The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2025-09-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Smallbones, I think the mass de-adminship on Chinese Wikipedia was left out? Wikipedia blames pro-China infiltration for bans Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动 – robertsky (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You are right, we could have even linked Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/News and notes (which Smallbones and I both contributed to). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Robertsky and Bri: Ok, you are both right. In my defense, I'll just say that there are 35 links with bullet points, plus a few "minor" links in the text. I think I could have put in 100 (definitely including the mass de-adminship on Chinese Wikipedia) or much more but after a while there are diminishing returns. Anybody who wants to add links in these comments is more than welcome! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits under "Governments" but Osama Khalid, Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ, Rémi Mathis. Possibly some Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government,_courts,_and_Wikipedia stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those are part of disinfo campaigns and cross-over into actual physical coercion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: the headline "A guide for Congress" does it refer to American congress only, or all the Congresses in the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • The US congress in DC since they are now probing Wikipedia, but I hope this would be read by any law making body throughout the world. Feel free to send a copy to your federal, state, local (or other) representative. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  then shouldnt the headline be changed appropriately? Even the article congress is about the concept, not about the US congress. The meaning of Congress differs loosely worldwide. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Now you made me remember a tv-drama where someone sent a politicians wife a tape titled "Your husband in congress." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: hehe. @Smallbones: I think we should update it to specify either "US congress", or "senate". Senate is lesser-confusing term, at least not as much as "congress". Wikipedia has readers outside US as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Concerning The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia, can anyone please say what the "eventual" outcome was? What action did the WMF ultimately take? Paul August ☎ 14:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Not sure if anything has happened since 2021? —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 07:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly (not my usual mode), after various Croatian authorities said Wikipedia in their language stinks and their people ought to read the English or German or even Bulgarian or Russian Wikipedia instead, WMF discovered that the Croatian Wikipedia Admin corps had failed to file an annual report or some such thing, so an Office Action desysopped them all. New users applied for those positions who had a good reputation among European Wikiians, and were accepted. HRWP was set free to govern itself same as all the other WPs. The new bunch didn't block the old bunch except for breaches of rules similar to other WPs. Being out of power, the old bunch couldn't stop Croatian WP articles from drifting towards more conventional Croatian ideas of what is fair, neutral, reliably sourced, and so forth. So, some Serbian WP people are still not entirely satisfied but what do you expect from two tribes that have been at each others throats for decades or centuries? Jim.henderson (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Paul August ☎ 12:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• The bit "... PR firm Bell Pottinger. In 2011 they were caught on tape by investigative reporters promising to use "dark arts" to edit Wikipedia ..." confuses me. Who was promising? To whom? Was this a promise by the investigators to the PR firm, or by the PR firm to a prospective client? I guess the latter is more probable, but the grammar ought to be clearer. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Then, of course, the next question arises: "What does 'better' mean?". And if you ask ten different editors that question, I suspect you'll get eleven different answers. It would be awfully nice if it were this simple, but if that were the case, we wouldn't need those barrels of virtual ink. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure why this particularly needs highlighting. It's like a coach telling their sports team that he's got one strategy for them: do things that help win the game, and don't do things that lose the game. Great. True. But not particularly helpful. (By comparison, the IAR guideline does express a useful maxim: that the rules aren't everything. Essays on when precisely that ignoring the rules is a good idea are worthwhile, but this doesn't seem to offer a guide to that.) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that many editors apparently follow rules for the rules'sake, instead of questioning what happens when they are mindlessly follow. Then of course, we all have different opinions, but many even stop discussing about them because "it's in the guideline". cyclopia^speak! 06:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not even following the rules for rule's sake. It's debating which rule has more consensus than the other, or arguing 'I don't have to WP:AGF, it's a guideline, not policy', or 'WP:TE is an essay, not a guideline, I don't have to follow it' or any sort of 'it's a x-type of consensus, not a y-type of consensus' and focus more on the status of the page than its arguments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Great work, Headbomb! Schwede66 08:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• I like Antandrus's version slightly better in being pithier and more specific about when to ask this question. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Hadn't seen this before. Worth putting up in a Signpost article. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Well done, I support the critical approach of this. It's a moral suasion. Could be reformulated to sth like: Embrace the encyclopedian Vision!, or else: Resist mindless W. habits!

While not being a cynic I'd nevertheless say: anybody among us in wikipedia who is accustomed to social media competition as a dedicated follower of social moods will not even consider maxims like this One Question. No speech, no claim will ever turn selfish individuals or groups into altruistic ones, except for a short time maybe. -- Just N. (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think this essay makes Wikipedia better. I don't think this essay shows understanding of the purpose and value of policies and guidelines. Following its principle, I should delete the essay, and then go find a policy (such as IAR) that justifies it. SilkTork (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oops, a twofold answer to SilkTork seems IMHO necessary. 1. While it's not at all nice or diplomatic what SilkTork has said I'd say it's absolutely legitimate to contradict the essay and deny its pragmatic value. 2. I do not at all agree to the violent conclusion ("Following its principle, I should delete the essay") which would certainly be an action of vandalism and end of communication to all others who are not consenting to your opinion. A case of arson, and of course you know that. The fundament of any social or philosophical debate should always be: not to resort to violence. Not even in menacing imaginings. -- My personal conclusion in two questions: Is indeed that essay completely out of time and obsolete? Maybe are even most philosophical (non-technical) debates in a non-homogeneous audience (Wikipedia) no longer possible and fertile? -- Just N. (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

After reading Just N.'s comment, I think I will follow the principle of the essay and block Just N. as I've asked the question, and I feel that would make Wikipedia better. I'll just need now to go find a policy that will justify it. I think IAR will do the job.

Just in case Just N. gets alarmed, I am being sarcastic to underline the weakness of the essay. Our policies and guidelines are built on experience, best practice, and consensus, and should be what guides our actions. The notion that we unilaterally decide that we think it is better to delete something or block someone, and then go look for a policy that best supports our actions is kinda the reverse of how we should be doing things. I have a quote from User:Agricolae on my talk page which some time ago I found quite wise, and felt I would post it there to remind me: "Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources." SilkTork (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hah! I never noticed the changing headline. Banner blindness, possibly. How the heck am I supposed to get that into |title= ? I could just use a / I suppose... Long but interesting, I recommend it. Well, I'm off to Jimmy_Wales#Personal_life to add that according to Wales, he does not normally dress like a leprechaun. Our readers should now this, if they can be arsed to read that far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Slight note in "The antithesis of Jimbo's thesis", it says the draft was rejected four times, however it was only declined instead (meaning it could be resubmitted, as opposed to rejection where it can't). Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 14:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sophisticatedevening: Good catch and thanks for making the change in the text. You'd think that after almost 20 years editing Wikipedia, I'd know all the lingo! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Ha! |title2= coming soon Czarking0 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I do wonder about one of the assumptions of the Columbia study. Is it that readers are choosing ChatGPT over Wikipedia when the answers are similar, or is it that search engines are more likely to also show the Wikipedia result when it is dissimilar? ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm glad I left the UK by February before all that nonsense can apply to me. It's downright ridiculous. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Go D. Usopp, to the EU? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nope, I visit occasionally, being a Hongkonger I have enough relations there to warrant short-term stays. The Online Safety Act debacle had been quite the annoyance for Internet use, in addition to the multitude of issues in the country that are holding me off from visiting in the near future. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Despite the loss in court, at least the Judge acknowledges that Wikipedia has value, and can't be oppressed TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• I haven't been active as a Wikipedian at all recently, but my belief is that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have not bowed down to government oppression in the past, and they should keep that up. I'd rather see Wikipedia be blocked in the UK than seeing mandatory ID verification.
  For example, Turkey banned Wikipedia because it refused to bow down to government censorship, and I don't see how this is any different. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• As a UK citizen, I suspect this will play out along these lines: Ofcom will say Wikipedia editors have to be identifiable, the WMF will block UK ip addresses from accessing the encyclopaedia, there’ll be a big outcry here and some kind of compromise will be reached allowing Wikipedia to return. We always seem to do things the dramatic way! Neiltonks (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

A tiny correction/update regarding an annotation to this nested quote in the story:

The Court stressed that this ruling "does not give Ofcom [the regulator tasked with enforcing the OSA] and the Secretary of State [Labour politician Peter Kyle] a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations.

The latter annotation was correct at the time of writing and in the sense that Kyle was the defendant in the lawsuit in his role as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. But shortly before this Signpost issue was published, he was replaced in Liz Kendall, who is now the one saddled with the decision whether she wants to add "Wikipedia killer" to her resume (and whose very first public act in office it was to tighten the Online Safety Act further).

I'm kind of curious if this change had anything to do with the widespread criticism that Peter Kyle received (by Jimmy Wales among many others) for having smeared critics of the Online Safety Act as supporters of pedophiles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Ridiculous! Kernelblitz(| Contribs) 17:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• When he misinterpreted the author's words, is this a 看起来 style misinterpretation? Czarking0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Czarking0: No, the misinterpretation (in my opinion) was not because of a lack of understanding of Chinese language. Instead, it was because of a lack of understanding of contexts. Or, using J. L. Austin's concept, the article of 2019 by Gan & Weng is better seen as "performatives" instead of "constatives", otherwise it would be a kind of misinterpretation. Under China's context, any scholar who wants to say "Chinese government should stop the ban of Wikipedia" or "Chinese government should give the permission to China's Wikipedia volunteers" does not say those words directly. Instead, they do things with words like "a Wikipedia with Chinese editors can be good to the international view of China". I had a talk to Professor Gan a few years ago and he was still looking forward to the government to stop the ban of WP in China. I myself did not agree his idea and would prefer the opposite strategy of "gray area" or "to keep under the old brother's radar". Anyway, in my opinion, the BBC article treated Gan & Weng's article as "constatives" and took it literally, suggeting the authors were calling the government to organize China's volunteers to edit Wikipedia articles to decorate the international view of China, which is a kind misinterpretation. ——三猎 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• The economy of scale for Wikipedias is the economy of scale of languages, as both are tools for accessing information resources. The more people use the tool, the more powerful it becomes. A language with speakers who are few and under-educated will supply less information to the users, and less profitable communication, than one for which such resources are more plentiful. Thus, there is little reason for parents to teach them to their children. We see this in the case of immigrants; often their children grow up as natively bilingual but they in turn emphasize the more powerful local language to ensure prosperity for the next generation. So, saving smaller languages and their Wikipedias from resource starvation, against the larger, more resourceful and thus more practically useful languages, is an uphill battle. Maybe they need all the translating bots, poor as they may be, that they can get.

• We also see this in Wikimanias. For the sake of wide communication, thus for wide access to resources, most of the talking is in English with some activity in French and Spanish and less in whatever less-resourced languages are locally important.

• Same is true for botanical database work. We have a study that's all about using our gigantic Wikidata system for taxonomy, with no mention of the far smaller Wikispecies that is specifically intended and designed for that work. It makes me wonder what will be done to save Wikispecies and whether it ought to be saved or merely all its items converted into WD items to take advantage of the network effect, the economy of scale. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Are there plans to make it available on F-Droid too? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• You can blow with this, or you can blow with that Dammit, the article stole my comment joke! Now what am I going to do to amuse myself? ...Ooh, I know, I'll just watch Christopher Walken's inspired dance routine again. I gotta have more Walken! FeRDNYC (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)