Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

deadline is 2025-02-23 00:00 UTC (currently 2025-02-12 19:48:18)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-02-12 19:48:18.
January 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	February 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02	March 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06

The Signpost currently has 5651 articles, 707 issues, and 13779 pages (4510 talk and 9269 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 21, Issue 2 (2025-02-07) ·

issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)

Articles and pageviews for 2025-02-07

Pageviews for 2025-02-07 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Traffic report A wild drive 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 Recent research GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians 1589 1589 1589 1589 1589 1589 1589 Opinion Fathoms Below, but over the moon 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 News and notes Let's talk! 971 971 971 971 971 971 971 In the media Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 Community view 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 Arbitration report Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed 837 837 837 837 837 837 837

Previous issue: 2025-01-15 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2025-01-15

Pageviews for 2025-01-15 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Traffic report The most viewed articles of 2024 12249 13779 14266 14266 14266 14266 14266 Technology report New Calculator template brings interactivity at last 2565 2917 3128 3128 3128 3128 3128 Serendipity What we've left behind, and where we want to go next 499 614 711 711 711 711 711 Opinion Reflections one score hence 539 645 761 761 761 761 761 Op-ed Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia 1541 2027 2461 2461 2461 2461 2461 News and notes It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free 695 916 1071 1071 1071 1071 1071 In the media Will you be targeted? 1622 2083 2494 2494 2494 2494 2494 In focus Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? 586 701 849 849 849 849 849 Humour How to make friends on Wikipedia 874 1097 1294 1294 1294 1294 1294 From the editors Looking back, looking forward 911 1216 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 Essay Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia 905 3687 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 Arbitration report Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics 647 773 893 893 893 893 893

Where we stand on anniversary issue

My apologies for being a bit behind on this issue. There are about 11 article. Almost all will need copy editing.

1. I agree with the comments above on Traffic report - it needs a lot of fact checking and some serious rewriting.
2. In the Op-ed I just need to put in Molly's references. It shouldn't be too hard to complete it. I don't think copy editing will be a problem at all.
3. I'm happy with the 3 articles from/about current and former contributors (Opinion, Serendipity, and In focus)
4. ITM, especially the Heritage Foundation story, needs a lot of work. There are a couple of new "In briefs" possible too.
5. Time to get to work!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone over Traffic report - all the political and controversial articles in detail - and made some needed changes. It still needs normal copy editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG and Bri:. Other than copy editing needed on a lot of articles and some last minute cleanups, I think it's ready to go. The From the editor(s) is too short (and there is no "History of The Signpost" article). I don't think we're waiting on anything arriving, @HaeB:? We might as well publish with all deliberate speed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - not planning a "Recent research" for this issue, in case that was the question (otherwise I would have posted the customary note here beforehand as always). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I hauve[sic] covid, although by a stroke of fortune it is past the stage where I have to lie in bed all damn day, and onto the stage where I just get to call into work and have mild congestion for a couple days, which kind of rules. I will be publishing. jp×g🗯️ 19:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just completed copyediting two of the reports. Svampesky (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop the presses! (not really - but I always wanted to say that - I should be done in an hour or so at the top article on ITM)

Which illustration do you think would go best? File:MUTCD-PA W11-26.svg, maybe crop this one, or File:Big Duck 2018 05.jpg @JPxG, Bri, and Oltrepier: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiamiDolphins3/Archive Smallbones_(smalltalk) @Smallbones: I would have gone for the first pic, to be honest, but the big duck is just hilarious, and might serve as a much-needed cooler in contrast to the seriousness of the first lead story. Oltrepier (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I may poke around a bit more with thos couple of paragraph later, but basically I'm done. Note that I included both the pix Oltrepier mentioned, the Big Duck, which is an NRHP "heritage site" up top, and the duck crossing warning sign next to the paragraphs. @JPxG: you can start the presses again.We have about 5 hours? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I am going to sleep and then do it in the morning (my body has recovered but my faculties are a bit impaired, and it is quite late). I think what we have here is basically good. jp×g🗯️ 14:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think JPxG means they will be starting after 1800 UTC today. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG @Bri Sorry in advance for this last-gasp request, but how about announcing a contest for an anniversary logo on the "In the editors" piece, as suggested above? It might be a good opportunity to get the community engaged. Oltrepier (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, with a big "but". I took a look at the templates to see where the banner would actually be changed, and it was very challenging. We need a) to identify which banner / logo we want to temporarily (rest of 2025?) change, and b) find someone with the technical skill and knowledge of the Signpost templates to make the requisite change or changes. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bri Oh snap, I didn't think about it!

I hope we'll manage to sort it out by the time we announce the winning logo, then... : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Smallbones' recent conduct

I want to begin by acknowledging and appreciating Smallbones' contributions to The Signpost. However, I find his behavior, at times, to be disruptive and uncivil.

• He falsely accused me of adding a line, which he interpreted as accusing him of paid editing, that was actually added by JPxG.
• He falsely accused me of asking a question, which was actually asked by Bluerasberry, and ended his comment with a rude remark, You should learn to do your own research. We're here to answer people's questions, not just ask provocative questions.
• He provided only WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no policy-based feedback on one of my submissions—this happened in two separate sections.
• He created a page with incorrect capitalization and, when I moved the page to correct his error, alleged inexperience for fixing the mistake he made.

Courtesy ping of other recently active Signpost contributors if they have anything to add @Bri, HaeB, JPxG, and Oltrepier:.

Smallbones, are you able to commit to being more civil when working on The Signpost? Svampesky (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have indeed noticed that you and Smallbones tend to disagree on just about everything.

We are all contributing from different rooms, many of us from different countries and after growing up in different decades... people getting along on Wikipedia at all is enough of a nightmare, but doing so on an actual deadline is even more challenging. Obviously there are going to be times when we get annoyed or feel insulted by one another. Christ knows I have gotten annoyed by some of the stuff people have said here. Likewise, I know I have come off as (or indeed been) a bit of a dick every once in a while.

This is just the way it works, as far as I can tell, based on every workplace and collaborative project I have participated in. There are going to be times when people are a little curt, or maybe even a bit rude or passive-aggressive, and of course it's preferable to speak each word with the calm poise of a bodhisattva, but I do not think it's realistic to expect human beings to do this all the time. I don't think there is any malicious intent here: Smallbones is not a programmer, and diffs are notoriously a giant pain in the ass for non-programmers to read. I have seen people read diffs backwards, frontwards, upside-down and inside-out about a hundred times by now. At the absolute worst, I think it might warrant a note on his talk page or something, but I am fairly uncomfortable about the first step being a big callout post of this sort.

If it is bothersome and sticks in your craw to the point where it becomes an impediment to contributing, then I can certainly sympathize: if you have tried to talk to him about this and been unsuccessful, I would be happy to try to mediate some sort of conversation between you two, but I really do not think that we need to have a whole Arthur Miller play about it, and I am flatly opposed to the idea that he should be required to make some pledge. jp×g🗯️ 12:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ditto every word @JPxG wrote, especially because last week was very challenging for me in real life, and I might have behaved annoyingly myself (for which I apologize in advance).

I've got a feeling that this is going to be a really good issue, so let's not let the nerves get the best of us: we just need to enjoy the fruit of our labor! Oltrepier (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to do anything that might delay publication. Can we just publish ASAP? As far as the complaint above, I suggest he just drop it, or we could handle it via email, or even here in public if he wants. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we publish?

@JPxG and Bri: IMHO it's a pretty good issue, but the news is going stale. If there is any way to publish, let's do it. I copyedited Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay and moved it to display in the Newsroom, but you might check it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones Seems like we're ready now.

@JPxG By the way, sorry for not helping you with the "Traffic report", I didn't have enough time, nor energy to go through the entirety of it... Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Rack 'em. jp×g🗯️ 07:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Guys, we did it eventually. Thank you so much for your hard work: I mean it when I say that I've never been prouder of contributing to a Signpost issue, because it's full of great articles, personal analyses and bits of information. Excellent job everyone! Oltrepier (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Next deadline?

Hey everybody! When's the next deadline? I've got a pretty good story or two and am anxious to get my timing down. I'll suggest Sunday night, February 2 (Groundhog Day), but I do have an aversion to Monday morning publication (Who gets up at 7am Monday to read The Signpost?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What if we put it just a couple of days later? I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute as much as I'd like, otherwise... Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What about February 5 or 6?

Still, it's only right that @JPxG has the last say on this (when he'll fully recover from illness, obviously). Oltrepier (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, and Oltrepier: Actually, I have a strong preference for the weekend - when else do any of 3 people who participate here have the time to work together? So Feb 8 or 9? We should definitely ask JPxG to let us know asap when to expect him, or how to better deal with things if he's not around at the deadline. After all, he's said that he had covid and that's still a lot more serious than just getting the flu (flu's disruptive enough). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My greatest availability will be on Sunday Feb 2 (Pacific Time) but I can work on The Signpost a for few hours during the week if it's later. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

One issue here is that I do not have weekends off, and can only spend a day on this if it's Monday or Tuesday (that is to say, I am working from 11pm on Saturday through the morning of Sunday, and 11pm Sunday through the morning of Monday, which I have "off" despite working seven hours on that day, since I don't go to work on its night or the next night). I don't know if it is realistic to try and hit Sunday, since I will only be available for a few hours then. If we are okay with likely postponing it, I can schedule to then, but otherwise I think Monday is the way to go. jp×g🗯️ 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG I guess it will be just another Manic Monday, then, won't it? : D

But anyway, Monday is fine to me, even though I don't understand if you meant February 3 or 10... Oltrepier (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There will be a submission on protecting yourself online from an alum, so I'll tell him to submit it by Friday, Jan 31. Is that the plan?. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I've boldly reset the counter for publishing 0000 Feb 4 UTC – afternoon of Monday February 3 in my US time zone – in a manner I think/hope is consistent with the discussion above. Note this is nearly three weeks since the prior issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

21:2 In the media

A Newsweek piece, published today, says they "contacted Wikipedia" for a response. Anybody have any idea what or who the author thinks they contacted? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Newsweek has been a bit flakey for awhile. The "Wikipedia hits back" in the headline might be a bit of this and a bit of that, e.g. edited articles, Jimbo's response on x on the 21st (I first thought it was recycled from Dickipedia days), but any response from the WMF should have been mentioned. I take it as a non-response. IMHO WMF should not respond to questions about a non-response - they'd let Newsweek do that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

In other news, I'm trying to submit a short and sweet blurb about John Green and AFC Wimbledon by the deadline (it will all make sense, I promise). If I'll have enough time, I'll also help you sort out the mess over at the first lead story... Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bri @Smallbones Right, my John Green blurb is (belatedly) in!

I'll try to help you deal with the other lead stories and the short blurbs as much as I can in the next few days, although I've still got such a hectic study schedule in real-life... Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: I think this story is fantastic. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I'd like to withdraw the "Roman salute" story and resubmit it as an Op-ed. I was just storing the most relevant sources and ideas in what I intended to be a short factual blurb, but the story just hasn't turned out that way. The world exploded over that story over the last 11 days. I should be able to get the Op-ed posted tonight. I'd think that putting a 2 paragraph blurb just before the In briefs with a link to the Op-ed would work well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones That's totally fine, let me know if you need some help reviewing it! Oltrepier (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've edited down the Musk part of the article, in an attempt to remove my part of the submission (as proposed above - sorry if I've made a mess of it). I just don't think I should both write an op-ed and cover what the news media said about it. I've removed much of what I recognized as my work (hopefully the irrelevant part), and didn't mean to remove others' parts. Please just rewrite as you wish, maybe cut it down a bit. Definitely there should be an answer to the title's question (See NY Times) or change the title and the pic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bri, Oltrepier, and Josve05a: I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands that I don't think I should participate in writing up the Musk part of Itm. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've done a bit more editing and am happy with the way it stands now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bri I'll try to go through the stories and the short blurb one more time myself! Oltrepier (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Stephen Harrison just published "Project 2025’s Creators Want to Dox Wikipedia Editors. The Tool They’re Using Is Horrifying." in Slate [1]. I read it once quickly so give me an hour to get it written up. My first reaction is that it is really big - as in covering 2 or 3 big stories that we've pretty much kept separate. That might call for a discussion of how all the pieces fit together, or even what he left out (but we'll see). Also see video from NYC Wikibirthdayia

[2] (19:05-50:00) The intro is something else (ending 21:30). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Post deadline

Probably holding all of the below for next issue.

• Elon Musk Wants What He Can't Have: Wikipedia, The Atlantic, February 5, 2025
• Big Tech must block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation, New York Post Editorial Board, February 5, 2025

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bri Yes, I saw the Atlantic article, too, but at this point, if we included every single reference, I'm afraid the ITM piece would become just too bloated (and it's already quite saturated right now)... So, I agree we should keep these bits for the next issue. Oltrepier (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones - @Funcrunch wrote a piece on trans editors on Wikipedia handling the Trump administration (full disclosure, I was interviewed for it) for the trans news org Assigned Media: On Trans Issues, Wikipedia is a Bulwark Against Disinformation - Might be good for the upcoming issue! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link & ping! I wasn't sure if Assigned Media would be considered an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article cite, but should be fine for The Signpost! Funcrunch (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

21:02 Opinion

I think User:Fathoms Below/RfA would be a good option for this issue's opinion piece. Courtesy ping to Fathoms Below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure this debrief would be the best opinion piece, because I don't think I'm the best writer in general, but if people think it's a good essay, I'll allow it. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a good essay. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss @Fathoms Below It looks good to me! Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss and Fathoms Below: Just so you know, I've boldly copied the debrief into a draft for the Opinion piece!

I don't guarantee I'll be able to go through and copy-edit the whole piece (including the very cheesy title I've chosen) soon, unfortunately... Oltrepier (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Oltrepier I don't mind. I personally worry that the essay was too much, and that I put too much emotion into it. But it was also the most difficult time of my Wikipedia career and I felt like I needed to say something. Especially after my nominator made an essay of his own and I could tell how much bravery he had when he wrote it. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you think in the intro, we should link to our prior coverage about admin elections, and position this as kind of a follow-up to that? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that seems appropriate. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

In previous Signpost coverage, we noted the kick-off of Administrator elections trial. In the future, elections may run in parallel with "old fashioned" Requests for adminship, or they might eventually replace it altogether. We asked an editor to allow us to publish some reflections on their Requests for adminship experience here, which may provide insight for our readers as to why many candidates find it excruciating.

^^^ sample text above. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

21:02 Op-ed

Smallbones, I strongly advise against making potentially libelous statements about a living person, especially if they are made on a website the person frequently criticizes. If discovered, what would prevent Musk from pursuing legal action against you, as part of his attacks against Wikipedia (as we've seen with Asian News International), given that your report links to an article that states Musk is considering suing someone else for making the same accusation? We've previously discussed BLP violations in The Signpost, and readers regularly raise these type of issues in the comments sections of reports. The page is clearly an WP:ATTACK page, and while I understand it's an op-ed with a disclosure at the top, that does not exempt the content from compliance with BLP policy—which applies to all pages on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, I'm just saying that some of the language needs to be revised to ensure compliance with both legal requirements and Wikipedia's policies.

My second point is: what relevance does this have to Wikipedia, for publication in Wikipedia's newspaper? It only briefly mentions Wikipedia at some parts. The Signpost is not WikiNews, nor a personal blog. Svampesky (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that you restored the potentially libelous statements, and we frequently disagree on everything, I'll request additional input. Svampesky (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Svampesky: If you want to stop me from publishing in The Signpost, here's what you should do. Email @JPxG: and tell him that he can't allow me to publish here anymore. You should stay as far away as possible from editing anything I've written. You just gutted the entire point of the article "tell it like it is" by putting in your "apparents" and removing "Nazi salutes". There is a difference between "hand gestures" and "Nazi salutes", and if you can't see it, go get yourself some new eyes. Musk is not going to sue Tim Walz for saying that he gave a Nazi salute - because he did make a Nazi salute, as at least a thousand sources have published.

If you can't see the relevance of the story to Wikipedia, it can only be because you haven't read the story. End of conversation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost is a community-run newspaper with editorial independence, meaning it is not subject to the same policies that govern Wikipedia articles. Unlike mainspace articles, which must adhere strictly to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, The Signpost (just as any user talk page might) publishes opinion pieces (op-eds) that allow for analysis, critique, and subjective perspectives. This distinction is crucial - while Wikipedia aims for neutrality in articles, journalistic publications, including The Signpost, have the freedom to interpret and comment on current events. Disagreements should be handled editorially rather than through attempts to censor an opinion piece. I stand with Smallbones and their op-ed. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Josve05a:. I do want to be clear on one thing. Signpost articles are subject to WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPTALK. I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE is quite important here as well. I've just reread the whole BLP policy and it's always good to do it before publishing an article. Just a minor example: everything about the BLP has to have an inline citation, presumably on the right line. So I'll be checking that out for awhile. I do think that the main application of BLP is in the top part of the article, where I say that he made a "Nazi salute." Now the discription of the salute is given there, with a link to the video (several times). Links to many reliable sources. A general definition of Nazi salute (from the holocaust museum). Slightly more in depth descriptions of what the NYT and Die Zeit wrote. I'll review that again, but wouldn't mind other people doing their own reviews and writing them up here.

The lower part of the article is not so much subject to BLP since it is about the editing on Wikipedia, not about Musk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Why poke the enraged billionaire bear? As Shakespeare had Falstaff say, discretion is the better part of valor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Where to start? The richest man in the world gives 2 Hitler salutes and then somehow attacks Wikipedia for mentioning it. Why is that worthy of inclusion in The Signpost? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what you are saying. I'll just say for now that I believe that the story as currently written is fully compliant with both libel law and WP:BLP, see especially WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPTALK. Meeting both these standards is of course stricter than just meeting either one of them.Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The page exists primarily to make the highly-contentious definitive claim that a living person did give a Nazi salute, but the reliable sources on the page—and the mainspace Wikipedia article on the gesture—fall short of supporting such a definitive claim.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

• The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to give fascist-style salute after Trump inauguration
• Daily News: Elon Musk considers suing Gov. Tim Walz over Nazi salute accusation
• AP News: Musk’s straight-arm gesture embraced by right-wing extremists regardless of what he meant

Other sources (noting that I don't know how to search the reliability of some sources):

• France 24: Did Musk give a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration parade?
• The Jerusalem Post: Did Elon Musk Sieg Heil at Trump's inauguration?
• A tweet of a video of Nick Fuentes from Right Wing Watch, which is ran by an advocacy group.
• Die Zeit: A German Eye On Elon Musk's Hitler Salute (Yes, That's A Hitler Salute)
• Diario AS: ELON MUSK mimics NAZI SALUTE during TRUMP'S inauguration

The highly-contentious claim that Musk did give a Nazi salute is not widely supported by high-quality, reliable sources, so violates all three core policies of BLP: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia also has policies against using it as a soapbox, and the creation of pages primarily intended to disparage the subject; so I wouldn't be suprised if it ends up at MfD, but I won't nominate it myself. Svampesky (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. The proper way to address this on The Signpost is to submit your disagreement with me to @JPxG: and he'll decide. That's all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Svampesky I just wanted to note that Die Zeit should also be within the "green-light" sources, and France 24 is usually pretty reliable, too.

There's no consensus about the reliability of the JPost (and further discussions on it would likely be even more heated in the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war), while Diario AS is considered as reliable, but is mostly a sports media outlet, so it has minor importance in this case. Finally, I don't know anything about that Fuentes guy... and I don't think I want to know more, honestly. Oltrepier (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(coming from BLPN) there is likely a way to, uh, reference a famous man doing a salute that many (most) reliable sources interpret as alluding to an infamous regime, without triggering BLP.

IDK about libel, but BLP policy should be protected. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

agree with svampesky that flow also could use work... I don't see a direct connection between Elon Musk's salute and his attacks on wikipedia in the article, it just kinda skips to that. Attacks on wikipedia def are concerning, but needs a better way to introduce illiberal billionaire tendencies and connect to wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to let me know where you see disconnects in the flow. Also, if anybody finds something where Musk actually denies making the Nazi salutes - an actual denial rather than a non-denial denial - I'd love to put it in the op-ed. As above, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. If you can quote a line from the op-ed and explain why you think it violates BLP, please do. I will likely just respond that the line is sourced from multiple reliable sources, but let me know if I'm wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, sources [3] have connected his salute with his comments about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I may include it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I really fucking hate to do this, but I cannot wrestle myself past the objections here -- I have turned this over in my head many times and I cannot see the move. Not, of course, to imply that we are forbidden to say such a thing, but it is not a thing where I feel I have a solid sword and shield to weather a week or two of MfD and noticeboards. I hope to have more time by next issue; I will be moving boxes on three hours of sleep after I post this message and publish, and have requested less damned days of this per week. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

21:02 Community view

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view

Nicely done @SWinxy. Here are some suggestions:

• Adding Clay Shirkey's name to the into paragraph with Stephen Harrison's. You could argue Shirkey is equally, if not more notable, than Harrison.
• Mention Craig Newmark's appearance? I added his quote to WikiQuote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Craig_Newmark

Wil540 art (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah Shirky can be added in the abstract. I had forgotten Newmark had sent a note; I'll have to watch the livestream for everything that happened. SWinxy (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Some more notes of potential topics to add:

• adding a mention of the Wikimedia NYC 400 project
• adding a mention of Ryan McGrady's lightning talk about community
• adding a mention of the orgs at the tables in the atrium? WikiTongues, Farming Concrete, BetaNYC, Cybernetics Library, others?
• 15 years after the first Wikipedia Day celebration in NYC

Wil540 art (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Added NYC400, but the other three I don't know if I can speak to. @Wil540 art do you have anything to add yourself? I think that's it for me; the deadline is in a few hours. SWinxy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

21:2 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering its fifteenth volume). 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) 05:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Running late, sorry, but expecting have this up in publishable form by 2am UTC. I should then also have some time to help tying up loose ends in some of the other sections if needed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's almost 1900 UTC, I guess this isn't coming in? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed my anticipated window for this didn't quite materialize as expected yesterday (even within the since updated deadline), apologies. I am back at this now and should have it up shortly, but also will not be offended if the issue goes out without it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pleased this came in, good work HaeB. I'll encourage the author to go "out on a limb" (see what I did there?) and get gutsy with this passage it seems interesting that compute budget constraints would apparently prevent the deployment of a better-performing tool. I'd support a more obvious and frontal critique than "interesting" in pointing out the misalignment of WMF's spending priorities with community needs. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

21:2 Traffic report

The phrase "the Sargodha airbase attack of Pakistan" is ambiguous and needs to be corrected. No criticism of the TOP25 folks who probably got the text from the lede of the film's article. Since the airbase is in Pakistan, and based on the plot summary, I think it was an Indian Air Force strike on the Pakistani airbase. Maybe someone who can figure out the actual history can help? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Where we stand on this issue

8 pretty good articles

• Recent research (as always I'm sure HaeB will be high quality and on-time)
• Traffic report (ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Community view - this is the exemplar of Community views!(ready to go when it gets final approval)
• Opinion - needs some copyediting
• News and notes - a bit short, but not much newsy+noteworthy seemed to have happened, needs copy editing, better piccy
• Arbitration report - still needs copyediting checked off, but looks good to me
• In the media - needs blurb, copyediting. I like it.
• Op-ed needs copyediting, BLP review

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Almost ready to go?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm very pleased you like the community view! Wil540 and I worked hard on it. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

When the shift ends it'll go up. jp×g🗯️ 05:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Going. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-02-07/In the media went out with a big redlink to an "op ed" that is missing. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It apparently did not go. What the hell? It said it had been sent, but it never actually showed up and the MassMessage never actually got sent? Okay, I guess I will do it manually. jp×g🗯️ 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It is done manually. I don't know what was going on there. jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG Thank you for this! I've noticed that the "Op-ed" is still stuck in the Newsroom, though... Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not publish it in this issue. jp×g🗯️ 19:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)