Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a232638ddd27cb43

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the MOS guideline on editorializing article content, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Editorializing. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see Wikipedia:No original research § defs. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Editorial and opinion commentary.
Shortcut
The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/SUBMIT
Submission Desk



Submission desk

[edit source]

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

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

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

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

OKA Translation Initiative

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

How puzzles translate to page views

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


The Adventure of the Unknown Corpse

[edit source]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

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

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

Contentious populations

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

Are we embarrassed yet?

[edit source]
Status:
V ?
Postponed
@Czarking0: When will you have this ready, or when do you want to submit to Signpost editors? This looks mostly ready to go and could just be chopped with copyediting to submit. I understand that your actual FOIA request may differ a bit if you have not submitted but it would be helpful to publish notice in The Signpost if submission is imminent. I do not want to overcomplicate any of this.
Publication should be this weekend. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some further copyediting. I'd like to submit this presently. Czarking0 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to do something further here? Czarking0 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Czarking0 I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion so it will display in the fancy Signpost draft templates ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I wanted to let you know this was moved out of the next issue. I will update the status soon Czarking0 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wiki wouldn't get off the ground today and why it's nosediving

[edit source]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
@BlueRockThrush: The next issue is in 2-4 weeks. I put a template around your article. Can you add images, fill in the header template, and give a go at making your text fit this format? I hope that doing this will not take you more than 30 minutes, but if it does, then ping me and I will help with that. Following that, I will stage it for review by other editors.
Thanks for submitting. If you can, then can you solicit your own pre-review from any Wikimedian you know or from a public forum? It helps to get review especially on community issues before this arrives to the Signpost's own editorial team. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I've done what I've been able to figure out. I can't get rid of the Canadian thing and the very top item for title, that displays as "... has no title defined." I can't figure that one out either. If you could fix those two things, we'd be on the right path. Thanks for helping. I don't have any wiki friends, so I've asked Risker, the person in the signpost page just above me, to look at it. BlueRockThrush (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done: I have changed the title, it is throwing an error, but that is because the tile is the same as the name of the subpage which should be fixed once this article is staged. I think this could make a great opinion piece (: Mitchsavl (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Risker said she doesn't have time to do it. She did say it's a good article for SignPost, see her talk page. I've now asked Wehwalt because I saw an FA of his.BlueRockThrush (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to fix the title error problem. BlueRockThrush (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this submission, I would oppose publication in its current state. The Signpost has published on this topic multiple times in the past 6 months ([1], [2]). This new piece doesn't really say anything new, and it's not in dialogue with these prior pieces and their arguments, nor with the additional comments and criticism raised in response to these pieces in the comments section. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Wehwalt has copyedited this now. BlueRockThrush (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to FOIA piece

[edit source]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: TBD
  • Column: TBD
  • Author: Czarking0
  • Discussion: My previous work, Are We Embarrassed Yet? Outlines a FOIA request I would like to make. I am doing additional legwork on actually filling this and one of the standards for the news media fee category (which will lower the cost of the filing) is that I have a reasonable expectation to publish original work that transforms the information given by the government. In order to show that I would like to open some discussion on the interest this publication has in a joint effort between myself and other editors to analyze the government's findings and publish our analysis in the Signpost.23:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
@Czarking0: Thanks, you and I have been talking about this piece for a while.
I am not sure what happened between your last submission and now but if I can help with something - formatting, getting community review outside of Signpost, facilitating a Signpost process, then let me know. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Summer Archives and Open Knowledge Faculty Fellowships Announced

[edit source]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: https://wircuny.commons.gc.cuny.edu/schedule/2026-faculty-fellowships/
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: CUNY Office of Library Services
  • Discussion:
    This coverage is about the 2026 Summer Archives and Open Knowledge Faculty Fellowship which is supporting 4 full-time teaching faculty members to expand the use Wikimedia platforms at CUNY in the Fall 2026 semester, part of the CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence program. Not sure what column this fits in. Should it be included in Recent research? Or Community view? Or somewhere else? -Wil540 art (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be in Recent research, though Community view could suit. Perhaps The Signpost could use a dedicated column for things like this, I would describe this as a Community program, as far as I am aware, there is nothing that would prevent the creation of a new column, though sticking with the more common ones is probably preferable. Mitchsavl (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchsavl Thank you for the suggestion. I'm open to creating a Community program column or using Community view. There are lots of Wiki-activities I could report on that I think readers would be interested to learn about. @Bri, @Bluerasberry, @jpxg, @Smallbones, any thoughts here on the appropriate column or creating a new one? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=1365636853"