Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | Newsroom
The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/SUBMIT
Submission Desk

Submission desk

edit

Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

We say Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one?

edit
Status:
V ?
Published

MallardTV Talk to me! 20:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MallardTV: Thanks for making this submission some months ago. I am just getting through the backlog.
You are up! Can I send this for review to the other editors as a Signpost submission, even after this break? The topic is as evergreen as ever.
If we publish, then can you add a link to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, which is what the piece references? Also please consider whether you want to link to anything else, anywhere else. Thanks for submitting, and I am sorry for the delay, but I did enjoy reading your submission. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Staged at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we allow AI-generated Wikipedia articles we'll increase the digital knowledge divide

edit
Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
  • Submission: User:Lijil/AI increases the digital knowledge divide
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: Lijil
  • Discussion:AI slop is flooding the internet, and it is harder and harder to find reliable information. The digital divide of the future will be between people who can afford to pay for high quality, fact-checked content, and people who only have access to cheap, AI-generated texts full of hallucinations, promotional content and scams. In this world, the Wikipedia must remain a reliable and trustworthy source that is free to all users. To stay reliable, the Wikipedia has to keep relying on human editing, because LLMs are not reliable and they are not accountable for the words they generate. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15/Special report argues that using LLMs will help Wikipedia serve the Global South better. I disagree - to use LLMs means we will lower quality to the extent that the Wikipedia will lose its role as a reliable encyclopedia accessible to anyone. I'm both a Wikipedia editor and a professor doing research on LLMs and their cultural effect so would like to write something about this if it seems suitable for the Signpost. Lijil (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lijil: Thanks for your submission. Yes, it seems that for the foreseeable future, Signpost readers want and will react to perspectives on AI.
Thank you so much for making this submission. If you drafted anything, then I think you would be the first person with professional expert insight into this, and I would be delighted to help you get something to reviewers. This is a standing offer. Our next issue is in 10 days, but we are always publishing, so take the time that you want.
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you but I think just now, we have cleared our submissions backlog, and you have our editorial attention now.
I appreciate your strong opinions. Feel free to take this in the direction you like, whether a soap box for making bold claims, or reacting to anything else, as long or as short of a piece as you like. I think it would mean a lot to readers to get any sort of input from a person who edits Wikipedia, but who also has research insight into the broad effects of LLMs. Thanks for considering and let me know how I or the other editors can support you. Feel free to start drafting. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! I'll try to draft something in the next few days - not sure I can get anything ready soon enough for the next issue but definitely want to do this. What is the ideal word count? Lijil (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lijil: 1000 words is a good length for an op-ed. We have plenty of shorter and longer submissions, but for this audience, it is reasonable to expect people to read submissions of that length. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OKA Translation Initiative

edit
Status:
V ?
processing
@7804j: Please develop your submission at User:7804j/OKA: grants for translators assisted by LLMs. If it is not burdensome, then submit as much content as you would like, perhaps 500-2000 words. If you want interim feedback, then at least make a few section headings and put a few sentences under each, even if it does not tell a full story. I think you know your way around wiki and have a good sense of how to talk with the Wikimedia community, but this story does hit multiple hot topics including paid editing, inclusion of people in lower middle countries, AI, and putting a process on the table to address decades-old cross-wiki translation backlogs. I am grateful for your submission. Also I want to connect you with feedback before publication, to get some confirmation that you will not be misunderstood. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the draft is now ready for review 7804j (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


How puzzles translate to page views

edit
Status:
V ?
Postponed
  • Submission: N/A
  • Column: Serendipity
  • Author: Suntooooth
Thanks for the reminder - I'd love to be working on it, but IRL factors mean it might take a while. I'm most likely to get it done for the issue after next, but we'll see - could be sooner, could be later. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 17:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let's keep this here at the submissions desk, and check in with you in the March 2026 issues. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Bold Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community.

edit
Status:
V ?
Postponed
  • Submission: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vyVTZPwLr3eYiPF65YW6O98ptH2Q2TEUb6sxzNmIDJ8/edit?tab=t.0
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: NabuKudurru
  • Discussion: This piece examines the recent problems in the community and makes a modest proposal: Spend 25% on the community. We show how currently WMF is spending about 15% of its budget on the community in terms of grants and awards. We outline what essentially doubling the funds for community could do in terms of solving the problems outlined recently, and look at where the funds could come from.

Wikimedia Worker Union

edit
Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
  • Submission:
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: Shushugah
  • Discussion:

I will write about the new union effort that just launched publicly https://wikiworkersunited.org/ and what it means for the Wikimedia movement and why we should support this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Yes, please start drafting. The next issue is in about two weeks. You can choose one of the article formats at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. Perhaps "Special report", "Opinion", or "Concept" would work. If you want to try Signpost formatting, then submit at the newsroom, otherwise write it anywhere then ping me and I will help with formatting and move it to the newsroom. Thanks, what an exciting topic. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure of the Unknown Corpse

edit
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed


Does the country of birth affect the likelihood of having a Wikipedia biography?

edit
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
I would be happy to have some feedback. PAC2 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The data collection and processing seems reasonable, but the article feels like it's lacking some analysis of the findings. The findings are not particularly surprising--overrepresentation of sports biographies (and to a lesser extent, politicians) are a likely explanation for the prominence of small countries in the biography dataset, which is a hypothesis that you should be able to test with only a small amount of additional work. Meanwhile, underrepresented regions continue to be underrepresented. It would perhaps be more interesting to include analysis of how this likelihood varies between male and female biographies, given the extensive literature and awareness of the overrepresentation of men in Wikipedia biography (again, partially impacted by our sports coverage, and getting clearer numbers on what the discrepancies look like for specific categories of persons could be interesting). Another interesting area for further investigation would be examining results for countries that run counter to the trend, either in terms of going against the grain in terms of their inherent characteristics vis-a-vis sources of bias (e.g., if Africa is underrepresented and small countries are over-represented, how do biographies from small countries in Africa like Djibouti, Eritrea or Eswatini fare? Etc.) or in terms of interesting outliers that pop up in the data. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback.
You suggest the numbers are unsurprising, but I believe they are genuinely novel. I am not aware of any study that has computed the ratio of biographies per number of births for each country. What strikes me most is the sheer scale of the difference between the top and bottom of the distribution. A factor of 1,000 is quite remarkable.
Since we are looking at country of birth rather than country of citizenship or residence, I don't see why the proportion of notable individuals would be systematically higher in Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Nauru than in any other country.
To dig deeper, I put together a new notebook to browse the list of people born in these countries:
That said, you raise a valid point. I could go further in analysing the results and provide more detail on the differences across the 10 Wikipedia editions included in the study. PAC2 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: After more investigation, I think you're intuition about athletes is true. Even in San Marino, it seems that there is a relatively important number of athletes. They may have a biography because they have represented their country in international competitions. PAC2 (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the analysis part with more details. Is that ok for you? PAC2 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an improvement; I don't object to publication. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How should we go now? Anyone to copy edit? PAC2 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill can you switch the article as reviewed ? PAC2 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather leave that for an editor intending to actually thoroughly review and stage the article for publication, as my comments were just suggestions based on the general content and direction of the article. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok PAC2 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry @JPxG I'd be happy to have some feedback and to know if this column could be published in the Signpost. PAC2 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious populations

edit
Status:
V ?
Scheduled
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I approve your submission. It is still left to other reviewers to approve the publication. As a next step please copy / start to adapt this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay.
All Signpost articles run with at least one picture in the header template, so please also either you select an image, or expect Signpost editors to do this if and when the piece runs.
I cannot speak for my fellow editors especially on sensitive topics, but I like this piece and want to run it. I totally understand why you decline to name the populations being discussed. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I copied it over and added an image. (Un)luckily, the issue described in the piece is so demographic-agnostic and recurring that I don't need to name the population we're thinking of lol. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry Author is blocked nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 09:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@.nhals8: I am not sure what to do here and would appreciate advice.
From one perspective, I should not have invited the author to submit here. From another perspective, this is a timely essay, and it would have been welcome from someone else, and I do not want the discussion itself blocked for 3+ years or however long until possibly, the original author negotiates limited right to talk in a narrow way about topics that overlap their restriction. I gave an explanation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_136#Statement_by_bluerasberry. The original author is not the sole stakeholder in this discussion.
I am not sure what you know or thing about any of this, but right - obviously nothing proceeds without extraordinary review including probably from ArbCom. This journalism is paused for now for sure. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry It's just me informing as I also don't know what to do at this point. Perhaps we re-inform them that the Signpost is still open for articles regarding this matter ? Otherwise, I don't like this matter being delayed for a few weeks or months. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 23:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are we embarrassed yet?

edit
Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
@Czarking0: When will you have this ready, or when do you want to submit to Signpost editors? This looks mostly ready to go and could just be chopped with copyediting to submit. I understand that your actual FOIA request may differ a bit if you have not submitted but it would be helpful to publish notice in The Signpost if submission is imminent. I do not want to overcomplicate any of this.
Publication should be this weekend. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some further copyediting. I'd like to submit this presently. Czarking0 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAnnotate

edit
Status:
V ?
Approved
@Bluerasberry: I would love to get this into the next issue. We're eager to get this in front of more editors to get the data collection going in earnest. Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sage (Wiki Ed): I have you staged at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. Can you select and insert an image for the header template. Also, decide if you want 1-2 images on the sidebar of the article. There is currently whitespace there, but if you do not want images, then this can be fullwidth. Thanks for clarifying about the em dashes, because I was about to reject your submission. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation update

edit
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

OpEd: Telling a different story about the Reader -> editor pipeline

edit
Status:
V ?
Scheduled
@Sadads: Thanks for letting me copy edit this when you were telling me about your submission. I have it staged at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. It still needs review from other Signpost editors. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OpEd: Putting the Wish into the Wishlist

edit
Status:
V ?
Submitted

@Barkeep49: Thanks for submitting. I formatted and staged it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. Its publication depends on editorial review and approval from others. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A global standard for Neutral Point of View (In focus?)

edit
Status:
V ?
Submitted
@Risker: Yes, I think "in focus" is a fit here, and I am staging this for review by others.
It has to have an image in the header template. Do you want to suggest one?
You have a block quote of text here, but is this is published somewhere already, or are you sharing this text here first for comment? If it is somewhere else, then it is ideal to link to the main source.
You link to the committee and you are on it. Can you provide some clarity here as to the relationship between you, the committee, and this Signpost piece? I particularly want to know if the committee supports you sharing this version of text, which I presume is so. I understand that these committees are casual and that you are a volunteer, but in that context, is this article a report from the group, with you representing them? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I am, in fact, a member of the working group (it includes two volunteer contributors, myself and steward Albertoleoncio). The text was reviewed by working group members and support staff before I brought it here. We thought that a Signpost article was appropriate at this point because of its broad readership, and also because it is valuable to emphasize that this proposed standard will not have an impact on the highly developed NPOV policies on English Wikipedia and other large and mature Wikipedias. The text of the proposed global standard has not yet been published publicly (although it has been shared with various groups in consultation), but will be included in the discussion page on meta. (That page will be published in the next 24 hours or so, and I will ensure the link is included in the Signpost draft.) I included it in this piece because there are a lot of Wikipedians who will be curious about what it says, but may not really want to jump to meta to read it, especially given its lack of impact on this project. As to a suitable image, perhaps a balance scale like File:Balance scale MET DP318014.jpg or File:Balance scales Pinhead icon.svg might work. Risker (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=1360092600"