← Back to From the Signpost team

Discuss this story

We stand in solidarity with Ukraine ... WHAT?

Ever heard of WP:NPOV?

I think it is very likely that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors do indeed support Ukraine. But NPOV is a core policy, and our job as neutral editors is to report accurately what the reliable secondary sources say, not to cheerlead for one side. Taking sides in an armed conflict undermines our core mission, and this partisan piece should be promptly retracted.

And before anyone tries accusing me of being a Putin-apologist or similar, let me absolutely clear that I personally regard all invasions as criminals acts, including the current invasion of Ukraine. But as a Wikipedia editor, I set my views aside. My objection here is simply that Wikipedia is not the place to to take stands for or against what we regard as great wrongs.

I am horrified that those who create the Signpost have so flagrantly trampled over one of our core policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Said it better than I could have. I was delayed looking for my jaw. Have I stumbled into some satirical imitation of Wikipedia, or is this a misguided attempt at humour? Please, retract it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in full. Departing from our traditional neutral stance does not look good, either, in the realm of public relations, especially when we base ourselves in the belief that knowledge creates community, instead of dividing it. I request a retraction of this article, too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how about a milder proposal- a rename of the piece? For example, to something like "We stand in solidarity with free knowledge?" Firestar464 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don’t need more options on the table. Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This in specific is from the team or staff at The Signpost. We are allowed in a newspaper to express our opinions. This is an editorial space, not a Wikipedia article. As far as I can determine every staff member and contributor feels the same way. But it goes beyond that. There are things that we "can't be neutral about" e.g if we see somebody torture an animal most of us will speak out - forget academic views on neutrality. It's just wrong and we should say so. But it's beyond that. We look at our readers - other Wikipedians of all kinds. Let that include the official WMF view as well. What I see is a consensus that thr Russian invasion is just wrong - we stand in solidarity with the Uktainian people. I also see many of our Russian colleagues on Wikipedia. They are saying much the same thing even when they face a 15 year prison term for saying it. I stand with them and especially with Mark Bernstein as well.

Please, let's try to be as neutral as possible when writing encyclopedia article. Without of course making a false equivalence for distinctly minority view. But also let Signpostewrs, and all other Wikipedians express their opinions on these pages. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never think it is appropriate to use Signpost to express your political biases. Yes, I know that for whatever reason this cause is popular right now. Still, nobody asked you for this slacktivism. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman is harsh, but correct. I don't think it the right place or the right venue, especially as The Signpost is effectively held out to represent all Wikipedia editors. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is ... way beyond what the Signpost needs to be doing. It may not utterly violate our article guidelines, but it's really not what the Signpost should be doing - it's supposed to be news about Wikipedia, not political stand taking. If you want to run a true newspaper - go elsewhere. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This violation of Wikipedia's neutrality will give a boat-load of ammunition to detractors who claim that Wikipedia editors have a liberal agenda. Damage control time. Erase this article.Smallchief (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief, a quick glance at WP:NPOV would tell you that it only applies to "encyclopaedic content". The Signpost is not that, and has always been an opinionated editorial. I don't understand why people are so outraged over this. Quite frankly, the writers of The Signpost can do what they want within our policies and community consensus.

Also, how on earth is condemning war crimes and the invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory by a crazy dictator a sign of a "liberal agenda"? ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia should approach the worst of human behavior is by sticking to our rules of neutrality and reliability, not by being advocates for anybody or anything. Smallchief (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a community and for the main project, absolutely! I totally agree. However, consensus says otherwise especially for unofficial, non-encyclopaedic content outside of article space, which makes sense too. My opinion is as The Signpost is not official and is just a group of editors who can happily express their opinions, as it's clear it is the POV of the editorial team, it's above board in an NPOV regard. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that this article expressing support for Ukraine is more likely to be damaging to both Wikipedia and Ukraine than it is to be helpful. The first thing a dictator in trouble (read Putin) does is to find foreign enemies to rally their people behind them in support of the "sacred homeland." There are plenty of places to express your opinion of Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I see no benefit in an official Wikipedia publication joining in the condemnation of Putin and Russia. One hopes that this article dies unnoticed. Smallchief (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief, the Signpost is not official and is simply a group of editors. The official WMF stance is very much the same, [1]. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 00:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF defended the right of Wikipedia to publish reliable information about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It didn't say, "we stand in solidarity with Ukraine." Smallchief (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost isn’t WMF, and is also less likely to piss off Russia than the WMF. Basically “if they can do it, so can we” Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the former takes a stronger stance than the latter, which is reasonable considering the power disparity. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these negative comments are in incredibly bad faith as far as I can tell. WP:NPOV is not absolute, and saying you oppose an unprovoked war that almost the entire international community has condemned is probably one of the tamest violations of the policy I can imagine. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:NPOV is absolute. No exceptions. Otherwise you have a soapbox, not an encyclopedia. Smallchief (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolute in regards to articles, not absolute in regards to literally everything. NPOV applies to the encyclopedia and ONLY the encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief, it is not outside of article space, and even if it was WP:IAR is a thing which means that no policy is absolute. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 20:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial team of the Signpost deserves an apology for this WP:UNCIVIL abuse and attempted coercive censorship of non-objectionable content by readers who simply don’t like it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? People are allowed to say if they think a Signpost article sucks. I mean, they're even allowed to nominate a Signpost article at MfD: this has happened eleven times before. The sky did not fall then, and it's not falling now. jp×g 22:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but many of the comments I’m seeing appear to be near-personal attacks in reference to a clearly good-faith, if possibly misguided, article. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other successful deletions seem to be mostly technical, with the one exception being an extremely poor taste “humor” page. In general there’s no precedent to delete Signpost pages purely on a basis of “I hate this”. Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: please retract your allegation of bad faith.

If criticising political POV soapboxing is "uncivil" and "abuse" and "coercive", I am a banana. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

It is very possible for criticising political POV soapboxing to be "uncivil" and "abuse" and "coercive" AND for you to be a banana. On the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog and all that. Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the above criticism is "uncivil", "abuse", or "coercive", then I'm a coconut. The Signpost is treading on thin ice with such a political issue (the most political single issue I've ever seen), and it has wandered far off its scope, which is to present news relevant to Wikipedia. Most of the critics here have made valid points, and you have to admit that this probably wasn't one of the team's wisest decisions, especially given Putin's ability to block Wikipedia with the snap of his fingers. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin could’ve blocked Wikipedia without this article existing, or he could block it now for some totally unrelated reason. Nobody knows what’s going on in that guy’s head, and we shouldn’t scapegoat the Signpost for whatever crazy shit he does next. Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we shouldn't poke the bear. While it is possible (maybe inevitable) that Russia will block Wikipedia in the near future, every time the Signpost or some other well known group of Wikipedians speaks out "in solidarity" against Russia, it brings that possibility that much closer to becoming reality. If a group of Wikipedians want to express their opinions, each of them can do so on their userpages or even outside Wikipedia. I'll repeat what so many others have already said here, Wikipedia is not to be used as a soapbox. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus, so you believe that a banana can edit an encyclopedia.

Good luck with that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was possible, not that it was likely Dronebogus (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given sufficient time a banana editing Wikipedia will spontaneously appear in the void via random entropy decrease. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A milder rebuke. Yes, it is clearly an editorial expressing staff feelings rather than an encyclopedia article or even a news story. Still, better to go more softly. Yes, the side that it backs is the side that is right in the dispute, and the other side is callously and foolishly endangering Ukraine, Europe and the world. Still better to go more softly. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't have as much of a problem with this statement than I would if it came from WMF, it is my opinion that the Signpost is overstepping its scope by "standing in solidarity" for a single political cause. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Russia's actions are criminal at the very least, but when the de-facto official newsletter of Wikipedia, which supposedly stands for WP:NPOV, picks a side in an ongoing conflict, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia as a whole. The Russian government does not exactly have a favorable view of Wikipedia, which is likely one of the last places Russians can get reliable information on the war. As far as I know, Wikipedia is not currently blocked in Russia, but the Russian government has threatened to do so, and we don't want to give them an excuse to block Wikipedia and remove one of the last semi-reliable sources available to the Russian people. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A far more reasonable criticism than “nobody asked for your slacktivism.” Dronebogus (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully support signpost's right to do this, as they are a independent publication who do not claim to represent the entire EN Wikipedia. I also fully agree with them, though I do think this needs to be a bit more clear that this is a editorial, for outside users of Wikipedia who may try and misconstrue this. Sea Cow (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't realize that so many Wikipedia editors didn't understand the concept of an editorial—which is precisely what this column is. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we don't realize that it is an editorial, we recognize that this editorial is overstepping the scope of the Signpost (the de facto official newsletter of Wikipedia) and potentially jeopardizing the availability of Wikipedia, one of the last sources of the truth available, to the Russians. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has gone from “The Signpost are useless slacktivists” to “The Signpost are the second-most powerful force in Wikimedia after the Foundation” Dronebogus (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's the "second-most powerful force in Wikimedia", but it is fairly well known outside of Wikipedia and has had attention from the press in the past. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by the editorial team on this issue. An editorial in and of itself is an opinion. The first thing I thought of when I saw the protests on multiple pages was First they came .... But perhaps more apt for the current situation, is to ask: If Wikipedia had existed in 2001 when September 11 attacks occured, would editors complain if the Signpost team condemned the attacks? I have to ask, because when that happened I was at work (not on the east coast), and the entire world flipped upside down as we scrambled with whether or not we were next. And through all the terror and fright, I had a supervisor who had recently taken a philosophy class titled, "There is no right or wrong, just different points of view," and she wandered around the workplace trying to convince us that whoever had done the deed was entitled to their POV. That seems to me what's happening here. The editorial team is within its scope. If we don't speak up, what does that make us? — Maile (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda isn't exactly a world power that can cut off access to the truth to millions of people in the largest country on the planet. Russia is, so what good is poking the bear going to do if it could lead to the last speck of truth being taken away from the Russian people? The Wikipedia should be doing everything it can to ensure the Russians have access to the truth. Editorials like this are counterproductive. We already know that Putin would block Wikipedia, and it's a miracle he hasn't done it a month after launching an invasion of Ukraine. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s a “miracle” then once again why are we blaming the Signpost, a very modestly famous “local paper”, in advance for triggering Putin? Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more concerned that the Kremlin bunch already knows that "anybody can edit" includes them and their leader. Like maybe they can create whatever online IDs of their own and edit Wikipedia in ways that don't immediately raise suspicions of who those editors are. Just saying ... better to use the outlet than shut it down. — Maile (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has blocked Wikipedia before, when they could have just edited it instead. Also, no one is blaming anybody in advance, we are just condemning the Signpost's irresponsible actions which could potentially endanger the availability of the truth to the people who need to hear it the most. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If The Signpost ran an article which said "We at The Signpost officially denounce Al-Qaeda and their horrific attack on the great nation of the United States", I would be about as annoyed as I am about this and probably post about the same response as I did below. Endwise (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Wikipedia did exist in 2001. After the attacks there was a big discussion about whether every victim in the 9/11 attack should have an article. Also that event brought a lot of people into Wikipedia to discuss. I wish we had capacity to organize a story about that early history. I was not around but I read what I could find in archives; none of it is sorted or easy to identify. Disasters are the source of a lot of Wikipedia precedent. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I am reading this discussion correctly, it seems like certain people are for and others against the Signpost publishing editorials and/or taking stances on current events (perhaps certain types of events and those that might not be directly connected to Wikipedia). Though it should be noted that not all editorials or other columns that the Signpost could write should be written. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence of WP:NPOV mentions encyclopedic content. That core content policy also mentions "article" and "articles" over 30 times. The policy never mentions talk pages or project space. This is in contrast to another really important policy, WP:BLP, which goes out of its way to say that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, without exception. Clearly, this editorial cannot be in violation of NPOV because that policy does not apply to The Signpost, or any other civil, non-disruptive expressions of reasonable opinion outside of encyclopedia articles. The OP and some other editors object to the phrase "stand in solidarity" in the headline but Solidarity is described in our own article as an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Wikipedia, after all, is written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration and our goal is free educational content for all of humanity, including the residents of Ukraine and Russia. The actual content of the editorial seems perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's goals, and the body of the editorial was calling for improved coverage of Russia, Ukraine and the current war. How can any Wikipedian object to that? Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't an NPOV issue. Instead, it's more akin to a discussion on whether we should have a project banner on the topic - but not made by the Community. I do think there is space for discussion on whether the Signpost should make editorials (as opposed to an op-ed not from the team as a whole) on topics that aren't specifically relevant to the Signpost itself. But as it stands, they've broken no rules. Or even got close. I, personally, would have preferred that they had not included it - it goes beyond the Foundation's article on the same, and the project has already had a discussion that could be summarised as "personally, we all know exactly where we stand, but as a project, we are neutral in conflicts". Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why should the English Wikipedia have a (semi-official) newspaper which publishes the official opinions it has on politics/current events? Is this actually a good thing that improves the encyclopedia in any way? Editors here were correct to say that it does not violate the neutral point of view policy laid out for article content, but material like this does hinder the goal of creating a neutral encyclopedia (that is respected as such). It would also, for instance, not go against WP:NPOV if The Signpost had a monthly article endorsing their favoured political candidate for whatever election was coming up. But it would be a very bad thing for Wikipedia if it ran a newspaper in a semi-official capacity which endorsed its favoured political candidates; Wikipedia has enough reputation issues as it is. Why does The Signpost need to publish its official political opinions on Wikipedia? How does this serve Wikipedia's goal of creating a free, neutral encyclopedia? To me it only seems to hinder it. Endwise (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing semi-official about the Signpost. Anyone is free to start a similar project if they'd like (in fact, I believe there have been other attempts to do so in the past). Calidum 13:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very easy for someone to assume that the Signpost is the official newsletter of Wikipedia. If the Signpost insists on having editorials on political issues which do not directly affect Wikipedia, then there should be a notice at the top of the page clarifying that the Signpost is unaffiliated with WMF and that any opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of WMF or the Wikipedia community as a whole. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"issues which do not directly affect Wikipedia" This issue directly affects Wikipedia. HTH Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, that's more reason to not post this editorial. There are times when the Signpost should get involved in politics which directly affect it, but there are also times when getting involved would do more harm than good. This is one of the latter. What does this editorial accomplish other than further jeopardize the Russians' access to Wikipedia and the truth in general? Do the benefits of posting this editorial outweigh the costs? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "the Signpost is unaffiliated with WMF and that any opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of WMF or the Wikipedia community as a whole", (though I would be surprised if any Wikipedian is siding with Russia rn), though I don't think "which do not directly affect Wikipedia" is true. The whole reason this is covered is because of its effects on Wikipedia. An editor was literally arrested for editing.

We're also not jeopardizing Russians' access to Wikipedia. Russian civilians deserve accurate information on the war, what is actually happening, and I don't think we mentioned somewhere in this issue "Oh fuck the Russians, yes even the villagers, we must suppress information from them, make the govt censor Wikipedia!" We must be high on pot to do that; I don't even do pot. We're not condemning all Russian civilians, nor are we condemning or condoning anyone. Even if Russia eventually blocks Wikipedia, it would most likely be driven by the invasion article rather than this publication, which receives merely 1K average readership for the past few years. We don't even get a mention on the Main Page. Statistics have also shown that Russians are smart enough to use VPNs. Even without that, I fail to see how the Signpost will tremendously affect Wikipedia's access in Russia.

Solidarity, especially towards editors who are in the most vulnerable places, should be highlighted. It's a semi-official newspaper, sure, call it what you want. But we're not doing a political movement, and as a semi-opinionated publication... yes, opinionated. After all, if a paper covers on the damages Ukraine has suffered, does that mean they're being biased or starting a movement? If a paper expresses solidarity in a way that is right, morally and journalistically, does that mean they're in the wrong? Does that mean they're counterproductive? I don't understand how it's an issue, I just fail to see how. We're doing what's right: using the NPOV exemption we have here to highlight Wikipedia's commitment to truthful information in the encyclopedic mainspace. GeraldWL 17:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have that impression because I see The Signpost posted at the top of my watchlist every month as a Watchlist notice, along with other quite official important messages like RfAs and Universal Code of Conduct voting. At least in my mind, that gives it status as the semi-official newspaper of the English Wikipedia community. Endwise (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Let's stop pretending it doesn't have at least de facto official status while it is given the same treatment as actual official news. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia Signpost Editorial, Sept. 3, 1939: "Hey, this Hitler guy is evil. Let's stop him." Certain editors: "What about NPOV? Does no one care for NPOV anymore?" Calidum 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full hypothetical context. Hitler had not yet blocked Wikipedia in Germany, so Germans still had a little access to the truth. The Allied media commended the Wikipedia community for standing in solidarity against the Nazi regime. Hitler saw this and then blocked Wikipedia in Germany for "spreading anti-German lies". (Disclaimer: obviously, none of this is to be taken as historical fact, just a what-if scenario to demonstrate why the above comment is missing the point). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this hypothetical: Signpost volunteers decry Nazism thereby alienating other editors who are America First types. Of course, we don't care about our fellow editors if they disagree with us FDR-voters because this isn't an encyclopedia so much as a hang-out for over-educated under-employed folks who acculturated lefty values. The next month, Signpost volunteers likewise stand in support of the Soviet Union and Comrade Stalin's brave fight against the Germans in Eastern Europe. Stalin's Russia has no internet and likely never will but escapees from Soviet villages, many of whom are persecuted Jews, are aghast at Wikipedia's alliance with the Soviets as so many overseas languish and die. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this isn't about NPOV as much as it is about preventing further censorship of Wikipedia. Sure, the editorial might not break any policies or guidelines, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. We have to consider the consequences of our actions here. We may think it's a good idea to stand in solidarity with one side of the conflict, but doing so could lead to further censorship of the truth. If Putin decides to block Wikipedia anyway, then we can afford to stand in solidarity because there would be little to no consequences, but in the meantime we shouldn't be giving Putin any more excuses to censor us. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What tyrants do in their own countries doesn't concern me, sad as human suffering is. Most autocrats have to control media because their regimes are illegitimate; Wikipedia can expect to be censored by any such regime unless we catered to those dictators' preferences. My concern is that Wikipedia has a wide diversity of editors and the readership doesn't appreciate this publication seemingly speaking for them nor should our editing anywhere alienate our fellow editors. It seems to me our encyclopedia is best when everyone dispassionately writes articles without making foolish ideological statements whether in an article, on a talk page, or even on our respective user pages. If you want to spout your beliefs, go join a club that would listen. It's not appropriate here as it will only divide, not unite us. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Godwin’s Law. Really? Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that WP:NPOV applies to articles in the mainspace. Not editorials, essays, project space, community newspaper, the Wikimedia movement in general, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who want to complain that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" will do so regardless of what we say. We get accused all the time of failing to be "neutral" because we refuse to take a middle position between facts and nonsense. Oh, look, it's an unrelated link to our biography of Larry Sanger. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @EpicPupper: for adding[2] a disclaimer to the top of the article, and for pinging me in the process.

The disclaimer is a indication of good intent, but only a tiny sign. And overall, I think it a major mistake.

Yes, it gives the rest of the community some theoretical deniability, which is welcome. However, that sort of disclaimer has at best a legalistic effect, being something that might sway the outcome if the matter even ended up in legal proceedings. But I see no possibility of any legal proceedings from any direction (and I hope that's how it is), so that effect is irrelevant.

The impact of a news article or op-ed is not measured in legal terms. Its impact is in how it is perceived publicly, by whatever audience sees it or hears about it. Those perceptions are not formed is the same way as the precise weighing of legal assessments and court judgements. Public perceptions are rough-and ready, often hasty and incomplete, and often driven by first impressions. These judgement are often more emotional than rational.

In the court of public opinion, you don't get to cross-examine the public or demand re-readings or argue over nuance or the small print of disclaimers. I worked for decades in political communication, and repeatedly saw how messaging rarely had any impact beyond the simple outline. That fact was used very powerfully by GW Bush's aide Karl Rove, whose dictum "If you're explaining you're losing" was the basis of a powerful political strategy of repeatedly forcing the opponent to explain, thereby making them repeatedly lose.

So it is in this case. Once you gotta explain the message's origin in the way that has been done here, you are losing. You are effectively conceding the point that the message is problematic, and hoping that the small print will rescue you ... but the small print has little impact.

The big picture is the simple one: an article hosted on en.wp's servers, with an en.wp URL, takes an unambiguously partisan stance on a major political issue, and has an unambiguously partisan headline. The rest is weaselly detail which most people will ignore.

Any campaigner or political operator opposed to Wikipedia will now be rubbing their hands with glee at how The Signpost has dug itself deeper into the mire, and handed a gift to its enemies. It would be very very simple to ruthlessly exploit this naive disclaimer as another tool to attack Wikipedia.

But I am not an opponent. I am a long-serving Wikipedian with huge devotion to this project, and I hate seeing Wikipedia weakened in this way.

The old rule is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". This disclaimer is just digging deeper into the hole. The remedy remains very simple: retract the op-ed, and replace it with a simple apology for taking a political stance which is way beyond the legitimate remit of a community newsletter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100 percent agree with Brown Haired Girl. No matter how compelling and heart-felt your opinion is, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Signpost is part of Wikipedia, and no attempt at denial will make one whit of difference to Wikipedia critics. Smallchief (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I fully understand where you are coming from and you have my full and complete agreement if you are talking about article space. Outside of that, your arguments really get weaker every time you try to elaborate on them and forcing users and consequently user groups to be neutral in their own writings is extremely counter productive. Reading some of your arguments is like a big nothing burger. Sometimes, I can't decipher what exactly it is what you want other than this article gone; except, in that case, it would set a president for everything in terms of neutrality outside of article space. Either way, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Your wording brings up many questions, so for the sake of argument, I'll raise this. You mention "partisan stance[s] on a major political issue[s]" and imply that they shouldn't be anywhere on enwiki. However, in a userbox on your talk page it is mentioned that you support "gender neutral language". Should that be erased? Many people see that as a major political issue. You might not. Who is the arbitrator of "major political issues"? Let's get ridiculous now, and how about we get more mainspace policies involved? Who knows you support gender neutral language? Do you have a citation for that? Does your userpage meet the notability requirements? What could people think if they saw a user page without citations!

How is you saying you support gender neutral language (as the expression of an opinion) any different to an unofficial group of users saying they condemn the invasion of Ukraine? It's not an official stance, it's not in article space, everyone knows it's not official and is simply an unofficial publication? If you're speaking from a PR point of view, in that care, who cares? This isn't a controversial opinion in the vast majority of the world.

Should we get rid of every essay because they're not always neutral?

On a more pressing note:

"The disclaimer is [an] indication of good intent, but only a tiny sign."

I do not make these allegations lightly, but this really seems like you're assuming bad faith, or at least implying bad intent. I hate to bring this up, but BHG, have you not learnt from your desysoping and arbitration sanctions? You were desysopped in part for almost exactly this. You are being so accusatory and in many ways just mean towards the Signpost team in a way that is shockingly uncivil. Forum shopping, assuming bad faith, referencing policies that are quite clearly for encyclopaedic content and not discussing before immediately going for the propose deletion button... I wonder how different thing would have been if you were still an administrator. I am sorry, but this entire debacle has pushed you into the realms of violating WP:CIR and WP:CIV. You need to take a step back.

This whole thing has put undue pressure on a user group for a conversation that would be otherwise not very controversial, and the disclaimer really is a common sense one which I don't think The Signpost should've added, but I understand it given all the chaos. This discussion would be nothing, but I think it has revealed a more pressing issue with you in regards to civility. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I have seen many absurdisms in these discussions, many of them from you.

But none of them are as absurd as your attempt to equate these two items:

• my userbox about a stylistic issue in how to write the encyclopedia
• a political statement of allegiance to one side of a war in the banner headline of the lead article in the community newsletter.

These are completely different types of issue. In order to build an enycylopedia, Wikipedians have to make decisions about writing style. But taking sides in a war is nothing to do with building an encyclopedia: it is just political grandstanding.

I see no way in which a competent editor acting in good faith could equate those two things as you have done here.

On top of that absurd conflation, you have made numerous personal attacks on me and numerous bogus allegation against me.

You have repeatedly allegedly that I have assumed bad faith. That is absolutely false, and I have taken great care with my words not to write anything which could imply that. The words which you snipped out context to justify your bogus allegation do not carry the meaning which you falsely try to project onto them. My view is simply that EpicPupper has acted in good faith, but has not done nearly enough to mitigate the damage.

You have repeatedly allegedly that I have made personal attacks. That is absolutely false, and I have taken great care with my words not to write anything which could imply a personal attack.

Instead of heeding the warnings which several editors have given you about your false allegations, you are now getting way over the top. You need to take a step back ... and before you complain about anyone else's civility, stop your personal attacks and bogus allegations and flagrant misrepresentations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy... I'm gonna need more popcorn. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 21:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, your conduct at ANI was a mixture of bogus allegations and disruptive mockery.

Your comment about popcorn suggests that on top of all your bogus accusations, you just want to make drama. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read through a lot of the exchange and think this is getting ridiculous. The entire article is simply a good-faith statement of support for members of our community living through a disaster. I don’t particularly care that this is a man-made disaster rather than a natural disaster like an earth quake; members of our community are still suffering. Also, I think some of the accusations being made against the authors of this article are quite frankly despicable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The headline is "We stand in solidarity with Ukraine".

The headline is not "We stand with Ukrainian Wikipedians". That would at least be about our community, although it would still be partisan: I also stand with Russian Wikipedians and Wikipedians everywhere, and I hope everyone else does too.

So your claim that the entire article is simply a good-faith statement of support for members of our community living through a disaster is utterly false. It excludes other parts of our community which are also hurt by the war, and by not qualifying its scope it wrongly includes the whole Ukraine including its its army and govt. A headline anywhere on the Wikipedia website should be scrupulously careful not imply support for any army or govt, but this headline and article has not taken that care.

If you want to claim that despicable allegations have been made, please identify them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that the disclaimer would have more than at best a legalistic effect, as it would let people know that this is not some sort of official enwiki newspaper. It could change unaware people's perception of it. If there are bad faith people looking for a reason looking to disparage wikipedia, they will find their "reasons" to do so with or without this. We should not let them decide what we do on this site. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First we were arguing about the article, now we’re arguing about the disclaimer? Come on. Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]