The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2022-10-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Excellent article. Thanks as always User:Smallbones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Good article. I've noticed that articles relating to Dubai are often full of praise for it, sometimes with references that are barely relevant to what is being said. I suspect that there are agents of many other countries involved, and some don't get as much attention as Russia's. Epa101 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

John Barron told us all what the Chekists were up to in 1974.^[1] Anyone who thinks they ever stopped is ignorant (some willfully and most merely negligently). Of course once Wikipedia was invented, their playbook version builds were updated accordingly, as that would be self-evidently logical. It is all part of the history of their sewage disposal system, as the premier record puts it. As one of their own has said, there isn't even any such thing as a former KGB man. They think it's hilarious, and quite useful to them, how little institutional memory most of the rest of us have. Meanwhile, The Washington Post told us just this week what sorts of things the UAE has been up to.^[2] But people have Pokemon to farm on Twitch, or some bullshit like that, so you can see the bind they're in, regarding maintaining vigilance or at least awareness. I'm not even one to go on and on about it all, trying to get anyone else to pay attention or read a little nonfiction or a little real news once in a while, but I just feel weird regarding how little 99% of people bother to have even a crumb of awareness (like "what's a Chekist?"), considering the threats and risks involved. Again, no time though, what with amusing themselves to death, I guess? Albums dropping on the Insta or some bullshit like that. They know way more about cartoon/movie mafia dons than the much more dangerous real-life mafia dons that actually threaten real lives. Or maybe they just imagine that they "see their souls when they look into their eyes" (what souls?), or fawn over them as fellow stable geniuses or some bullshit like that. Who knows; this ain't my day job. At least a few people are standing watch and telling the rest of us. Karmanatory (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-10-31/Featured content

• Indeed the Toolserver migration was bumpy (maybe even unnecessarily so), and we did lose some tools along the way, but I think it's very clear that Toolforge and Cloud Services (then "Tool Labs" and "Wikimedia Labs" respectively) have become a huge improvement over the Toolserver and are continuing to get better. Legoktm (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There is another migration currently underway from the Sun Grid Engine to Kubernetes. Here is a blog post describing the reasons for the migration. --Bamyers99 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

    For the only-minimally-curious, the TL;DR version of the blog link Bamyers99 provided is exactly what you'd probably expect if you're familiar with modern containerized service platforms: Toolforge already provides tool hosting via Kubernetes (as well as Grid Engine, both simultaneously, but separately (either/or) and with each platform having different features available to tool authors). Sun Grid Engine is ancient, outdated technology; hasn't released an update in 6 years; requires active, manual maintenance to continue functioning; and is dependent on other ancient, outdated technologies like NFS. Whereas Kubernetes has a rapidly-growing userbase; is being very actively developed; and is basically the current technology leader in the space. So, they're consolidating all of their eggs into the basket that doesn't have a Sun logo on it, and also happens to be superior in all ways that matter. FeRDNYC (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At least two articles got missed from publication this month, despite being ready weeks in advance. This should have been delayed until it could have been published competently. No apologies have been forthcoming. One of these was an obituary for a dead Wikipedian. However, we do have two seperate articles that attack the WMF, so at least we got everything important in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 22:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Good on you. scope_creep^Talk 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Even Elon Musk takes some time to rev up to speed, so it's nice that an editor has taken on the task of editing The Signpost. Adam Cuerden, can you link to the two articles, and hopefully they will be printed next time. I'm assuming one is on deceased and missed editor BeenAroundAWhile. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Obituary (which isn't even on the list for next month), and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/CommonsComix Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 16:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Adam Cuerden. Not for user:BeenAroundAWhile, who also should have an obit. Neither of the two stories seem ready (especially the second link, I'm not sure what it is about), so this seems like a good editorial decision on the part of the new Signpost editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I've responded to your comments on this subject at the newsroom talk page -- not sure if you didn't see them, or if the ping didn't go through or something. If you want to help with fixing the template bug that prevented those articles from being visible on the newsroom index this month, I could use some opinions and suggestions (there is a new thread at the bottom for this). jp×g 17:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Good luck reading all the Signpost pages. Saying that's a massive undertaking is almost an understatement. The idea has popped into my head before but I've never tried to actually go through with it. Let me know if you think it's worth it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: Hold on, it appears that you were a lead author and/or main organizer of the open letter about whose success and claimed positive impact ("energised") you are reporting on here as Signpost writer, no? That should have been disclosed at least. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I was indeed. I wasn't asked to make that explicitly clear here, but I'm happy to do so (and will go do so now) OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't mean to imply that the Open letter is what energised LSP, so much as that they came back from the controversy and got on with further work, rather than licking any metaphorical wounds.

@HaeB: In any case, are you happy with the disclaimer I've added, or is it still not quite clear? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note. Regarding "I wasn't asked", I understand this was because you didn't disclose this to the Signpost's editor-in-chief or the rest of the team in the first place. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. @JPxG, in the professional world, something like this would be regarded as a major ethical breach. I know it can be hard to find Signpost contributors, but having independent authors without a conflict of interest writing news reports is main thing that distinguishes the Signpost from just a batch of press releases. If that goes away, so does the Signpost's credibility. I pointed out another instance of this same thing happening a few months ago, and that should have been a wake-up call. With where we are now, two suggestions:

• There needs to be clear documentation around the Signpost's COI policies — what is considered enough to mandate a disclosure (the WP:INVOLVED standard might be a good benchmark), and what is considered enough that the author should be writing in opinions instead? Those policies then need to be enforced by the editors.
• The disclosure added here is insufficient. The entire contribution is affected by the COI, not just the part directly about the open letter, so the disclosure should happen at the top. And since it was added post-publication, it should ideally take the form of an editor's note explaining what happened.

There will always be COI pressure on the Signpost just as there is always COI pressure on Wikipedia content, and to combat it we need to treat failures here as seriously as we do when they happen in encyclopedia articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, while we're talking about transparency, I agree with the concerns voiced independently here and here by uninvolved Wikimedians, who pointed out that your open letter does not provide any links or other details that would enable readers to understand what the "continual bad-faith argument[s]" and "hostile reception"/"harassment" (that the affiliates' formal statement centers on on) actually consisted of. (It does get more concrete elsewhere at one point, when explaining why the project at the center of the controversy does not involve paid editing, contrary to what some French Wikipedia editors had assumed apparently. But that kind of clarity is missing from the rest of the letter.)

Honestly, this also devalues the weight of the signatures, as it makes it appear likely that the majority of them were mere pile-ons ("Yes, Les sans pagEs are great and harassment is bad, so let's sign this") rather than informed endorsements of the assessments expressed in the letter.

This kind of pile-on vagueposting has been a problem with some other open letters in the movement too (in the comments to last month's Signpost issue I called it out in context of the NPP open letter to the Foundation; on the other hand the more recent open letter criticizing the Foundation's lack of technical support for Wikimedia Commons does a better job of actually explaining what the problems are). But it seems particularly problematic with a letter that is directed against specific community members, accusing them of major wrongdoing that should generally entail bans or other administrative sanctions. While they are not named in the letter, many presumably know who they are. (I'm writing this without having tried to form an opinion myself on whether harassment took place in this case; fwiw I do recall having read some community conversations in context of this incident some years ago - which incidentally also involved paid editing concerns, but in a quite different constellation - and coming away with the impression that Nattes à chat had indeed be the target of highly problematic comments in that case.) On a deeper level, there are good reasons why the Wikimedia movement generally discourages polling and voting in favor of the exchange of informed arguments (in !vote formats such as RfCs), and I think they also apply to openlettering.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Sdkb: You are correct, and it should not have been allowed to happen without disclosure. I will deal with this. jp×g

• @JPxG and HaeB: Regarding OwenBlacker's I wasn't asked..., though... (a statement I accept at face value, for the record): I had a quick look, and AFAICT it seems to be completely true.

By which I mean, I went looking with the initial expectation that I could find some sort of blanket statement of editorial policy at the Signpost's project pages (Submissions, Content, Style, etc.) which stated the requirement that, and perhaps also detailed exactly how, contributors must disclose any ties they have to at least the subjects of their own submissions. Or even, out of an abundance of caution and transparency, whatever ties they have to any subject covered in a Signpost issue where their submission appears, even when someone else does the reporting. And I failed to find anything of the sort. Nothing whatsoever.

For professional journalists, standards of self-disclosure are understood so fundamentally that it probably can be claimed to "go without saying" that such things are required. But Signpost contributors are not professional journalists.

I realize the editorial team is plenty busy as it is, and that "suggesting" things to add to anyone's already-overfull plate falls somewhere between somewhat insensitive and wildly unreasonable. But given the current situation, it seems extremely prudent for the Signpost to have an explicit set of rules and requirements governing contributor conflicts, including disclosure thereof. (And given that Wikipedia itself has a very explicit WP:COI policy, one nice thing is that the Signpost shouldn't have to look very hard to find ample guidance regarding what those rules should be.) FeRDNYC (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• • @FrRDNYC: @HaeB: @Sdkb:: See my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Proposed_COI_policy. jp×g 22:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Failed to type @FeRDNYC:'s name properly. jp×g 22:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If deadnaming is an issue, why is it practically English Wikipedia policy? Wendy Carlos hasn't had anything released under her deadname in about 50 years, and, while mentioning it might be appropriate somewhere in the article, the article literally starts with her name, the word "born", and then her deadname. That's the most efficient outing of a person's deadname possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 17:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Because, in that case, people who (say) watch A Clockwork Orange are otherwise going to be very confused as to why the credits give a different composer than the encyclopedia article about said composer. I think you're aware of that. It's no different from clarifying that Dickey Betts used several names and spellings early in his career, even though he's gone with the spelling Dickey for 40+ years, or Emomali Rahmon changing his name from Rahmonov so it looked less Russianized. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

But does it need that level of emphasis? If it was merely mentioned, that would be one thing... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "one size fits all" solution for dealing with deadnames of trans people. Wendy Carlos' circumstances are akin to Caitlyn Jenner whose birth name (the name they used when they became famous) is also included in the lead sentence. By the way, @Adam Cuerden: you should check the archives of Talk:Wendy Carlos, especially this discussion from 5 years ago where you participated. Perhaps it is time to accept consensus and move on? Poundland Oximeter (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that people won't otherwise know they're in the right place. To cite another example, someone who gets an old Against Me! album, reads the liner notes, and searches for Tom Gabel is going to be very confused to end up at an article titled Laura Jane Grace; there's not any other great way to clarify it. Wikipedia does this all the time for people, see where Lindsey Kildow redirects, and even where it's of minor importance usually includes a previous name (see Nathaniel Branden). And Wikipedia is for some reason much less jumpy about people who change their names for any other reason, including things just as personal as gender identity; contrast this with the methodical way editors approach peoples' religious name changes (without looking tell me who Shuhada Sadaqat is), the lack of headless chicken mode around those discussions makes things vastly easier to flesh out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention Steven Demetre Georgiou. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how the lawsuit will pan out now that there is a new version of the article in place. – robertsky (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A strange legal theory that for a given source to stop publishing an article about you is a valid cause of action.

Also, I see the article is up now. I take it the consensus on the subject's notability has changed? CharredShorthand (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

…yeah, what the hell happened there? Doesn’t this come under WP:NLT? If so it ought to have been deleted until the legal action ended. 2600:1011:B13B:392E:F01A:9AFD:55AD:DE42 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#An_interesting_lawsuit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The Growth team has spent millions developing this hugely complex mentorship programme (I've been lurking). It's not going to stem that viscous stream of hundreds of barely relevant so-called articles that ooze along in NPP's Special:NewPagesFeed on their inevitable route to deletion or draftifying. All it would need is a decent landing page that provides some proper, clear information before they put their fingers any further to their keyboards (or smart phones), instead of having it rammed down their throats what they can do to help the Wiki further maintain the job slots for the devs. But of course, the WMF has its special galley slaves to do the cleaning up who are told if they want new oars, they best go cut down some trees and make them themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So the Signpost links to TV station KTEN on the litterbox issue. MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? EEng 03:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• My goodness me, I missed that drama. Before other editors head to the RfA to see what was said, note that it's been reverted (and you'll have to go fishing in the page's history to get to it, but I don't recommend it – it's vile). Athaenara, an admin and an editor of 16 years, has been permanently banned for that attack. Atrocious behaviour. Totally unacceptable. I'm sorry you had to put up with this, Isabelle Belato. Schwede66 04:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• And I was beginning to think that Wikipedia's most 'horrible and broken process' was on the mend. Silly me... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Damn I didn't know that happened. I think I remember seeing the ANI report relating to it (yes i watch ANI, I don't remember why though) but didn't know it was this bad. On a more positive note, I'm really loving these reviews with people who have had RFAs. It's interesting to see what the new admins who got nominated through RFA thought of their RFA. Keep it going! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• I wonder if it might be sensible for the editing block to be re-set to a specific length of time such as one full year, rather than remaining indefinite. More than a month has passed since it began, and it seems possible (even likely, after so much commentary and discussion) that the offender has at least begun to undergo some sort of learning curve which leads to enlightenment. 173.228.123.198 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Person in question has shown zero remorse. Made a recent comment on talk page that re-stated the things that got her blocked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked at their user pages and saw things like the signature gallery and lists of articles created, and their logs show literally thousands of spam pages removed from Wikipedia, and it strikes me that they had a lot invested in the good of this place. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't done a lot of thinking and re-thinking in the two weeks since their last post.

Looking at their talk page, discovered a template I hadn't known about that notifies people that someone else has joined a discussion they began! So, @Schwede66: @Kudpung: @Blaze Wolf: @Novem Linguae: I just think total termination forever or a death sentence goes too far because it doesn't take into account that they may be learning something from all this. 173.228.123.198 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did you ping me. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Blaze Wolf, I see now your post was about something else! 173.228.123.198 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

🤔 Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 20:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional context: This custom that now appears to be ending goes back more than the ten years stated in the article - these quarterly slide decks were the successor of monthly reports that the Wikimedia Foundation had been publishing since January 2008, when it had only a handful of employees and was just settling into its new office after moving from Florida to San Francisco. Per the then executive director, as quoted in the comprehensive overview at meta:Wikimedia Foundation reports, they originated as non-public reports to the Board of Trustees that she decided to make available on the public mailing list of the Wikimedia movement (the predecessor of today's Wikimedia-l):

You may know that I send regular reports to the Wikimedia board.

I don't see a really compelling reason _not_ to send the reports to foundation-l [as well]... Let me know if you find it helpful :-)
  – Sue Gardner, January 31, 2008

Apparently the new(ish) CEO Maryana Iskander does no longer not see such compelling reasons, so we are losing an important instrument of public accountability and transparency. (I assume that besides the anticipated "end of year" report, there will still be the annual reports that are standard for US nonprofits, but they are very different in content and audience.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This statement:

Apparently the new(ish) CEO Maryana Iskander does no longer not see such compelling reasons

while amusingly (and, presumably, intentionally) convoluted, isn't entirely fair to Ms. Iskander. If they were only ever made public at the whim of the Foundation CEO, and that public dissemination was never codified as any sort of policy, then she (unfortunately) doesn't really need a compelling reason not to share the reports -- she just needs any reason at all. The reason could be anything from, "I want as little scrutiny as possible on the shady activities the Foundation is planning", to, "The general public is too stupid to comprehend the Foundation's activities, and will only misinterpret and distort the important work we do", to simply, "I don't wanna."

(In much the same way that, in the United States, the President's State of the Union address is televised only by tradition -- the Constitution requires that the President report to Congress, and nothing more. Congress would thus be perfectly within its rights, and would continue to fulfill all of its legal obligations, if it decided for any reason to stop broadcasting the proceedings.)

Of course, one would expect any CEO (or Congress) considering a break with such an established tradition to think long and hard about the public's reaction to the move, and whether they were prepared to deal with the inevitable backlash. Some people might even argue that a spirit of transparency and accountability, coupled with the weight of established tradition, constitute compelling reasons TO continue making the reports public despite having no obligation to do so. Alas, one thing we can fairly conclude from Ms. Iskander's decision is that she is not one of those people.

Another fair conclusion is that we probably shouldn't leave things to tradition that would be better codified as explicit policy. FeRDNYC (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the things that stands out - and this is just one example - is the the WMF's total cluelessness of business communications. Instead of employing people who work on the 'client side' who have studied marketing, they make it up as they go. A 2-line acknowledgement would have been quite sufficient. That just makes it all worse, besides all the lying through their back teeth in the fundraising about being in desperate need of cash to keep the servers running. Mark my words, one of the days the volunteers here who get nothing better than a slap in the face for their efforts and treated like galley slaves here will mutiny. It's going to be interesting to see how the NPP team's meeting with the WMF this week will pan out. It's my guess it will just be the usual whinging and whining: "We ain't got no dough". I'm supposed to be part of that meeting, but at 01:00AM I've probably got better things to do with my time while the WMF do their thing strictly during office hours and get paid very handsomely for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that WMF knew that the "galley slaves" won't mutiny. The number of editors that actively edit Wikipedia without knowing anything about WMF is astounding. I participated in RfA in id.wiki few months ago, and all they have to say about WMF are praises, not one of them knew about the problems with WMF. And even when facing great injustice such as WP:FRAM, the number of editors that quit because of that case is almost none - most editors are happy to oppose WMF but continue to edit constructively. No matter how much we criticize WMF, they won't care unless it hit their pocket. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right, SunDawn, except that it's most likey the English Wikipedia more than any other Foundation project that pulls the donations in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Quitting Wikipedia is not an effective mutiny. Let's take a (semi-hypothetical) admin of 15 years who resigns in Framgate and leaves a very vocal and direct message on their userpage. The community takes a big hit—the admin even worked in important areas with a bus factor of 1 (themselves). It's big news to us. But to Maryana Iskander, it's nothing. Iskander wouldn't hear about it, or understand the significance if she did—she's not a Wikipedian. I wouldn't trust her to describe on a basic level what en.wiki adminship actually is. Or how editing works.

There are great people who work for the WMF and are a part of our Wikimedia community, and understand far more than me about it. But I'm not convinced that the decision-makers contain many such people.

To speak to the WMF about fundraising and spending, we need to use a language Iskander can understand. I would suggest blackouts like we did for SOPA or co-ordinating in ways that can make newspaper headlines. We need to mutiny pragmatically. — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A pragmatic mutiny, that's an interesting idea Bilorv. I wonder what it would look like and what it would need to spark it off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

One effort underway is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign by User:BilledMammal. Andreas JN466 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Iteresting. Shame the banners for November are probably going to be based on the same untruths as usual. I have a better banner that could have been run in The Signpost but it's too late for that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

See discussion last month. I've reviewed several grants and I remain deeply worried we are spending money on stuff that is a poorly disguised attempt to raid WMF coffers. A lot of grants are 1) being used for stuff that has ZERO connection with Wikimedia movement, 2) have little to no accountaiblity (people promise to do stuff, if they fail, I see no mechanism for money to be returned to WMF) and 3) seem to have very inflated costs (ex. one project I remember well asked for ~6k$ for open access publishing, whereas I know that the average costs of OA in this very field is usually under $2k, and a lot of similar research is published at no cost yet still using OA model). While I am sure some grants are being spent on worthy causes, the amount of problems I see here is very worrying. I am glad this issue is making more waves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a wide margin of open access fees, from US$2.5K in PNAS to US$11K in Nature. But better yet, publish it in WikiJournal which is already hosted in Wikiversity and funded by WMF through grants so WMF doesn't need to pay twice for facilitating open access publishing and contents can be quickly reused within Wikimedia movement. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited To be clear, I was talking about OA fees in education journals. There are good journals in the field, well indexed, were OA fees are ~2k. The authors don't explain why they are aiming at a much more expensive journal (or which one it is). The best solution, frankly, is to do a pre-print and then go with closed access, it's win-win - open access and no fees. As for WikiJournal, I am afraid it's not indexed in anything serious (SCOPUS, etc.) so I personally wouldn't publish in it. It wouldn't count for my career, and until it is indexed in respectable indices, it's a toy for students or scholars from minor institutions which have no requirements of its faculty to speak of. PS. Worse, the way that the grants are written, the authors can totally do pre-publishing, or publish in WikiJournal, and keep all the ~6k for themselves and spend it on anything they want, they don't have to return it. There is no accountability here. That's the problem. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: One of the three WikiJournals (WikiJournal of Medicine) has already been approved and indexed by Scopus. Other two's approvals are still in the works. As the old adage goes, Rome isn't built in a day. I agree with your last point. There needs to be better accountability to ensure that the items that are requested in the funding request are actually used for the project and not reallocated to unspecified purpose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited Great news re SCOPUS for WJoM. Can you update the info at WikiJournal_User_Group#Journals_in_this_group, which doesn't mention SCOPUS? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the state of New Page Patrol, the poor condition of the Commons mobile app, the absence of apps for projects like Wikisource, Wiktionary et al. and the apparent lack of developers for these basic (IMO) requirements, I don't think it is too far out for me to say that WMF is not using the available funds properly and maybe does not have its priorities in order. Ciridae (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remember the DynamicPageList that caused huge server disorder. It also showed that MediaWiki engine basically needs full rewrite as it contains lots of outdated patches. WMF said at the time that DynamicPageList fixing is expensive. It's very sad now to read that millions of dollars are actually spent on things unrelated to Wiki movement. --ssr (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  The structure for proposing improvements, through Community Wishlist Survey, has been problematic and broken for many years. They only work on proposals with highest votes, which turned it into a popularity contest where only Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata (WP, COM, WD) stands any reasonable chance to have their proposals (or dictate which proposals) to succeed because they are the biggest projects and have the voting power to trump other proposals. Other smaller sister projects only get features on the margins of WP, CO, WD proposals that also benefit the small projects. Even in 2020, when they purposely forbid big projects like WP, COM, WD to submit to the wishlist, it still turned into a "which community can mobilize the most voters" competition that ended up with 4 out of 5 winning proposals belonging to Wikisource (and 6 Wikisource proposals in top 10). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been a worthwhile discussion of this article today on Hacker News: [1]

The sentiment there is quite clear, I believe: people would like more transparency. Andreas JN466 21:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of transparency is actually one problem I don't agree we have here. We are able to have this discussion about whether the use of funds was good or not because of the unusual amount of transparency at the Wikimedia Foundation about grantmaking. We know exactly where money went, when, and why. What's lacking is that the WMF hasn't listened adequately here and acted with urgency to address donor/reader/editor concerns about the grants. Steven Walling • talk 20:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: I meant lack of transparency in the fundraising messages – though there is the additional aspect that the public (correct me if I'm wrong ...) has no way of knowing what happened to the other $7.5 million that were transferred to Tides Advocacy in 2019/20.

All the arrangements with Tides are actually the exact opposite of transparent. (The very purpose of Tides is to obscure money flows.) Andreas JN466 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A cursory search of the mailing lists shows they answered that years ago. The Tides Advocacy transfer, which was approved by the Board, went to annual plan grants for chapters (or affiliates or whatever we're calling them now) and to Knowledge Equity Fund. Both of those have grant proposals documented on Meta. As a general point, your propensity to cry wolf about seemingly every single donor dollar that flows through the WMF dilutes the effectiveness of constructive criticism from the community. Saying stuff like "The very purpose of Tides is to obscure money flows" also shows a pretty clear presumption of bad faith on your part. Steven Walling • talk 18:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: Look, a grant proposal on Meta is not the same as a Form 990. Can you show me public documents identifying the amounts paid to the various affiliates and stating in which year the payments were made, for the full $4.223 million?

Tides Foundation manages donor-advised funds. You don't seem to be familiar with the concept. From our article:

In this type of foundation, individuals or other foundations contribute money to the donor directed foundation, and it then makes grants based on the stated preferences of the original contributor. This process ensures that the intent of the contributor is met while also hiding that contributor's identity. Because contributions to a donor directed foundation are not required to be made public, their existence provides a way for individuals or corporations to make anonymous contributions.

In other words, you can see that some money was paid to some organisation, but you can't see whose money it was. That is why I said it is "designed to obscure money flows". Here is a Democratic Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, calling it "dark money":

Whitehouse was willing to admit that, while the influence for years was largely Republican, Democratic dark money had also caught up — with groups like Arabella Advisors and the Tides Foundation playing a mirroring role with some Democratic Party members. “Now, Republican colleagues have faced massive attacks leveled through Democratic front groups,” Whitehouse said. “So perhaps this slime machine can be a bipartisan concern.” [2]

You might want to read up on this. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying makes no sense. We know exactly how much money the Foundation sends to Tides—it's not anonymous at all—and you can correlate that with the approved grants that are documented publicly on Meta including finance reporting. The actual problem is that money is going to grants that don't do any work that directly benefits Wikimedia projects. Which again... we know because it's all public. Steven Walling • talk 17:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: Well, where for example can we see how much Tides Advoacy is paid for administering the fund? How much interest they have earned from WMF money? And where is there a summation that says affiliate grants approved on Meta and funded by Tides Advocacy add up to the $4.223 million that were sent to Tides for this purpose? Knowing how much money the WMF sends to Tides is surely only half the story; what really matters is transparent documentation about where this money ends up, and when.

When I looked for this information, I found m:Community_Resources/Grants_spending_analysis#Grants_funded_July_2020-June_2021, which divulges exactly nothing, beyond "Annual Plan Grants: administered by Tides Advocacy for Fiscal Year 2020-2021". There is not a single figure for the major rubrics, let alone individual affiliates. If you have found better links on Meta, I would be grateful if you could post them here. Regards, Andreas JN466 18:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: Since we discussed this three months ago, Tides Advocacy has released its Form 990 for 2021. I went through it and added up everything that relates to Wikimedia affiliates. As far as I can tell, the relevant amounts only sum to about $3.8 million. This would leave a $400k gap (a 10% commission would be an order of magnitude more than is customary). Would you have time to check my figures and let me know whether you come to a different result? The WMF have not replied to questions. For Form 990 links and sums see m:Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement. Regards, Andreas JN466 20:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Steven Walling, everything that Andreas says DOES make sense! I know about these things, as I do financial due diligence under U.S. jurisdictions IRL. It *IS* correct that donor advised funds exist for "the very purpose... of obscuring money flows". For Andreas to say so does NOT in any way "show a pretty clear presumption of bad faith". Democrats, Republicans, and special interest groups of all sorts use organizations such as Tides Advocacy as a de facto shield to conceal their grant-making activities. Tides Advocacy is a legitimate, U.S. registered non-profit entity. There are many organizations that are putatively non-profit but have not yet received a ruling by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service about their non-profit application status. In the interim, entities such as Tides Advocacy is allowed to temporarily "take them under its non-profit status wing" so to speak. Tides Advocacy does this only with organizations whose work is consistent with Tides own goals. Tides is not required to do any sort of audit of these organizations nor is it accountable for them.

Wikipedia was associating itself with Tides which involves additional hazards to WP's claim to NPOV and neutrality. I'm thinking of the specific example of the Black Lives Matter charitable foundation. Until BLM received non-profit organization status from the IRS, its funds were kept with Tides Advocacy, just as Wikipedia did. At that time (in 2018 or so) the Tides treasurer was Susan Rosenberg. She is a convicted felon and served time in U.S. federal prison for domestic terrorism about 25 years ago. I personally believe that she is a nice, responsible lady now, as I exchanged pleasant notes and emails with her in 2013 about matters unrelated to her past or to her work. Once it came to light about Susan's position at Tides in 2020, when there was a huge influx of funds to BLM which was still under the umbrella of Tides, it caused a big, potentially reputation-damaging brouhaha for BLM and Tides. This was because many people who lack Andreas's knowledge incorrectly inferred that a former Weatherman was the leader of BLM! Susan left her position at Tides but the media and detractors had a field day with it. Any use of organizations such as Tides (for left-wing groups that Tides approves of) or right-wing counterparts is the very definition of Dark Money as Sheldon Whitehouse described it. I will return with some links for reference.--FeralOink (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We used to have discussions every year on Meta about how much money would be allotted to each Wikimedia "branch office" around the world, including number of staff, and sometimes breakouts of appropriate localized compensation and expense levels. I recall participating in those decisions for Wikimedia Norway in 2013 or maybe 2014. Are these budgetary decisions no longer done collaboratively and publicly by members of the Wikimedia community?--FeralOink (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The WMF has released its latest audited financial statements, for the financial year ended June 30, 2022: [3]. This shows

• a $12 million negative investment income (loss),
• total support and revenue (including that $12 million investment loss) of $155 million (down $8 million; would have been up $3.5 million but for the negative investment income)
• total expenses of $146 million (up $34 million)
• salaries and wages of $88 million (up $20 million)
• net asset increase at end of year of $8 million

I have enquired what exactly the $12 million negative investment income means.

It's also odd that the end-of-year increase in net assets is so small. In the third-quarter Finance & Administration tuning session deck published in May 2022, the end-of-year increase in net assets was forecast to be $25.9 million. I wonder what happened. --Andreas JN466 12:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to say I'm grateful that so many Wikipedians responded swiftly to the abhorrent transphobic comments stated by Athaenara, but jesus christ. Stuff like that is something you never hope to hear coming out of the mouths of Wikipedia admins; you edit Wikipedia for the good of the community, you don't expect to encounter such horrid abuse here, of all places (it's more the style of Twitter, if anything). Thank you to everyone who picked up on it, and everyone who also attempted to change their mind and get through to them on their Talk page; though I think it's an effort in vain, it is at least something to see more than just transgender users having to fight this for once.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC on the wording of the Wikimedia fundraising banners that are due to appear on Wikipedia in a couple of weeks' time:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign

Andreas JN466 19:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Who in The Signpost approved this article from the WMF? I can only assume it was accepted with irony so that the volunteers have even more proof that "Commensurate support from companies like Amazon helps sustain our C-Level celebrity salaries while we continue to tell the volunteers they are not going to get the software they want". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I proposed it as we had covered the delayed arrival of the lo-o-ong-promised 501(c)(3) organisation for the Endowment here in the Signpost a few months ago (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion).

So with this update we now know that at some point in the now slightly less distant future, we will have at least the minimal public accounting involved in a Form 990 disclosure along with audited financial statements. However, the first Form 990 will not be due before late 2024, I reckon, given that (as far as I can make out) the Endowment has not yet been transferred to this new organisation but for now is still with the Tides Foundation.

So if the new 501(c)(3)organisation files its first Form 990 in late 2024, there will have been almost an entire decade in which over $100 million entered a fund that has never published any audited accounts whatsoever – because if you look at the Tides Foundation's Form 990, there is not even a mention of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikimedia Endowment anywhere to be found. (As always, I am grateful for any corrections.) Best, Andreas JN466 09:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate where you are coming from Kudpung. but I for one welcome the WMF submitting Signpost articles. Even if early attempts look like blog posts intended for an external audience rather than a communication with the community. The current relationship between the WMF and the community is unhealthy and a bit more communication would at least clear the air and establish what the differences are and will be in the future. I would like the WMF to start thinking how large the endowment needs to be before we can announce to current and potential content donors that WikiSource and Wikimedia Commons at least have the finance to be around for the foreseeable future. Longer term, I would like the WMF to calculate how large the endowment needs to be before it can suspend the annual fundraiser for the foreseeable future. In the short term, I'd like to see us talk about who if any external bodies we should consider funding. I don't know if they need money, but the Internet Archive, Creative Commons and the Geograph all strike me as external not for profits that many of our donors would understand our funding. Digitisation of newspaper archives in parts of hte world where we lack online sources also seems like a good idea. ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: The WMF did not submit this article. They announced it on the mailing list, and I thought it would be of interest in the context of past reporting here on this topic. Cheers, Andreas JN466 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Andreas. I let my optimism get ahead of me there. Well I for one am delighted to see the Signpost republish the WMF's version of affairs, I just wish that the WMF were submitting stuff here directly. ϢereSpielChequers 23:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A general question to anyone knowledgeable about the topic: do corporations donating to Wikimedia get to claim a tax deduction against the donated amount? If yes, I don't think the corporations deserve any kudos for these "donations". How much would the government be losing in tax revenue? Ciridae (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if corporations, or any other US taxpayer couldn't get a tax deduction for giving to a recognised US charity. But I don't see why anyone, company or or individual should lose kudos for giving money to charity in a tax efficient way. They are still donating money to an organisation recognised as a worthy cause. ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside that the donated funds aren't being used correctly or transparently, and are being requested on false pretenses, I still believe that it is undemocratic to give such power over something as instrumental as tax revenue especially in the case of large corporate donors. The donations of working class people are not likely to be significant enough in terms of lost tax revenue to affect much, but this same power in the hands of corporations has a chilling effect on democracy by redirecting money to where the donor wants instead of what a democratic country may want. Ciridae (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Ciridae: Yes, US tax law allows corporations to deduct up to 10% of their pretax income to tax deductible organizations. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• The corporation can deduct the amount from their taxable income. So if they donate $1,000 and are paying tax at 20% it costs their shareholders $800 and costs the government $200 in lost revenue. The shareholders decide (perhaps implicitly) which government-approved charities should receive the money. They should have that right. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Your explanation is clear and informative, but it brings me to the opposite conclusion. As if the power that large corporation shareholders already have in society by virtue of wealth wasn't enough, you think that they should directly exert undemocratic control over government spending? I have to agree with Ciridae. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Most large corporations are widely held by many small investors or by pension or investment funds. Small corporations may have just a few owners.

  Elected legislators approve criteria that charities must meet and approve tax incentives to encourage individuals and corporations to donate to them. An alternative would be to drop the tax incentives and have the government allocate the money saved to charities. The loss of incentives would reduce corporate and individual donations, so the government would have to further raise taxes to maintain current funding levels and to cover increased administrative costs. There are so many worthy causes... Aymatth2 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd argue it's more democratic to let people decide which charities to donate their dollars to, rather than giving it to a central bureaucracy to reallocate. Levivich (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  The democratically elected representatives of the people would tell the bureaucrats how to allocate the funds, So much for cancer research, so much for girl education, so much for dog shelters and so on. The will of the people would determine whether Wikipedia got any of the money. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  The central inequality here is wealth. If you are a billionaire then you might have 10,000x the assets of the median individual in the country, but you have 1x as many votes. The central bureaucracy of the state is not representative of the people, and "democratically elected representatives" are generally only one of those three words, but it's not democratic for someone to have 10,000x as much influence as to which charities should receive funding. — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Countering Disinformation by Finding Reliable Sources: a Citation-Based Approach" tool seems potentially quite neat. Being able to give a sentance that you want to verify to an AI and getting out potentially good sources could easily be a valuable part of many peoples work flow. If this tool is basically ready for large scale use or another few years away is a different matter though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's very weird to me to see the Signpost publishing these rambling, unhelpful "articles". This isn't a print publication, it doesn't need filler material, which is all I can see this as. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I, in contrast, like it. Informative, no. However, I found confusion over this point at edit-a-thons where my students were journalists or, even more, scientists. Eh? The right way is start it, get some help with it, finish it, publish it, and it's done and it's beautiful or it isn't, and that's what the world sees forever. No, in Wikipedia we may keep the draft awhile in the relative obscurity of a page that Google doesn't look for, but then publish when it's reasonably acceptable and all your friends, enemies, and strangers will swoop in, pick it apart, put it back together, and that's what most the world sees except that it keeps changing a few times an hour or year or whatever, so it's never actually finished. Weird, from the POV of someone familiar with the normal course. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Sheesh. Way to model wikilove, Beebs. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, about Maria Ivanka -- Tip of my hat to another chess editor. I actually crossed paths with Ivanka at the 1982 National Open (in Texas), I coulda helped you with that photo, if I had been watching.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but what it doesn't say is, anyone can stomp on anyone else's edit in Wikipedia. So Wikipedia doesn't have rules about who can edit, but it does have rules about how editors can behave, and there is actual enforcement; not something you read a lot about, but it happens a lot. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks @Vysotsky for your interesting and humble article. I very much agree with you that sometimes it's the way articles mutate over time in response to feedback and later reviewers/contributors that makes WP beautiful; and as you mention it's great to see the content that one adds be amended over time - definitely contributes to the richness of my personal experience. Regarding Beeblebrox above, I really like these short form articles; after all, length is no guarantee of quality in any format that I can think of. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-10-31/Traffic report