Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

Thumbnail deleted

An image used as a thumbnail was deleted from this issue after I nominated it for deletion for being a copyvio (see here). Now the thumbnail where that image was is blank; please consider replacing it with a free image. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. I don't know why it had to be done in two places, since User:JPxG has done so much amazing work to scriptify and automate the Signpost. Maybe one of those edits was not necessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Single page link broken

When I click on "single page" at the bottom of this issue, I am taken to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2026-03-10, which is correct. But it does not display the single page edition. Perhaps the template it is using, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single, is broken? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, because PEIS is exceeded. Yeeshity weeshity woo. jp×g🗯️ 08:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Interview collumn

I would like to assist in reviving the interview collumn. I have an irregularly high number of connections with notable people and as such could contact them for interview or question. Please advise. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Feel free to start on a new Signpost article in the interview column. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Quick Start to help you get started, and if you need any assistance, leave a message on the Newsroom talk page. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-23881-10 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

User group for The Signpost?

@JPxG and Bri: would you be interested in or open to the idea of starting a Wikimedia user group, or some type of formal group organization, for The Signpost?

I'm not so interested in WMF endorsement or funding. Funding from WMF in particular could be problematic because of conflict-of-interest issues.

What could be helpful if there's an organized group is pursuing non-WMF grant funding, similar to how Wikimedians-in-Residence are funded for content production and how some Wikimedia event staff are paid for their organization efforts. Having the editor-in-chief or some similar role paid to keep everything organized, recruit new writers, review drafts, write substantial content, and publish on time would be nice.

One potential problem could be liability insurance and lawsuits for people who disagree with or don't like their coverage in The Signpost. If they have a target to sue then they may go after it whether or not there's much merit to the claim. If The Signpost contributors would like to form a Wikimedia user group some other organized group, liability insurance would be at the top of my wish list, even before pursuing grant funding for the above mentioned work.

What do you think?

↠Pine (✉) 05:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note a previous application was declined in 2024. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl: thanks for the link. Is there a public explanation for the decline? ↠Pine (✉) 06:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Pine: My memory of the timeline is becoming fuzzy but meta:Grants:Project/bluerasberry/fund a Signpost publisher might be related. The UG was an alternative to a grant, I think ... ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no direct connection between the two. The last conversation about a user group of which I am aware is Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 26 § User group application. Bluerasberry talks about about their grant application as a previous independent matter. No one interested in the user group idea mentioned obtaining grants as a motivating factor (though funding to attend the Wikimedia Summit (formerly the Wikimedia Conference) was mentioned). isaacl (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bri and Isaacl: thanks for the links. I would suggest against immediately linking a user group formation with a grant application to WMF. I have more concerns about the latter. Regarding the former, the Signpost staff could start a tiny nonprofit organization without WMF's recognition so long as the WMF trademarks aren't invoked, and wait to decide until later if the groups wants to apply for user group status and/or grants. However, there's a chicken-and-egg problem in that starting a tiny nonprofit in the US typically takes some time and money with time maybe being the bigger problem, assuming that the organization doesn't try to achieve 501(c)(3) status with all of the paperwork and potentially attorney fees. Also, the moment that there's a legal organization, I'm concerned that someone with a grievance or who is simply greedy would target it for lawsuits, maybe more for harassment than a legitimate complaint, but even defending against nuisance lawsuits isn't free. On the other hand, having a tiny legal organization with or without user group status I would hope would unlock some non-WMF funding opportunities. I wonder if instead of having the Signpost have its own tiny organization, integrating the Signpost as something like a "wholly owned subsidiary" of an existing non-WMF nonprofit would be an option, preferably with the host already having the funding and legal framework to defend the Signpost and also to seek new funding for it such as for funding some Signpost work part-time. What do you think about the idea of looking for a willing host organization? ↠Pine (✉) 01:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost Gap

Hi, I am working on a proposal for a complimentary publication, which unlike The Signpost, will publish items when they are ready instead of whenever the next issue is. My goal is for it to help provide coverage on time sensitive topics, such as an RFC, sooner than can be done on a monthly basis, and providing a place for last minute additions which can't wait for the next issue to go, giving these items a few days to breathe instead of being squeezed into an issue while it has major issues of its own. The page for it can be found here, and feedback from The Signpost community is welcome! Mitchsavl (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)