← Newsroom

WP:POST/TIPS

Suggestions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

Settings: Discussions are archived by Cluebot III when older than 60 days, or if marked with {{done}}

This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. We are a newspaper that covers subjects of general interest for our audience of Wikipedia editors. If you'd like guidance on editing for new editors, please inquire at WP:Teahouse. More general questions may be addressed to WP:Help.

Email a private tip to the EiC

For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please see our feedback page. You can also write a piece yourself! See the submissions desk for details. Or send a news tip by email to our tipmail.

WMF actions regarding users in China[edit]

Several users in mainland China were desysopped and/or globally banned by WMF: m:Office actions/September 2021 statement Rschen7754 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Special report for a prior report.--GZWDer (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we will cover this in as much detail as possible, though I still only know of 2 of the banned. I'd really like to hear from Chinese editors on both sides. If anybody has anything confidential to include on this story that I can otherwise verify please email me directly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

See zh:维基百科:互助客栈/其他#WG在qq群威胁其他wiki编辑诉诸法律案 : 8 people globally banned, 12 desysopped. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Also [1]. --Rschen7754 18:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As per this post, the 8 globally locked accounts are: 城市酸儒文人挖坑, 蟲蟲飛, 玄客, Walter Grassroot, ArthurLau1997, 尤里的1994, 遊魂 and Techyan. These 12 accounts have their admin/bureaucrat rights from all WMF wikis (not just zh.wp) stripped: Alexander Misel (former CheckUser), Stang, Nbfreeh, Manchiu, 瑞麗江的河水, Hamish, DreamLiner, Lanwi1 (former CheckUser), 霧島聖, Outlookxp, 夢蝶葬花 (also losing zh Wikivoyage and zh Wikiversity admin rights) and WAN233 (also losing classical Chinese wiki admin rights). As early as March 2018, WMF revoked all zh.wp local CheckUser rights due to security concerns,[2] which was why Alexander Misel and Lanwi1 (plus others) lost their CU rights en-masse. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Striking off 玄客 since it was a mis-identification by the WMF office. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Current at zh wikipedia: that a proposal to derecognize WMC and to remove all links to WMC from the wiki is in process. And all RfA in zh wiki is suspended for 3 weeks from the bureaucrats. SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, readers, for bringing this up. There is a placeholder item at the News and notes feature for the next issue. If you would like to contribute, please contact us at the WP:Newsroom or as he said, contact the Editor in Chief privately. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm almost sure this will be in Special report (though thr Maryana Iskander story might possibly end up there. There is an open letter to read at [qiuwen.wmcug.org.cn/archives/403/on-wmf-office-action-en-1/]. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

all, it seems that this global ban is also related to an incident in 2017. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

For the 2017 incident, see m:Requests_for_comment/Ongoing_issues_at_Chinese_Wikipedia/Previous_discussion.--GZWDer (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Break[edit]

There's a duplicate thread about this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#WMF bans and desysops around "infiltration concerns" with Wikimedians of Mainland China.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the stuff is currently being worked on in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_the_media. --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's just use this page to link to sources:

• external
  • BBC's 1st story
  • BBC's Tech Tent podcast 1:23=9:30, 3 parts, general description, Maryana Iskander appointment with her comments on China, BBC commentary Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Global Times (CCP)
  • Boxun, surprisingly good —A2
• Internal
  • zh:维基百科:互助客栈/其他#WG在qq群威胁其他wiki编辑诉诸法律案
  • Links at top of m:Talk:Office_actions/September_2021_statement: the zhwp list of users is definitely useful, as is PhiLiP's (allegedly biased :Q) stuff. There's a bit of contention about 蟲蟲飛 (CCF) being in the globally-locked 7, who is not mainland Chinese (nor WMC) but has gotten into socking allegations before.
  • And of course, earlier Signpost reports. We have Techyan's apologia (and the linked HK interview & BBC report) and the more recent special report. --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• We can use the Newsroom talkpage for questions like "Who can help write this up?"
• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion by Rogermx (2021-12-22)[edit]

The Signpost should write about the progress that editors made in reducing the Fix Wikilinks list of the Community Portal. A couple of years ago there were 20,000 articles with insufficient Wikilinks on this list, some dating back to 2013. Today there are only nine articles left. Rogermx (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rogermx: I might write about this as an interview. Do you have any suggestions for editors to talk to first? Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion by Cabayi (2021-12-24)[edit]

The Signpost should write about... Silva, Marco (24 December 2021). "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia". BBC News. Retrieved 24 December 2021. - featuring Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Participants Dtetta, Femkemilene, Sadads... Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about pitching a story to Signpost about our efforts on meta to support non-English Wikipedias to remove climate denial. Maybe just an overview, or maybe more of an opinion piece on how to avoid having that much misinformation in the future. Not sure how/what would be more interesting. Femke (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene and Bri: - with the holidays and a deadline of the 27th, it is likely impossible for this next issue (Bri can let you know if I'm wrong). For the late January issue, we'd love to see a draft or a detailed proposal. I'll send details after the 1st. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

For now, I think we have time for a short item at News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've written a draft here: User:Femkemilene/Signpost. Let me know what you think. Femke (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Guy Macon (2022-01-02)[edit]

Suggested editorial for February of 2022

The signpost editors should feel free to make any edits they choose to the following.

In the unlikely event that I can't live with the edits I will ask that my name be removed.

As with everything I write, this is released under CC0 and I do not require attribution.

Suggested Title:

16 years of discriminating against the disabled

Suggested text:

On February 3 2006, it was reported to the Wikimedia Foundation that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ]

The issue has remained unfixed for sixteen years.

This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to discrimination lawsuits.

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it. This resulted in Target paying out roughly ten million dollars.

In Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over the WMF) ruled that the ADA applies to websites and that all websites are required by federal law to be equally accessible for people who use assistive technology.

I have been repeatedly told that the proper way to request that Wikipedia stop discriminating against the visually impaired is through phabricator, but clearly this has not been effective.

I do not consider sixteen years years of refusing to even discuss fixing this to be reasonable behavior on the part of WMF management.

I personally have been asking the WMF for a response in multiple places (basically following every "you didn't ask in the right place" suggestion) since 3 August 2017. Many other editors have made the same request.

What I expect from the WMF

I expect a yes or no answer. Either the WMF makes an official statement saying "No, we have decided to not fix this" or an official statement saying "Yes, we have decided to fix this."

If the answer is "Yes", I expect a page to be created (preferably on the English Wikipedia, but I will accept a page on Meta) that gives us the requirements (a testable definition of "done"), a schedule with milestones and updates, and budget and staffing information.

The WMF has made multiple statements saying that they intend to be more open about these sort of thing, and this is an excellent place to show that the commitment to openness is more than just talk.

• Previously discussed at [3]
• Previously discussed at [4]
• ...and about a hundred other places in threads started by dozens of editors.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 20#I am visually impaired and can't edit articles without being asked to fill in the capcha
• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-January/065820.html
• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-April/037309.html
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
• Web accessibility#United States
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

Again, if nobody is assigned the job of fixing this, it won't get fixed. If fixing this isn't in the budget, it won't get fixed. If there is no deadline assigned, it won't get fixed.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Z1720 (2022-01-06)[edit]

The Signpost should write about WP:URFA/2020. The initiative reviews FAs promoted before 2016 to ensure they still meet the FA criteria. We produced a year-end report highlighting the work that has been completed and posted here. We would be happy to create an article for the Signpost, have a Signpost editor interview key members, or contribute to an article written by a Signpost writer. Please let me know if you are interested and which option is preferred. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this. Courtesy pinging @EpicPupper, who recently asked about possible topics for a Signpost WikiProject feature. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Sdkb for the ping! @Z1720, a story for the WikiProject sounds great! In particular, for WikiProject reports, the Signpost usually interviews key members. I've started a draft page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report, and I'll get around to adding questions in the next couple of days. In the meantime, please do share the page with interested editors! 3-4 interviewees would be great. I'll admit that I am completely new to this, so please bear with me :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 sorry for the double ping How is the project organized? Should I refer to it as a WikiProject, or something else? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a draft of questions to the page Please let me know if you think anything should be changed! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: URFA/2020 is not a Wikiproject; I've always called it a working group, though @SandyGeorgia: might have a better title. In the link to questions, I think a question from the last Wikiproject report was copied over (a question about open proxies?) so that might be deleted. In the interest of journalistic integrity, I won't suggest any questions, though background information on our initiative can be found at WP:URFA/2020 and our latest report is here. Our first anniversary was November 2021. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper I can contribute to the history bits, but some re-working of the setup may be ino order because … no, WP:URFA/2020 is not a WikiProject. It’s a group of editors who had worked together at FAR and FAC who got organized to be more methodical about processing old FAs, based on the decades-old WP:URFA model, because there were so many older unreviewed FAs that a methodical approach was needed. I asked for a tech person to set up list, and away we went. Z1720 and Hog Farm have been informal leaders, along with my (more sporadic) input. (there, that’s my interview response :). It would be helpful to have a See also at the bottom that links to Z1720’s year-end report (but I can use the talk page there for such suggestions, I hope?). I strongly suggest that Jimfbleak be the fourth interviewee because they have interacted with the list towards all of our goals: as a TFA Coord, as an FA writer, and as a reviewer of other FA writers’ articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to @EpicPupper: for getting this started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. The only problem I see is that this interview needs several respondents and there's really only 9 days before deadline. Perhaps it's already been done, but I'll ping everybody involved above @SandyGeorgia, Z1720, and Sdkb:. Anybody else who is involved should consider this an open invitation.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm (talk · contribs) has also shown interest. Once the questions are finalised I will start typing in some answers. Please ping when you are ready for me to answer some questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I can type my stuff in with very little time, once it's ready to go (meaning, any framework changes needed to reflect that it's not a WikiProject, and please add to the annual report to a See also somewhere, so it can be referred to ... I have watchlisted, and will plop my stuff in as soon as I get a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, Z1720, Hog Farm, Jimfbleak: I've finalized the questions and conclusion. It would be appreciated if you could draft some answers at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report in the next 1-2 days! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by 2601:648:8600:FA80:B89C:FB83:3133:D0C0 (2022-01-06)[edit]

The article regarding Trump Derangement Syndrome should be edited to reflect the viewpoint that it is Donald Trump and his voters that are deranged and attempted treason.

• WP:WRONGVENUE. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Chris troutman (2022-01-07)[edit]

Suggestion by Shushugah (2022-01-16)[edit]

Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January 2022, a new task force Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force was launched. The task force's initiator User:Shushugah was directly inspired by the op-ed "World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia" published by User:K.e.coffman on Wikipedia Signpost in a 2018.

I think we can probably include this in News and notes. @Shushugah:. Can you give me one or two sentences that I can quote and/or cut down to a very short quote? e.g "What's it about? Why is it needed?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones sure thing! See the following: The WP:Nazi affiliation task force was recently created to tackle the problem of both white washing and WP:UNDUE mentions of notable companies and individuals' affiliation or collaboration with Nazism. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not immune to such issues, but together we can address this! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Indy beetle (2022-01-22)[edit]

• Louis Rwagasore just became the first-ever Burundi-related Featured Article on English Wikipedia. One of my own, so editor's discretion on whether it's worth a mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Xeno (WMF) (2022-01-22)[edit]

Conflict of interest note: I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I use for edits or statements I make in that role. However, the Foundation does not vet all my activity, so edits, statements, or other contributions made by this account may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

The Signpost should write about the ongoing call for feedback for the upcoming Board of Trustees election. It opened 10 January and runs until 16 February. The Board is asking the community for input on three key questions. Participants are asked to discuss in any language and submit proposals. The call for feedback is supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance team and volunteer translators. Material is available in more than 25 languages. At time of writing, approximately 15 participants have advanced 8 proposals.

• Local announcement (permanent link)
• Call for Feedback main page (pageviews)
• Community proposals page (pageviews)
• Multilingual discussions about key questions and proposals (stats: revision history / pageviews)

Please feel free to ping if further information is needed or would be useful. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xeno (WMF)! I've started a draft at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. Please feel free to suggest edits. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A new resource in free information[edit]

Nature has an article about OpenAlex, a new open database of scholarly papers that are not behind paywalls -- "Massive open index of scholarly papers launches", article dated 24 January 2022. (Although I suspect this article is behind a paywall, darn it.) This is only the most recent article I've seen from Nature on free information. Any idea if the Foundation is involved in this? -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tdslk (2022-01-26)[edit]

The Signpost should write about... Either a major milestone or just a fun bit of collective editcountitis (editcountcountitis?): within the next day or two there will be 10,000 editors who have made at least 10,000 edits to English Wikipedia (there are currently 9,999 editors who have made at least 9,999 edits)! Tdslk (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Bri (2022-01-29): New Vector skin improvements[edit]

It looks like The Signpost hasn't had any coverage yet of New Vector skin aka improved reading experience. Am I just missing it? Seems like an important potential future topic. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

if it's short - maybe something short in News & notes this month. If it's long maybe write it up next month? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link that works: mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. If nobody wants to take this on, I'd be happy to write up either a News and Notes item or something for the technology report. Thoughts? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by GamerPro64 (2022-01-31)[edit]

Maybe there can be a gallery piece for movies that are in the public domain that may be Featured Pictures or are at least of high quality. Just thinking there could be more love for movies on Wikipedia. Especially important films like Night of the Living Dead. Or maybe a piece about movies published on Wikipedia in general. GamerPro64 06:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in Featured Content, or Gallery? Featured Content might be good because it's usually where we put things like this, but that's usually for recently featured stuff, so that might not be favorable because of that. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Nthep (2022-02-03) - UK government white paper contains unattributed Wikipedia content.[edit]

The Independent is today (3 Feb) reporting that the UK Government's Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities's recently issued white paper contains wholesale copying from Wikipedia articles (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/levelling-up-plan-copied-wikipedia-michael-gove-b2006757.html). Articles copied from include Constantinople and List of largest cities throughout history. And to compound the issue, it looks like the sources aren't attributed. Nthep (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Added as a brief in In the Media, thanks. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Danbloch (2022-02-04)[edit]

The Signpost should write about... "How Wiktionary is Different from Wikipedia and Why It Works Anyway". I've been struggling for years to understand how Wiktionary can work if it doesn't require contributions to be verifiable. Others probably would be interested too, and even if you don't think that's the key issue this would be a chance to shine a light on Wiktionary. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Relevant link: wikt:Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians. --Yair rand (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Interactions between Wikipedia & pending legislation Suggestion by Alanthehat (2022-02-07)[edit]

The Signpost should write about... (or could somebody please point me to an article about...)

Interactions between Wikipedia/Wikimedia & pending legislation, both national & international

I'm a UK resident who has just discovered Signpost & my instant thought was to read an article on this topic since the Government here is proposing a huge raft of new laws, most from Home Secretary Priti Patel, banning all sorts of things including protests & nomadic lifestyles and adding restrictions to querying Government policy, including through the Courts. It all looks horrendous &, in my opinion, is likely to lead to censorship of Wikipedia so I feel that Wikipedia/Wikimedia should be broadcasting this around the world as well as doing something more direct & I would very much like to read about it & re-broadcast it on my social media page.

Obviously, what is happening in one country is likely to be happening/have happened in other countries with potential follow-through internationally in places like the United Nations Alanthehat (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by PAC2 (2022-02-14)[edit]

The Signpost should write about... Does your birthplace affect your probability to have your Wikipedia biography ? some evidence from people born in France. a notebook computing the probability of having a biographical article on fr.wikipedia.org for people born in France. It shows huge differences between French departments. PAC2 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @PAC2: Very, very nice - with one trivial detail that *must* be corrected! We could publish this - almost as is - in the next issue (Feb 26th copy deadline - a day or 2 earlier is better), or if you want to add more detail on the importance of your findings, or on your motivation, reasons for your interest in Wikidata, etc., so much the better. But the trivial can be super important! 1,340/505,578 = 0.27% (for Paris) not 2.7% (at least in American English - maybe it's something with the commas (,)?). The same mistake (just one decimal) goes throughout your calculations. Please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Quick questions (license and copyright?), (where are Lyon and Marseille.in your data)? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

* 1,340/505,578 = 0.27%. That's it. I use ‰ (per mille), not % (percent). Maybe I should explicit it.

* Paris is a city and a department. Marseille is in the department "Bouches-du-Rhône" (number 13) and Lyon in the department Rhône (69).

* I'll add a license and add more details about my motivation. PAC2 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion by Risker (2022-02-15)[edit]

The Signpost should write about...

Well, this is just a suggestion, and I don't know where you'd fit it. A couple of months ago, I did an interview with a group of academics (the Human Energy group) who are researching the noosphere, to discuss how Wikipedia fits into this theory. They have now published the interview. This was a long interview, three videos of about 30 minutes each (with accompanying transcript), and I leave it to your editorial decision on whether or not this is interesting enough to include in one of the routine reports. Risker (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)