Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2026-03-31

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2026-03-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Comix: n00bsitting (3,195 bytes · 💬)

  • The kid is cute of course, but I'm more intrigued by what is going on in the left. I know what a spindle is, but I've never seen what the pointy collection of sticks are behind it. Anyone know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Clovermoss: - you obviously need some real Easter eggs. Happy holidays. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Czech this out!
  • HEY! I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK! (No seriously I love encouraging newbies. We are so dang mean to math and statistics professors who foolishly wander in here and think they might have some valuable content to contribute.) jengod (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Charming! Thanks for the chuckle and lovely image. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I will continue using AGF/test edit reverts when necessary, and leaving welcomes when I can, even if nobody ever reads them and I occasionally get accused of being a bot, haha. ASUKITE 17:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Community view: Videos from WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC (1,165 bytes · 💬)

Would it be possible to upload these in a format that lets you change the playback speed? RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I generally prefer to see event videos on YouTube for this reason. Apparently the conference sessions WCNA 2025 are already there; perhaps these interviews soon will be. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Jim.henderson: My channel is https://www.youtube.com/lanerasberry and in it these are in a playlist. Perhaps in 2028 Wikimedia projects will support standard filetypes in video upload, enabling a lot more video support. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Disinformation report: Cleaning up after Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Nygard, and Mohamed Al-Fayed (3,605 bytes · 💬)

  • Especially in matters of controversy and disagreement (including those of the 2020s and including topics where people have strong opinions), it's important that policies are consistently applied and strictly adhered to and that rational deliberation and concrete points thereof are considered above headcounts or comments that ignore main points or are repetitive regarding things already addressed earlier. For example: While NSSF's edits were very well documented, they did not get much help from other editors in cases like this it can turn into a) things that clearly should at least be mentioned somehow not being in the article because 'not census' and b) accusations of bludgeoning if the editor addresses many comments. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you—this is well written and informative. But a hyphen, en dash and em dash are different things. 🙂 Reagle (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you J! I'll have a talk with my copy editor - but they did a remarkably good job this time. I guess it all depends on what's in the final draft. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • For the record,User:Off2riorob was blocked indefinitely in November 2013. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you @John Broughton: you obviously know more about Off2riorob than I do. I'd figured out that he'd been banned or blocked - but what for? and was it related to this subject? I finally decided that it was for "disruptive behavior" (not the usual paid-editor block) and any connection to this story would be very complicated to make. Spending an hour or so today after reading your above comment, it's a little clearer and more disturbing. Could you comment on whether the following makes sense?
    • Off2riorob was a long term editor and admin who also used a known or declared account User:Youreallycan who was site-banned in 2013. The community seems to have taken the lead in the blocking, rather than ArbCom, but there may have been something earlier from ArbCom. Personal attacks, including ethnic slurs (something like the story above) were combined with work on WP:BLPN Off2riorob seems to have been the junior or short lived sock who started and ended within a few months of the long BLPN discussion discussed in this article. Youreallycan's wiki-career ended in 2013, about the same time that the Al-Fayed article calmed down - so I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a closer connection between the Al-Fayed article and his site-ban.
    • Feel free to let me know if I'm not close, or to add any more relevant details. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
      Next time I'll make it clear that I just read the user talk page, which says that the user was blocked for "sending harassing email" - and that otherwise I have no information (or involvement). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Gallery: Canadian Rangers participate in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia (2,332 bytes · 💬)

  • Please clearly mark this as attempted-humour in some way at the top. It is currently unclear and thus potentially insulting to actual Canadian Rangers who might not appreciate being compared to Power Rangers, etc. ~2026-20077-04 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • You really think it's necessary to amplify beyond "Operation Enduring Encyclopedia" in the title? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you for sharing the concern. For what it's worth, I think of this as being complimentary in a humorous way, both for Canadian Rangers and their teammates, and for Wikipedia functionaries. I considered the possibility that someone might take this in a bad way, but I asked a Canadian, admittedly not a Ranger, to look at an earlier version, and that person had no objections and even a compliment. By the the way, the title is derived from the redirect page Wikipedia:Operation Enduring Encyclopedia. Also by the way, I previously posted a different Operation Enduring Encyclopedia gallery in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-09-30/On the bright side. ↠Pine (✉) 03:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    • If a Canadian Ranger were to actually think this is real, I don't think they should be a Canadian Ranger :) I have a lot more faith in their abilities. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I'm not concerned about the Rangers' feelings, but I was a little confused to find the usual "Humor" section missing. I think it might've been funnier to know that was the idea going in. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

In the media: AI ban, newspapers disrupt archiving; and antisemitism complaints (15,517 bytes · 💬)

  • Re The Prospect, there does seem to be an obsession with making sure people of Jewish ancestry are identified as such in bios. It seems so much less common for, say, Christians: only if the person has themselves spoken about their Christianity. Lots of athletes and conservative politicians. My first instinct is that it's a dogwhistle, but maybe sometimes it's Jewish pride? Valereee (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    We speculated some on that at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_223#Should_we_have_an_essay_or_something_on_"Jew_tagging"?. With an edit like , motivation is not obvious. An edit like is perhaps less opaque. Is the Noah Schnapp article WP-good on his Jewishness? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Valereee: I personally wonder if it has to do with another way Wikipedia might reflect what reliable sources "notice" and comment on in considerable detail, especially since that article mentions the cases of where it wasn't that important to someone. But I do think there might be some sense of people bring it up more because they're proud/it "othered" them/it had a formative experience on their life. Whether journalists bring it up is another matter. I've mentioned my Jehovah's Witness childhood plenty of times and no one has commented on it yet. No one has commented on my athiesm, either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Another example I can think of is that multiple sources mention that our articles on women tend to have more detailed personal life sections than men. Is it because journalists are more likely to mention such details for women (almost definitely and I can provide examples), men are less likely to find such details relevant and just don't provide them (decent chance), or because women tend to do more childcare than their husbands and thus see this as a more important part of their identity (decent chance)? I think it's probably a combination of all of that. So we probably have different people with different motivations in this situation, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    I offer as an example, James B. Conant, who didn't think his wife rated a mention in his 744-page autobiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    It was also interesting in that article that "The ADL, it turns out, has a whole unit devoted to Wikipedia. ... But the unit couldn’t care less about whether Wikipedia’s entries on American Jews might be antisemitic." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Superfluous identification of Jewish ancestry is very common in Hebrew Wikipedia, so I'm guessing that Jewish pride is a big part of it. Streded (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Being Jewish is also not considered "normal" (that is you are neither a Christian or non-religious) in the Anglosphere as the United States' Jewish population (which is the largest outside of Israel) only comprises 2% of the population. This means that it is somewhat notable for a person to be Jewish in the eyes of the average Anglophone. I imagine for the same reason, Asian Americans, African Americans, et cetera are identified way more frequently than White or European Americans. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • We're fortunate to not have Wayback Machine as the only option after archive.today's faux pas. Bless Ghostarchive's maintainer. sapphaline (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • >>"As in the Nuremberg laws, once a Jew, always a Jew." — And once a Finn, always a Finn. Once a Hungarian, always a Hungarian. Once a Scot, always a Scot. Once a Mexican, always a Mexican. Once an Egyptian, always an Egyptian. Once a Bengal, always a Bengal. Once French, always French. Once an Italian, always Italian. And so on. And so on. And so on. This is a non-issue. Mel Brooks, of all people, is problematic to someone for being identified as a Jew?!? LINK Jesus fucking christ, pardon the expression... Carrite (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, Mel Brooks is discussed in the article because of what the author considers the unusual use of Yiddish there, presumably an extension of what may be a Jew-tagging phenomena taken steps further, to "other". Also, I suppose in your formulation 'once an American, always an American', or perhaps not, but I think considering the American might point to it being somewhat more complicated for any given person. Will someone whose grandparents were all Finns, necessarily call themselves a Finn? Must they? Are they required to? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
In a North American context, people often obsess over where you're "from", so maybe? I've had more than one person ask me about my ancestry and they get visibly frustrated whenever I say "Canadian" because that's not what they want to know. But I have to go really far back for a direct ancestor to have been from anywhere else. My understanding is that when North American tourists go to wherever their great-grandparents lived and claim to be that nationality that that tends to be poorly received, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Maybe they are required to? I don't think so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I very much agree that it isn't required, but sometimes people act like it is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes, some people might, but that's the problem with "always". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
In a North American context, people often obsess over where you're "from" There was a huge discussion about this topic on Reddit many years ago. The conclusion that I recall was that this was a regional difference unique to homogeneous small towns that plays out in many different ways. In the American South, for example, it would emerge in the form of a question that asked "what church do you attend?" But, in Hawaii, it took the form of "which high school did you attend?" Apparently, each region has a different form of this question. I suspect that in the Northeast it comes down to "which university did you attend?" Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The use of Early Life sections for antisemitic purposes is not a new discovery. Know Your Meme has examples going back to at least 2014. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • See User:Acroterion/Jew-tagging and the more recent discussion than what Gråbergs linked, which Kuttner seems to have possibly read. Andre🚐 00:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm glad @Acroterion developed that essay. Twenty years ago this all would have seemed absurd to me, just random weirdos spouting clearly fringe stuff. Even the Unite the Right rally, while appalling and terrifying, seemed that way. But now these ideas have entered mainstream conservative commentary, with commenters issuing coded language that is clearly understood by white supremacists as explicitly acknowledging a conspiracy benefitting Jews. I'm almost wondering if we do actually need policy around tagging -- American Jews, Indian Muslims, whatever? I know everyone hates WP:CREEP, but this is so frequently a BLP issue. Valereee (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Valereee a bit off topic, but you might be interested in WP:GENOCIDE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm afraid we live in a time where there is left and right antisemitism. I personally do not think "ethnicity tagging" should be an official policy or guideline. As the discussion and essay point out, there are also situations where this must not extend to active removal of appropriate, sourced focus on notable ethnic and religious affiliations. Removal or denial of Jewish history and culture is in some ways a mirror of Jew-tagging, and at least as pernicious. Occasionally, editors who have attempted to emphasize Jewish achievements may view the removal or editing of benign tagging as an attempt at erasure. Andre🚐 13:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I just ran across this discussion when I was pinged. I agree with Andre that we shouldn't promulgate a detailed guideline for something like this, and in any case, this is covered by the MoS to a large extent. What I was aiming to do was to provide a little context for why it's problematic to tag people for their religion or ethnicity. This applies on a much broader scale in principle, it's just that the compulsion to focus on ethnoreligious identity is more widespread and well-discussed outside Wikipedia for Jews. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm glad you wrote the essay the way you wrote it as I told you, and I think it's fine to be in WP space, but I agree this is already covered in the MoS. I just hope everyone reads it in full. Andre🚐 21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    My experience has been that some people just ignore the MoS as a rationale and assert special pleading of some kind. The essay is meant to head that kind of argument off and to provide support to the MoS, rather than just telling people to go look at the MoS. The whole idea of a manual of style, much less a Wikipedia manual of style, is a foreign concept for many people. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    Which it does - provide support for and is firmly anchored in the MoS, and carefully threads the needle. And as you said people often ignore guidelines, which is tolerated and even encouraged at times. But that's also why making a new guideline is fraught. Andre🚐 21:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I would be opposed to a prescriptive approach via guidelines. I think the MoS in its essence is enough, and it's a guideline. Like IAR, departures from the MoS are sometimes warranted, but like IAR, they should be infrequent and easily justifiable. We have plenty of rules, we don't need to add any in this case. Acroterion (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Re The Prospect, I think that's a reflect of editors' tendency to obsess over ethnic backgrounds in general. But I agree that ethnicity tends to be noted for Jewish subjects more than others, so the Prospect article is correct in its observations. I agree that it needs to be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Antisemitism and Israel: Wikipedia is but what sources reflect (also being Jewish, an ethnoreligious identity, isn't aptly comparable to a Christian one). I personally haven't come across any article which appeared to be a case of "Jew-tagging" which from what I've usually seen is nothing more than a case of amplification of minority identities by sources (you are unlikely to find for instance Jewish assertions in many a Israeli bios which would read similar to Christian bios in the US). At the end of the day this identity is important for many people in the US, no more different than what you would find for say Mormon personalities (BYU runs an entire database for Mormon writers and the like). The Yiddish/Hebrew name thing is in many a case just Israeli editors adding that stuff, take for instance the case of Ralph Bakshi which I had to cleanup sometime ago. Considering any of this as antisemitism appears to be stretching that definition beyond its limits, and with the ever expanding definition of it by political actors (e.g. Gaza protests at unis) I will reserve judgment against this. And look no further than the Honest Reporting case above, a classic example of conflating voices critical of Israel/Israeli policies as antisemitism. Gotitbro (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

News and notes: Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down (33,313 bytes · 💬)

Wikinews shutdown

  • RIP Wikinews. You will be missed... Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Rest in peace Wikinews; this Wikimedia project is shutting down later. Thomasfan1916[built buses?] 03:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Now that considering the whole rise in authoritarian acquisition of news outlets thing, shouldn't we encourage independent journalists to join Wikinews and maybe save it? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 13:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    @.nhals8 This is assuming that there is no such other place where this is not possible (in a better way), and that we have not tried this to little success for 20 years. I love to encourage journalists to do independent journalism while still being able to feed their families. But wikinews is not that, can never become that and is not designed to provide that. But this has all been discussed in the consultation at nauseum, I'd advise reading that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    It was never meant to replace paid journalists, only supplement. And no, there quite literally is no project where the public can submit on any topic, it simply doesn't exist. Template:Citizen journalism includes a number of niche topic sites (Mosul Eye), and sites with political views (Unicorn Riot, Project Veritas). There's nothing comparable, and checking out the last two, I can't find any reference on how one can apply to write for them. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    Media consolidation by wealthy power brokers has been a thing for 50 years or so. In the 1970s, many authors predicted everything that is happening today and warned people to stay vigilant. As per tradition, nobody listened. Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Is this an April Fool's joke or for real? Why Wikinews and not something like Wikispecies that's less active and doesn't serve that much of a purpose? Someone tell me if this is April fool's, please! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    On whether we should encourage independent journalism. Actually, my stance is that no, we shouldn't. At our core (the wikimedia movement) we are here for education. There are many other great things we can do. To example extremes, we could help feed starving people, help homeless people, etc. But none of them are really related to our mission. That's why, I think wikispecies/wikibooks/wikiversity and other project that are even less active are still around and noone is advocating for their closure since while they are not as successful as Wikipedia, they still exist for education (unlike wikinews) Ladsgroupoverleg 23:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Exactly; our mission is to store the collection of all human knowledge. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    This is an interesting comment. Do you view journalism and education as separate? They are not. Read our article on science journalism, as it goes into the history of journalism and education and how they relate. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    Side note, science journalism was one of the areas that English Wikinews "punched above average." I'm not sure the user, but they would do interviews with scientists. It had the same sort of accessibility as something like radio program Quirks and Quarks, but went much further into depth. That was the beauty of the platform, people could completely nerd out on niche topics. There was a contributor who deep-dived into Paralympic sport for a while, and years ago I attempted to interview all 500 candidates for Toronto's municipal election. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    I am very impressed by your attempt at interviewing all the candidates for the election. It seems like something that should be done, because most candidates receive so little scrutiny. Why do you think Wikinews failed to take off?? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    Wikimedia is in fact supporting independent journalism by asking users to violate WP:NOTNEWS while it is forbidden on WIkipedia to do so. So, Wikimedia bans news in Wikipedia, then closes Wikinews with words "many of its functions were eclipsed by the notable news coverage in Wikipedias". But handling news is banned on Wikipedia. Self-contradiction, self-violation, bad governance, degrading. --ssr (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    A reminder that WP:NOTNEWS is not a ban on news in Wikipedia, which is a common mis-reading. It is about no original reporting, considering the enduring notability of topics, substantial news coverage beyond a single event, and not being a gossip rag. The shortcut name and section heading sounds like "newspaper" like content is not allowed, which is not the case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    This line disagrees with you "Our sister project Wikinews may be a better place to contribute current events." Guz13 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    Ha, that line has been an open lie for more than a decade. I actually softened the language a while back, but it was reverted to prolong the delusion. - Fuzheado | Talk 08:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    Also, just because that desperate promotional line for Wikinews exists doesn't mean that those guidelines aren't true. We are an encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean we cannot incorporate newspaper-like content or functions. - Fuzheado | Talk 08:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Shame on the Foundation for shuttering Wikinews, and for talking down to them while they're doing it. In a time where we're seeing fake news, AI generated hallucinations, and poorly-disclosed "sponsored content" right alongside legitimate journalism, I would've hoped that the Wikimedia Foundation would be encouraging citizen journalism rather than unceremoniously dumping 22 years worth of hard work. I hope that Wikispecies, Wikibooks, and the other "sick projects of Wikimedia" are paying attention, because it's "not Wikpedia's job to solve everything", and "there's no point in arguing" when their time comes. --Apixelate (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • You understand that you are linking to comments from (A) someone sitebanned from English Wikipedia and (B) an editor who is well-known as phrasing their opinions in a rather provocative and aggressive manner, yes? You only have 36 edits here on EnWiki but I can assure you that you can make any "side" look bad if you judge a conversation by its most aggressive participants. Plenty of Wikinews supporters made... questionable... posts on the consultation, as well. If you'd like to complain about the Foundation, then at least do them the honor of linking to what they wrote, not random discussion participants. I'll link it for you: meta:File:Sister Projects Taskforce Wikinews review 2024.pdf . This PDF is a respectful attempt to interrogate the current state of Wikinews even given optimistic assumptions. If you want to complain about the Foundation's judgment, do it based off what's in that document. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
      It does indeed look like one of those folks is site-banned here (though their exact wording in that diff still appears in the meta:Proposal for Closing Wikinews), and I'll certainly concede the point that the loudest voices in the community aren't necessarily going to represent the exact decision-making process that the Foundation might've used.
      I have read the review (which did not include Wikinews contributors until it was complete), and I don't think there's going to be much disagreement on the question of whether or not Wikinews is meeting it's potential. But I'd personally rather see a reinvestment rather than a shuttering. WMF has plenty of resources, plenty of connections, and plenty of reason to boost that project rather than closing it and telling 22 years worth of people that they thank all contributors who have participated in Wikinews "[weren't] able to fulfil [their] promise." Apixelate (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC) (Note: Based on what SnowFire said below, I have replaced the log link to the appropriate user. --Apixelate (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
      Procedural note: I'm not a fan of picking on random editors and would suggest we stop focusing on random good-faith participants in the discussion rather than the WMF. However, for the record, you have linked the wrong editor. It's the other one that's banned.
      The whole point of an outside review is to be an outside review. I hope you would agree that it is at least possible to imagine a case where there is a project that is objectively in trouble, that is struggling, that isn't succeeding in its goals, but the people who remain are deeply committed and insist everything is actually fine. An objective outside review is useful for figuring out if there's some way back, or if it's better to admit defeat. Imagine the reverse case - if an outside review had concluded that Wikinews was doing great, that'd have been a much stronger endorsement than a Wikinews insider declaring everything is great, right?
      Again, Wikinews was given decades, plural, to succeed. I would argue that PDF report shows that rather decisively it hasn't, and that it's not easy to fix. People have been trying to make it work, in good faith, for a long time. There isn't some easy "oh just try this" option that exists. And it should be stressed that precisely because news is important, it should not be done poorly. There is a similar principle on Wikipedia that we'd rather have no article at all on a topic than a problematic one. (This isn't to call out any one specific article on Wikinews as "problematic", many are fine, but... well, see the report on the lack of a community, which means a lack of community checking articles closely.) SnowFire (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
      Personally i found the review rather unconvincing. Quite frankly i'm not sure even english Wikipedia would pass that review. However, at the end of the day i think everyone agreed with the conclusion so it didn't really matter the logic to get there. Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    Wikispecies, Wikibooks, ... while not very active, they are still much closer to the core mission of Wikimedia (education) than Wikinews. I don't think looking at the number of active editors and readers per se is the criteria to shut down a project. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Wikibooks I like because it has a cookbook. But is this an April Fool's joke or not? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    A lot of these projects are going to lose editors due to AI. Guz13 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think wikibooks is reasonably active and fulfilling its goals. I do not understand the point of WikiSpecies in a world where Wikidata exists. It does not seem to add any value over Wikidata. If i was to pick a project to kill though i would say Wikiversity. Despite its lofty goals there is basically no meaningful educational content. Wikinews was a resounding success compared to Wikiversity. Bawolff (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I've never visited WikiNews, even once, despite being part of the project for over 20 years (before registering my account) - I'll say I'm sad to see a related project being shut down, and for all the people who worked to support it, for no personal benefit other than whatever motivated them personally. I hope they find another outlet. As somebody who has worked as a journalist, and messed around on Wikipedia over the years, to varying extents, I know that the mission of Wikipedia, at its core, is incompatible with the idea of original reporting. There is a certain degree of trust required with original research, which flies in the face of one of Wikipedia's pillars (WP:V, so important it has a rare single-letter shortlink). While we are bound to do our best to ensure verifiability, we ultimately cannot vouch for those sources, beyond our best attempt at consensus. I personally believe that were were never in any position to be an original source, and while I will miss this wing of Wikimedia's attempt at expanding beyond its original mission, I would instead welcome the now-abandoned individuals who spent their time building Wikinews to join our project, or to find other journalistic endeavors where they can contribute their unique flair, with respect to proper journalism, such that we can incorporate their work. Human writing needs more attention than ever these days. ASUKITE 21:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Many people create articles within minutes of news stories breaking so it's no surprise that Wikinews is going away. Guz13 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
This behaviour is banned by WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, Wikipedia, with its bad governance, will be overturned by Grokipedia, which will include news and will not impose bans on news, as it is governed by rationally thinking machine that will do its best to handle everything that Wikimedia fails to handle. --ssr (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
To quote your user page, "If you happen to 'hate Wikipedia', do not use it." -- Zanimum (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Bad governance is not a reason to not use Wikipedia which I don't hate. Think about it. --ssr (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that NOTNEWS isn't followed. In not following it, people add crazy unverified information within minutes of an event being reported. Guz13 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
A reminder that WP:NOTNEWS is not a ban on news in Wikipedia, which is a common mis-reading. It is about no original reporting, considering the enduring notability of topics, substantial news coverage beyond a single event, and not being a gossip rag. The shortcut name and section heading sounds like "newspaper" like content is not allowed, which is not the case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As a longtime editor on Wikinews with cca. 650 articles in ther German language version since 2008 I am totally desillusionated. The WMF does not know what she is doing. More and more and even more news content disappears behind pay walls. More and more news outlets are bought by right wing faschos. Democracy Dies in Darkness, the Washington Post claims – and is not allowed to write what they are supposed to write 'cause Mr Bezos has forbidden to do so. In a growing number of countries the press struggles due to influencing and regulation by governments, including such contries like Russia, Iran, Turkey, Hungaria, and the United States. And yet, I still did not call out fake news. And the Foundation is killing Wikinews. That's just nuts. Though, several of the communities in the diffrenzt languages made mistakes. They weren't the same mistakes on every place but some of them where severe. The redaction process (aka reviewing of articles) takes too long, is intransparent, and overreacting. However, arguing in the proposal failed. It were only a handfull people ro react, and there was no shitstorm the Foundation would have well deserved for doing this. Arguing now is way to late, they even did not comment on all the untruths in the proposal we called them out for. As this was discussed on Meta for months.

  • Wikinews being shut down in this way is simply a disgrace. If one really goes and reads through the consultation page which countless people poured their effort, it becomes clear that throughout the entire discussion process, the SPTF paid no responses to issues big or small, reasonable or not, just nothing to everything. How? Does ignoring them make the doubts disappear? This includes many questions challenging the data as well as many simple requests just for clarification, they could at least have pretended to take things seriously! to uphold the grassroots principle a bit.
In the officially posted RfC, the retention side also achieved a complete victory—yet all of this was ignored. They had already decided on the outcome before the discussion even began, and still insisted on wasting a great deal of the community’s valuable time, dragging things out again and again, forcing so many volunteers to endure several difficult months. In the end, they would not even bother to, say, use AI to tally the community’s views on the page, and instead churned out a so-called “consultation result” that flatly contradicts reality, is completely one-sided, and even contains two duplicated paragraphs. and After they said nothing more.
If there is at least even 1% room left to salvage or justify this kind of indiscriminate, one-size-fits-all approach (and in fact, Wikinews readership in several major languages is relatively quite substantial), then the behaviour described above is a completely blatant, naked error—they are not even trying to pretend anymore.
What’s done is more or less done. But no matter what stance you hold on Wikinews, this is a total betrayal of the Wikimedia spirit and the ideals of the Wikimedia movement, and a complete trampling of the community. Perhaps there is little we can do, but I believe we should at least say something. This kind of thing must not happen and should not happen—yet now it has happened just like this. I, for one, cannot remain silent. I simply cannot. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I will note for the record that Sheminghui.WU made no less than 338 (!) edits to the consultation page. Multiple independent good-faith other editors disagreed with your analysis. I will also note that the German Wikinews edition had six active editors in the past 10 years. Six. One comment in the consultation noted a mere 24 non-bot edits in a month on German Wikinews as of July 2025, and these edits were not creating and approving well-formed articles in a single edit. German Wikinews was already moribund before the Foundation made this change. SnowFire (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
That's an argument to close the German Wikinews, but if one project being moribund is rationale to close all of its siblings, then Wikipedia should have been closed 90 times over.
If this was done in good faith by the Foundation, they could have started with a consultation to see whether a top-down mandated change in policy would encourage activity. They didn't, they entered into this with a pre-determined result, and created a report with multiple issues. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
A) I was replying to Shemingui.WU's comments on German Wikinews, so I figured this would be an important data point for casual browsers to know about, that German Wikinews was not a thriving website pointlessly turned off. Obviously, that was not why the whole project was closed; the whole project closed because every Wikinews edition had major problems, as is apparent from the linked PDF report above. B) Where, exactly, are you getting "pre-determined result" from? Do you have a contact at the Foundation who said "yeah the investigation was a sham and we sent in a hit squad"? Even if we grant (which I absolutely don't) that it was written by some sort of irrational Wikinews hater, it raised factual, severe problems that can be checked by a neutral, outside party. Problems that can't just be hand-waved away. SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
It is a shame that one must disclose his personal life to react on your false data points. One: Since 2006 resp. 2008 I was an ever active user in the german WP and WN and helped by making those thriving. Until after 2013 when my mother had a stroke and had to move in a nursing home. Early 2022 my mother has died, and my Wiki-lifa callapsed almost totally. I tried to fascilitate my mourning process by taking part in the 100-wikidays contest which means that for 100 days I wrote one article each days. It did not help really, It has powered me out. I had to reduce my wikiwork in all the projects I was active in. Even worse, when I slownly started to come back I collided with the consultation of the proposal like hitting a train. I only worte a handful articles last year and not much more in Wikipedia, if at all. You cannot make a decision on a project by telling that a particular user isn't thriving anymore. Shame on you. More: This all had it's impact in other language versions, the calmed down significantly. Second, from the PDF linked above we can tell a thing or two in ZH and RU Wikinews, and maybe even a sentence on EN wikinews. But not on eny of the 30 other language versions since the PDF lacked any numbers on them. And I think that also the board did not have any further information. I even do not understand, was the number of links to News websites on one hand and to Wikinews on the other hand has a meaning at all. Even though I asked how this statistics for EN, RU and ZH was measured this metrics wasn't disclosed. Acutally the is no method to count links to Wikinews like n:Main page because these are not external links ("weblinks", which can be shown by Special pages "Weblinksuche" – I have no clue on the name of the special page in the EN WP). There also is no public tool to research incoming linkage from sister projects. And actually we don't use outgoing links in the German Wikipedia at all, except for templates within the Weblink section in articles. Template:Wikinews with the piped parameter "Hauptseite" sould link to the German WN mainpage. Interestingly this number is quiet higher than the corresponding number of the template doing the same in EN Wikipedia. So what this number is intending to say, aside from nothing? Third, as I showed in the discussion many if not all statements made in the PDF a.k.a. proposal are not true. They are utterly false. Since the board decided as he decided whe must believe that they are acting like irrational Wikinews haters. What an outside, neutral party most probably would find out. IMHU I never saw such a blatant try hiding of pre-made decisions. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • This article could have used more eyes before being published:
    • It doesn't refer at all to the archival Signpost coverage of the Wikinews debate, including an interview with the editors that forked away from it, a feature story, and this op-ed calling for English Wikinews' closure.
    • It does not mention nor summarize any of the existing materials that underlined why there was a public consultation in the first place. m:Proposal for Closing Wikinews, prominently linked from the public consultation, lays out some clear reasoning whether or not you agree with it. Its lack of activity was only part of the argument; there were also concerns with its lack of usefulness, useage, coverage, and synergy with other projects.
      • The Signpost could have even just blockquoted this line, which is partially bolded on Meta: "Wikinews is not viable as a global, multi-lingual sister project in the Wikimedia ecosystem and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The project does not fill a need in the world through useful articles, significant readership, or significant volunteer engagement. News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model, as shown in the low editor engagement and few revisions over time. There are many stronger alternatives for the broader mission of non-profit news.
    • The line "... Wikinews was also a platform for regular interviews with notable people ..." desperately needs a fact check, specifically on "regular" and "notable." Neither are true, as far as I'm aware. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    there are interviews with notable people (i'm going to assume that notable means has a Wikipedia article). To pick some random examples Regular is pretty debatable, but then again isn't the entire rationale that wikinews lacks volunteer engagement. If anything was regular at this point in time, we wouldn't be here. Its probably a fair criticism that notable interviews were more common during Wikinews's peak which was a long time ago at this point. Bawolff (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    @The ed17 and Bawolff: Sorry for coming across your comments just now. I must confess I didn't have a lot of time to work on the Wikinews blurb, since it was a last-minute submission, so I ended up rushing it. Mea culpa... If we'll report on Wikinews again once it's locked forever, I'll keep an eye on your suggestions. Thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Wikinews was a colossal waste of resources and I'm glad it has finally been put to rest. It was a failed project and it should have been ended 10 years ago. Nosferattus (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    It did not, and when it would: were these your resources? Matthiasb (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Wikinews is how i got involved with Wikimedia. I basically learned to program for Wikinews, and also contributed my first patches to MediaWiki for Wikinews. In many ways I grew up there; it made me who I am today. I can't think of anything that had a larger impact on the trajectory of my life than Wikinews did. I started editing Wikinews when I was 14, and 2 decades later I guess i'm still here. I'm sad at this moment, but it was very clear it was dying and had been for a long time. It's like visiting your home town and discovering its been abandoned. I think the biggest mistake was spending too much time defining itself in opposition to Wikipedia solely for the sake of differentiating itself. It essentially became the Nupedia of news, with onerous peer review requirements, and tight deadlines. I think it also devolved into copying (rewriting) other news articles, instead of really creating new content that was more than the sum of its parts. That said, for a while I do think Wikinews accomplished something even if it never amounted to what we all hoped. In this moment of its death, i would encourage people to browse through n:Category:Featured article to get a sense of what it hoped to be. Bawolff (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Russian Wikinews community opposed the decision --ssr (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The consultation process is very concerning. Based on the criteria, there are a few 100 wikis that the BoT close using the same approach.
  • Various unnamed groups advise they are concerned
  • A review is announced,
  • An anonymous external report is commissioned
  • A finding is made based on number of readers and editors,
  • Statements are made about bot traffic
  • The BoT announces closure BEFORE working out migration Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"The encyclopedia that anyone human can edit"

  • and argued for access to edit Wikipedia outside the regulation of Wikipedia's bot policy on the rationale that an AI agent is more and different from a bot Link? The closest thing I could find in checking links of links was where it merely claims it is "not quite a bot", despite Wikipedia:Bot policy#Definitions being clear that a bot is an automated process (which would include LLM-based AI agents) taking actions without ongoing human decision making. I wrote an essay at User:Anomie/AI agents and the bot policy that goes into things in more depth; feedback welcome, but please avoid more calls for WP:CREEP. Anomie⚔ 12:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Do Bots Have Standing? Yes. Yes they do. kencf0618 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
      • It's odd that you chose a quote from a decision that upheld right against the destructive pressures of modern technology. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Articles for discussion instead of Articles for deletion?

  • "Although most AfD discussions end with deletion, not all do. For example, articles may be draftified, stubified, or merged." They may also be retained as articles. Maproom (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Obituary: Dr. Subas Chandra Rout (1,169 bytes · 💬)

  • I thank him for his great contributions, May he rest in peace Otto (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rest in peace. You will be missed. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rest in peace. Zalaraz (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Saddened to loss such an amazing person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service, Doctor. Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Traffic report: Call in the dogs of war, soldier of fortune (0 bytes · 💬)

WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC review (7,025 bytes · 💬)

Homicide rate
Homicide rates from firearms
  • The graph showing gun-homicides correlated with gun ownership is inherently biased. The implicit assumption is that homicide is something to be avoided. But by limiting the homicides shown to those caused by guns, the graph is hiding the fact that many homicides by other means are prevented by the possession of guns by the potential victims. And it is also ignoring the fact that some homicides are justifiable as self-defense. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Have added further evidence. US is high for the West when it comes to Homicide overall. But there are places higher for both overall and by firearms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
      • I don't think that firearm availability is the main factor behind homicide rates but it does make it easier for deranged individuals to arm themselves and cause a lot of damage compared to a society where deranged people are not able to get ahold of them and would have to resort to less effective weapons. (t · c) buIdhe 23:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
        I think there are deeper societal reasons behind the US's high homicide and violent crime rate (which far outstrips most developed countries), but shootings are much rarer in places where firearms are not readily available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Security at Wikiconferences is something I had never considered before because we are so radically open or we try to be. We've had two meetups at the Ebell of Los Angeles that attracted people I felt compelled to chat with as a veteran editor; one guy wanted to tell us how he loved Wikipedia and then subtly moved on to proselytizing the LDS church; another guy brought his wife and wanted to know why his biography was deleted; he turned out to be a fairly charming old rich guy who brought his wife (and she secretly brought their little dog in her purse), and we ended up having the same alma mater and after a deep dive into Wikipedia philosophy and practice they were very gracious and sensible and just needed some honest insight that it was not an evaluation of his character or worth. However, in retrospect, maybe it was a mistake to take them both out in the hall by myself so we would not disrupt the editors editathoning. Maybe a buddy system should be recommended? Like always have a friend/ally/someone with you when addressing new people with "weird" or low-key hostile energy? This will be an interesting challenge for Wikipedians. Social stuff hard (for me). jengod (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
many homicides by other means are prevented by the possession of guns by the potential victims
[citation needed]
— OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Less flippantly, I would suggest the combination of firearms ownership, hostile border policies, the threat to female attendees from anti-abortion policies (and to attendees of other genders who can become pregnant) and systemic queerphobia mean that international conferences should not be held in the USA in the immediate future. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You think U.S. citizens will grab conference attendees and force them to have abortions? But seriously, all conferences, U.S., Canada, Paris, etc., should have metal detection upon entrance to the venue, at least those wands (the day after the New York gun incident security was upped - to look in bags. I asked the security guards if they were going to use wands and they just shrugged). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
How you came to that conclusion is beyond me; I think that at least 18 states are places where it is unsafe for anyone who could become pregnant through rape to visit. Metal detection on entrance to venues definitely seems like something one should recommend in the US. Given the much lower likelihood of gun attack elsewhere in the world, I'm not sure it would be necessary for metal detection to be required in particular, but certainly bag searches would seem wise. Given I'm helping organise a conference in Canada later this year, I'm sure I will become far more familiar with the Foundation's thoughts on this matter in the near future. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Then don't bring a conference to those 18 states, but this talk of "no Wiki conferences in the U.S. until..." gives a distorted view of America. Foundation or no foundation, if you mean that you are helping organize the Edmonton conference then hire a handful of trained security professionals with metal detecting wands who realize that guns are not the only metal weapons. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Not Edmonton and personally I wouldn't want to advocate non-citizens cross the US border anytime soon, forced-birth abortion policies notwithstanding. (I'm sure the WCNA team are already on that, mind.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2026-03-31&oldid=1346348071"