll try to help you out a bit! --Oltrepier (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: Bri often reminds me not to feed the trolls; I'm afraid that I take the bait much too often, e.g. in January where I defended Maher after she was trolled upon the announcement that she was being named CEO of NPR. She (and Wikipedia) are being trolled again now that she's assumed the CEO position. I think I'll remove a 2 liner about Maher in ITM from Bri, because I think it's just trolling. But please feel free to put it back (anybody), if you consider the following.

• 3 days after KM took up her new role, Uri Berliner, longtime NPR editor, published off-NPR, a strong criticism of NPR as being super-liberal. No surprise here, but almost nothing to do so far with KM or WP.
• After strong reaction from NPR staff to Berliner's piece, KM suspended him (based on off-NPR publishing policy) for 5 days without pay. Berliner then resigned. Nothing to do with WP.
• Fox, NY Post, The Federalist (website), City Journal (both right-wing publications) came in with trolling based on KM's past statements (mostly at WP) or old social media posts. So far -it's just the same stuff as January. I don't see a need to feed the trolls again.
• But there is one interesting accusation - the accusation that WP took orders from the feds to censor right-wing content in the 2020 election. IIRC, we covered that a month or 2 before the 2020 election, and have done so since. It's an old puffed up story.
• So I don't see where there is anything new here, with one possible exception. Larry Sanger is interviewed by City Journal, with a follow up by Fox. No, that's nothing new either. But ask me for links if you want to go ahead (but I won't write it myself). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oltrepier: just removed your new version (once I got over there). I do think others as well as @JPxG: should weigh in also. I don't think that we should be saying that Wikipedia secretely censored right-wingers during an election when we know that they were very open about needed procedures for countering known disinformation (via the community). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is one mention linked to from ITM on [5] in November 2020. Me feeding the trolls is in the January 31, 2024 ITM. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smallbones No worries at all! I just tried to expand the blurb with general bits of information, to be honest... Oltrepier (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What is the point of ITM if you choose to ignore outlets that don't support the political Left? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris. Thanks for responding - I do think we need to have some agreement on how to deal with this one, and you know you are always welcomed here. I think in general I do take conservative sources seriously enough to respond. The question is when to say seriously - they're going to far and just trolling. One example here is The Federalisat (website). Their second major criticism of Maher is that, while she was WMF CEO, the article about them was nominated fro deletion. Seriously. (The first major criticism is the BS about WMF taking orders from the feds during the 2020 elections. Then there is Fox seriously saying that NPR is just off the chart left-wing. You do understand that FOX is off the chart right-wing. Enough for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we go wrong when we characterize sources as left or right wing and then determine trustworthiness based off that. It used to be that a reliable source was an entity that had paid reporters and an editorial board, regardless of slant. We can attribute statements to the outlet and let the reader decide. Was Katherine Maher one of many "tech people" who met with US Government employees to squash some online activity? Maybe. I don't think Signpost needs to uncritically re-state what The Federalist says, but perhaps just mention that because she is now the CEO at NPR and WMF is on her resume, outlets like Fox are drawing conclusions about leftist institutions and the people for whom they provide care and feeding. I'll agree that outsider outlets often mis-characterize what little editorial impact a WMF Executive Director has on en-wp articles short of OFFICE actions. If Signpost feels like it has to cater to an audience of leftist editors, that's a separate problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did note the afd was in 2014 and Maher became executive director (CEO was later) in 2016? Fwiw, my view is, since it's in the media, mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary here, when adding this item, was with the knowledge that it will be a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" decision. I think a brief mention that there is some controversy involving our ex-CEO, related to her actions while nominally in charge of this project (yes I am aware that nobody is really in charge), would be appropriate. I think we're smart enough to do this without either embracing, or dismissing, those making the allegations. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I'm being out voted here, so I'll accept that. I strongly urge @JPxG: to take this under his direct control and spend 2 or 3 hours going over what I think will be a 2 or 3 line story at the bottom of the page. It is imperative IMHO that we do not suggest that we believe that feds took control of Wikipedia's 2020 election coverage, when we have no evidence of that. I also believe that we cannot in any way disparage KM in any way in the story. The Signpost coverage at the time of the election included Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/News from the WMF (and 2 press stories from before the election that I mentioned in the comments there) and it's pretty clear that the WMF talked to the feds about possible disinformation campaigns, but not much if anything beyond that. FaceBook, Twitter, etc. also seem to have been involved, but this has been covered in many other places (was one called Twittergate right after Elon Musk came in?) Perhaps @GorillaWarfare: can comment here since she was mentioned in one of the stories. As for advice on how to write it. Well there are lots of old saws and cliches. Don't mud wrestle with a pig. Don't get into a pissing match with a professional pisser. Which all seem to say "keep it short." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A short line to acknowledge this campaign against Maher seems fine, I suppose. It seems in the past day or so it's growing to support the usual complaints about Wikipedia (or "Wokipedia", in Elon Musk's parlance), which could be mentioned — though I'll be surprised if it develops into more than the usual whingings on Twitter. There's certainly a lot of misinformation going around that could be debunked for a non-Wikimedian audience, though the Signpost seems a poor venue to reach such an audience. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it light, keep it bright, keep it... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are a couple possibilities here: some of them are embarrassing for Maher and Wikipedia, some of them are embarrassing for Maher, and some are just goofy. Here is the actual quote from that Atlantic Council thing:

1) We took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation, coming into not just the last election, but how we supported our editing community in an unprecedented moment where we were not only dealing with a global pandemic but a novel virus, which by definition means we know nothing about in real-time. And we're trying to figure it out as the pandemic went along.

2) We really set up, in response to the pandemic but also the upcoming U.S. election as a model for future elections outside of the U.S., including as number happening this year.

3) The model was around how do we create a clearinghouse of information that brings the institution of the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in order to be able to identify threats early on, through conversations with government, of course, as well as other platform operators to understand what the landscape looks like.

This follows well in the fine tradition of vague corporate buzzwords, such that it could mean any number of things, and I think to even understand what the hell it's supposed to be saying (to say nothing of what it actually is saying) requires several years of attentively (and perhaps unhealthily) paying attention to extremely online politics nonsense.

I suspect there is no way for me to have a comment about this without saying what my actual opinion is, and I'm pretty sure my actual opinion has something in it to piss off everybody, but there's no way to move forward unless I just come out with it -- so here it is:

This seems like the same general type of thing as the events prompting Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Disinformation_report (perhaps even regarding the same events). Broadly speaking, at any given time, there are many people attempting to fuck with Wikipedia articles (either for the lulz, or out of anger, or out of political/religious/etc zealotry) -- this has been happening nonstop 24/7 since the year 2001, and we have pretty robust features in place to deal with it and figure out what the truth is, or at least figure out what a decently-written mostly-neutral encyclopedia article on a topic should look like. People on here will regularly spend entire weekends reading through dense and obscure texts in order to determine what the deal really is about something. I personally spent a few hours figuring out whether an uninhabited 20-foot-wide strip of dirt in the middle of a river was called "Dynamite Island" or "Powder House Island". You could call this "being an obsessive nerd", or you could call it "fighting misinformation", and either would be technically correct.

Secondarily: the idea of "misinformation" (i.e. people saying and believing and repeating stuff that is either incorrect or disingenuous or total BS) has been around for quite some time, the phenomenon itself has been around for as long as humans have communicated using language, and there is no partisan aspect to this whatsoever. In the broadest sense, anyone who writes or assembles or distributes correct information is fighting against incorrect information.

Thirdly: starting some time around the middle of the 2010s, we had this politician who achieved remarkable success and rose to the rank of President of the United States, and had an astonishing capacity for talking out his ass (astonishing even for a US politician at the national level which is really saying something); between this guy and some other guys (male and female) and the general omnipresence of algorithmically-amplified social media websites as a source of (or at least presentation medium for) news stories, there exists a phenomenon where large swaths of political discourse are literally just fiction that came directly out of somebody's ass. Well, maybe this was always true, maybe not, that's a wholly separate discussion, but it is indeed the case that there exist a lot of posts online which are both a) about politics and b) wildly incorrect. Hell, it is even sometimes the case that c) the person making the posts knows they're wildly incorrect and is posting them anyway for the sake of having a negative impact anyway.

Anyway:

The present saga involves the part of the saga where, starting some time around the middle of the 2010s, these concepts were incorporated into a sort of operational and philosophical framework that was used in a couple different ways. On one hand, people used phrases like "trust and safety" or "misinformation and disinformation" to refer directly to the boring scutwork that people like us always did to distinguish between fact and fiction --

WP:SPI

my beloved -- and deal with the background noise of abjectly godawful sludge that every big website ends up having to deal with (like LTA harassment and doxing and gore videos and ISIS propaganda and child porn and etc etc etc).

On the other hand, these buzzwords (they did refer to a real thing after all) were also quite commonly used as a crude bludgeon by nakedly partisan hacks, a dizzying panoply of policy wonks, thinkfluencers, pundits and think tanks responsible for a massive cavalcade of often imbecilic and occasionally authoritarian takes about how we just needed to find somebody who was smart enough to decide what was true and false, and then [et cetera -- long rant excised]. I think that by now, this type of stuff is mostly on the downswing, which rules (certainly we are past the highest fever-pitch crest of it). But it was indeed the case that there was (perhaps still is) a kind of sleazy intellectual undercurrent of what if we gratuitously undermined press freedom for the unspecified-but-trust-me-bro greater good. Well, at the Signpost we are (I believe the words I'm typing are physically stored on a disk in California) the heirs of a culture of free press whose centuries-long tradition was based firmly on vociferous independence, a noble and sacred tradition of freedom in thought and speech running nearly uninterrupted from Voltaire and Rousseau through Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine through Upton Sinclair, Rachel Carson, Neil Sheehan, Daniel Ellsberg, and countless hundreds of brave souls through to the present day who put their necks on the line to say the truth, and left us better off for it. It's true that the people who wrote the First Amendment and gave us the foundation for this tradition had "conversations with government", but if I recall correctly, these consisted of them saying "kiss my ass" and the government trying to shoot them.

Now, with all of this in mind, I will begrudgingly admit that think tanks and pundits and Congressional lobbyists are probably not reading the Signpost alongside their morning coffee and biscuit at Beltway Bob's Burgers and Bill Signings, so maybe it doesn't matter a hell of a lot to the important big people what we have to say about anything, least of all not what the lady who NPR hired to be in charge of NPR and who happened to some years before that be in charge of the organization that hosts Wikipedia thinks about whether or not the Donald is a "freakin cheeto" or etc. But I do think that it is condign for us, as whatever we consider ourselves: Wikipedia editors, obsessive nerds, citizens of an international World Wide Web, the unofficial-but-also-only keepers of record for the largest and most diligently-updated reference work ever assembled in history serving as the unofficial-but-also-only comprehensive encyclopedia of the human species -- I am damn proud of all of them for what it's worth -- to be able to respond in some way to claims and implications that impugn the foundational integrity of our project.

That is to say, if random nonprofit executives genuinely are having secret conversations with random government bureaucrats, and what's said in these conversations is used to inform content decisions on Wikipedia, well, this sucks. It sucks even more if the content is political in nature, and the nonprofit executive is someone who has strong personal opinions about the political issues in question, and also we're not allowed to know what the conversations are or what is being said during them -- the best-case scenario is that these comments are a sort of vague handwave, and these conversations never really amounted to anything substantial, and they didn't culminate in any action being taken, and so the whole thing was some kind of empty political posturing. That is to say, it was a bizarre contortion to make it seem like the WMF was colluding with the government to influence the content of Wikipedia articles... when they weren't. This really doesn't make any sense at all, so I am not inclined to believe it for any reason besides it apparently being true. I cannot even begin to fathom what might motivate somebody to think this was a good idea: all the disadvantages of having people think you sold out, without actually getting the check. The only thing I can come up with is that in the year 2021, there was some kind of notion floating around the nonprofit-thinktank-pundit-clickfluencer wonkosphere where having the government decide what posts people could read on the Internet was seen as being really smart and cool, and it made you sound cool and "with it" to claim that you were part of this process, even if you weren't. Well, whatever: the understanding I have here in 2024 is that basically none of this stuff being alluded to actually happened in a real sense, because the Wikipedia editoriat would have rightly raised absolute hell in a handbasket if it had, and there's no sense in just rolling over and saying "okay sure whatever" when people accuse a volunteer project which has busted its hump for twenty years to achieve neutrality and independence (and done a pretty darn good job) of being government shills. It doesn't sit right with me and I feel like we should at least say something.

Anyway, this is what the case seems to be. What do you guys think? jp×g🗯️ 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has, in my opinion, been pretty transparent about the various things they've been doing with respect to disinformation. As for "zomg, WMF people meet with government bodies", my response is a resounding "well, duh". If various government entities are going to do anything policy-related with respect to the Internet, they would be foolish not to meet with people from massive platforms like the Wikimedia projects; and, conversely, if the WMF wants to see responsible policy, they would be foolish not to participate. Then, of course, there is the routine and hardly secret coordination between various teams at the WMF and law enforcement type groups, as a part of T&S challenges that come part and parcel with running a prominent site that hosts user-submitted content. My understanding regarding the activities the WMF undertook (and continues to undertake) with respect to disinformation is that they are focused on supporting the editing communities in combatting disinformation — not themselves intervening in content decisions or community activities. See the explanation of the Disinformation team at meta:Trust and Safety/Overview, for example.

I've not seen anything that suggests that there was some mustache-twirling collusion between government groups trying to control a narrative and the WMF, nor any suggestion that the WMF has in concert with them or independently tried to influence content. Having seen the suggestions that Maher "is CIA" because she traveled to Tunisia or served on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board (which I've seen characterized as "working for the State Department"), this reads to me as conspiracizing rather than anything real. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the pathos to her weekly >hello world was cobbled with the best of extensions. Sharing openly and freely of one's own intentionality always seems retrospectfully risky, all things conceded.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment might be of interest: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#What's_going_on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for asking this at the last minute, but still... would it be okay if we put off the publication for one-two days?

I feel like it would allow us to finish the job with some of the columns (mainly "News and notes", "Recent research" and the "WikiProject Report") more calmly, as well as solve the Maher situation. Oltrepier (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually deliberating on this a few hours ago and regretting that it had gotten so close to deadline, because I'd prefer to put it forward a couple days also. If nobody else has any objections, I think we should put it a day forward or so tomorrow morning. jp×g🗯️ 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and updated the deadline template accordingly (seeing that nobody had objected here). As discussed several times before, it would be great if we could steer things back to a more reliable publication schedule again; with the last issue things were again quite dysfunctional in that regard.

On my end, I'm as always working to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB On second thought, I'm afraid I don't have enough energy and/or expertise to help you with the RR column: I'm so sorry for that... Oltrepier (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah On a side note, how is the Wikiproject report going? Oltrepier (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier It is ready from my end! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like a publishable issue. I was hoping I would have time to write a couple pieces for it, but I did not, so I haven't -- tomorrow morning we fly. jp×g🗯️ 07:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I think that it may actually be possible to get a thing about the current shitstorm and an arbitration report out by tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My wrist is too fucked up to write long articles today so I am only going to publish what we have. jp×g🗯️ 10:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG That's fine, I think we still did a great job overall! Oltrepier (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes -- you did a great job! I regrettably sat on my keister for most of this time. jp×g🗯️ 12:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With publication soon (?) I just noticed that the gallery in the WikiConference report includes an image of a community banned editor. Maybe this should be removed? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I don't forget, a few days ago I went through the "Suggestions" section to collect some news that went over our heads:

- This study on under-representation and mischaracterization of Black and/or female figures on Wikipedia (suggested by Gråbergs Gråa Sång; will likely feature in "Recent Research", so I'm going to flag it to @HaeB);

- The joint statement on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip by several Wikimedia organizations and volunteers, which is currently the subject of a pretty lengthy and fiery discussion (suggested by Another Believer);

- The recent death of Ukrainian Wikipedian Yuri Lushchai, who reportedly fell victim of the current war in Ukraine on March 28 (suggested by Avessa and Oleg Yunakov; probably needs further verification);

- Also on March 28, the WMF's introduction as an Associate Member of the Unicode Consortium (suggested by Arcorann).

I hope these are useful for the next issue, and let me know if there are any mistakes! Oltrepier (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just found out that Chris Albon (the WMF's Director of Machine Learning) was recently interviewed by an Italian portal! Does it sound interesting enough for "In the Media"? Oltrepier (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]