Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 14

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

→

Late November issue

Time

Editors: please stand by for publication. I'm ready when Smallbones gives the signal. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

All ready to publish - hands off the keyboards - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and HaeB: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: What's the status of the Humour column? I can't tell if it was accidentally removed from the articles roster. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No Humour column - it was never started. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Um, this is a thing: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour. I even copyedited it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: I think it was just a leftover from September that I didn't think was publishable. How do we finally get rid of it? Let's leave it out - sorry if I messed this up in any way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Publication notes

All done but for Twitter, Facebook, and this message: Mass-messaging global subscribers... Skipped. Failed (API error: permissiondenied). I still don't have access to The Signpost's Twitter or Facebook accounts, and really don't want to take that on (or global mass messages). We need to fill the outreach manager position probably as much or more than we need a non-interim publication manager. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's figure out how to do this what we need (tomorrow?). I'll be back in 45 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding global messages: Presumably you need to request the mass message right on Meta, as described at m:Meta:MassMessage senders. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We just missed ArbCom withdrawal

We just barely missed the news of TonyBallioni's withdrawal from the ArbCom election. I saw it a few hours ago on Discord but forgot we were scheduled to publish today. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll check it out and add it in if it checks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all

It looks like a good issue. @Bri, HaeB, and Newslinger: especially. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 11

All: You can use the link above to monitor feedback on the November 29 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Pageviews by issue

Nov 1 issue 9 articles 2 articles 4,881 4th day; 6,345 7th day; 7,779 14th day; 8,961 21st day; 9,883 28th day;
November 29, 2020 issue 3 articles 8 articles 4th day 6,970; 7th day 9,297; 14th day 21,842; 21st day 26,609; 28th day 33,040.

Billionth edit countdown

My forecasts for the date we hit one billion edits, using data from Wikipedia:Time Between Edits are as follows

Date forecast was made	Edit count (M)	Forecast date of billionth edit
		Lower bound^a	Upper bound^b
06 Nov	987		23 Jan
12 Nov	988.4		21 Jan
16 Nov	989.03	10 Jan	21 Jan
18 Nov	989.36	10 Jan	21 Jan
20 Nov	989.7	11 Jan	21 Jan
23 Nov	990.25	11 Jan	20 Jan
25 Nov	990.62	11 Jan	20 Jan
30 Nov	991.53	11 Jan	20 Jan
02 Dec	991.91	11 Jan	19 Jan
05 Dec	992.66	12 Jan	19 Jan
08 Dec	993.00	12 Jan	19 Jan
10 Dec	993.44	12 Jan	18 Jan
13 Dec	994.00	12 Jan	18 Jan
15 Dec	994.44	12 Jan	17 Jan
18 Dec	995.00	12 Jan	17 Jan
21 Dec	995.55	12 Jan	17 Jan
24 Dec	996.00	13 Jan	17 Jan
26 Dec	996.50	12 Jan	16 Jan
27 Dec 23:13:07 (refresh)	1265.59	10 May	17 Aug

^a 50 days/10M edits (avg since pandemic)

^b 60 days/10M edits (normal)

I'll keep updating this table every few days. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit count (M)	date and time	rate (days/10M edits)
989	11/16/2020 13:53	60.0
990	11/22/2020 6:04	56.7
991	11/27/2020 18:55	55.4
992	12/2/2020 23:21	51.8
993	12/8/2020 6:58	53.2
994	12/13/2020 17:02	54.2
995	12/18/2020 17:34	50.2
996	12/24/2020 00:24	52.8

There was an uptick in editing recently. Not sure why. Rate is closer to 50 days/10M now. Bri.public (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it is related to lockdowns in the English speaking world. There was an editing spike when the UK went into lockdown earlier this year. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably so. It's the fastest yet, this week. My money is on the 13th or 14th now. - Bri.public (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Next issue

We should set a date for the next issue … the countdown clock still shows November. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've set the publication date for Sunday, December 27. My difficulties in editing this issue are now in the past - my travel plans had to be cancelled. I'll still need some help in publishing. If needed, we could push the publishing date back a couple of days. I like a regular Sunday publishing date, but feel that everybody's schedules are up in the air in the year's last week.

My writing contributions will be limited to In the media, a Gallery (@Adam Cuerden and Bri: - if you have something better please just replace my "fun" gallery), an opinion piece, and maybe something else short. @HaeB, Igordebraga, and Newslinger:, please let me know if you'll have the usual, or anything extra. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

While we're already working on the 2020 yearly report, better leave that for the January issue. Will start December's traffic report soon. igordebraga ≠ 17:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No competing plans for that weekend, so I can help at least as much as I did for the November issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I was added to mass message senders on Meta, so we should be able to do a full publishing run including reaching the non-enwp subscribers. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bravo! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In the Media

India Ministry of Electronics and IT

Regarding our enwp article Aksai Chin or Bhutan–India relations, and the Ministry of Electronics and IT demand to change its accompanying map. AFAIK Wikipedia is not a legal entity in India, although the article incorrectly describes it as "the company". ~~We should ask WMF if they received a letter.~~ Update: WMF Legal acknowledges receipt of a letter from GoI and says we would recommend the community update it to more distinctly indicate the disputed borders. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No time to fully explain but Talk:Bhutan–India relations has more. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Btw a user who claims to have had private communication with the GoI over the maps has been indeffed. Their talkpage is … well, you have to read it to decide, but it involves abortion manuals, another lawsuit, and claims of thousands of suppressed edits. - Bri.public (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion at Commons [1] and another indef [2]. Fun story, but there doesn't seem to be any followup in media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This was brought to the Signpost's attention two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 32#Wikimedia mention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was reviewing the In the Media column under development in response to the suggestion. - Bri.public (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is a huge story. We've got a blurb in In the media - but it's no where good enough now. I'll suggest a separate article, probably in "Special report". I won't have time to write it myself - I'm helping on another story that's almost as big (and I have real world obligations). So who are we going to get to write it? There may be others out there who may want to give it a try. The names @Liz, Sdkb, and Tony1: pop into my head, but there may be reasons those folks don't want to do it. If you always wanted to be a Signpost reporter, now's your chance! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This does look interesting; I'm willing to help out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Sdkb:! I only had about 40 minutes to review everything brought up in this section, but can tell it's a good story. Tony1 is tied up with other things. @Llewee: wrote the ITM paragraph, maybe he can help out. There are at least half a dozen news articles, I've only read one or two which said roughly that the Gov't of India was *ordering* Wikipedia to take down a map of Kashmir which didn't have the dotted lines in the right places (or else shut down Wikipedia in India?) So, at that point maybe another China or Turkey story - but sometimes ruffled feathers get smoothed and life goes on - I wasn't panicking! It's the talk pages linked here that have the interesting parts of the story. JRodgers (WMF) chimed in with what looked like a good plan to put in all the dotted lines, but of course ... Somebody from India made a legal threat (It looked like it to me and a few admins anyway) But the same guy has an interesting story that should be checked out, and that about as much as I've figured out so far. Lots of fact checking to do, probably 2 or 3 story lines to follow before the real one shows up. Publishing date in the 27th, with Christmas, etc. the earlier the better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CSD T3 deprecated

These have been noted in the past, see RfC ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Newsworthy discussion re Wikipedians in Residence

I stopped regularly visiting COIN but just noticed WP:COIN#Brigham Young University which is an interesting and probably newsworthy discussion about disclosure and other issues pertaining to paid editing and the Wikipedians in Residence program. It might be worth adding a synopsis to the Discussion report. The discussion has explicitly referenced The Signpost's November 2020 coverage of government-paid editing for Tatarstan. - Bri.public (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That discussion certainly wore me out, and since I participated in it, I shouldn't be writing about it. I've certainly put out several invitations over time to WiRs and similar people to explain what WiRs want re: COI and PAID in The Signpost. I wouldn't be surprised if we get something for next month. For this month maybe a paragraph in the Discussion report? My schedule for the next week is 120% packed, so ... Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion / Dragon Group

I noticed that User:Farooqahmadbhat, a blocked member of a prolific sockfarm, PRODded the article Dragon Group which is the subject of the article. But this other sockfarm is not mentioned in the opinion piece. Maybe this is something we add to the intro as editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and Zarasophos: I added it in to the line "It was then nominated for deletion in 2018 by Farooqahmadbhat who was later blocked as a sockpuppet." It makes sense now I think. Also please see the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I changed both sentences around a bit, but I think they're very good additions. Off to christmas we go! Zarasophos (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

News and notes

I'm assuming we will postpone News and notes since the only item in it is one RfA. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

We actually have ~~two~~ three items now -- I just added the billionth edit/Wikipedia Day 2020 item and a bit about a halt in the decline of active admins. If anyone else can think of things to round this out ...? It's usually our top column by readership. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Two possibilities that I see. From the suggestions: a town in Austria is officially changing its name to Fugging, Upper Austria on January 1. I can't see anything that raises the story above schoolboy smirking, except possibly that the very small town has the 2nd highest pageviews of any place in Austria, following Vienna. Since there is a redirect, I doubt the pageviews will decrease.

@Bri and HaeB: The second really bothers me (and it might go in ITM). President Trump has vetoed the $760 billion defense bill because it didn't eliminate Section 230. 230 provides the legal basis for Wikipedia to allow editors to edit Wikipedia. The bill was passed last week with a "veto-proof majority" but some Republican are making noise that they won't vote to over-ride on Monday. One source is Verge but there are lots of sources (none mention Wikipedia or have any detail). So I'm blind on this, it will be a newsworthy item on Sunday and Monday (hopefully no longer), so we have to get this right the first time. And theoretically it could shut down Wikipedia and most other social media sites. I suppose if I had more facts I'd know what to recommend. Hey! Merry Christmas! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Patting myself on the back, I knew this would be an important bill ... I started the NDAA article. But for COI reasons I have to keep some distance from it now. I can say that I've read the administration's desired changes and it's hard to see how they would affect ENWP exactly. IMO these have to do with Twitter moderation more than anything that WMF is likely to do with community-generated content, or even less so what the community is likely to do to its own content. In other words, the 230 changes would reduce the things that platforms can do to user generated content without legal consequence, but WMF interferes so little with user generated content, it's effectively a no-op. I could be persuaded otherwise, if I missed some nuance, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested in reading the details of your analysis. But note that while the "Good Samaritan" protection in Section 230(c)(2) may indeed not be very relevant to WMF (because, as you point out, it rarely engages in direct moderation), the same is not true for the famous 26 words in Section 230(c)(1). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ive added a placeholder section to NaN if someone wants to take it on. Should we go ahead and un-postpone the column in this issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and the subsequent writeup. I agree this is worth covering - while Trump's current veto is unlikely to amount to much, future challenges to Section 230 are more likely to succeed and affect Wikipedia.

I noticed that we didn't yet have coverage of a slew of other relevant year-end legal developments in the US and the EU, so I added these to N&N, as both of you might already have seen. If nobody objects, I'll also capture them in the section subtitle, as they now have more weight that the billionth edit preview (I expect we will cover that milestone in more detail next month after it has actually happened). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, what a turnaround! The column looks really good now, thanks for your contributions Smallbones, WereSpielChequers and HaeB. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a count

My schedule is truly bizarre these days. I hope @Bri: will take over the duties of Editor-in-chief for this issue. I've been looking over the articles to see how many and in what condition. We'll get News and notes in shape, @Adam Cuerden: - please pick a headline and blurb I just drew a blank.

I suspect that I'll either be here all of tomorrow *or* Sunday morning and hope to get in another article. Bri please check the external videos I inserted in ITM for formatting and taste. Thanks to all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of the videos seem fine to me. Both are from "official" Elvis, so no copyvio questions at least. I think that item is lighthearted enough for taste not to be a worry. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I could use a couple more days. Christmas was full of obligations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 05:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How about if I publish Sunday evening, say 6 Pacific/9 Eastern? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks fine with me, but it's Bri's call now. I'm sure HaeB would appreciate a heads up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Roger that; 6 Pacific/9 Eastern works for me. (I should actually have RR in publishable form several hours before that time.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with 6 Pacific/9 Eastern also. And will try to get my last story in a few hours before. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I reset the timer widget for new publication target. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: I submitted on Op-ed, a Year in Review article. It's too early for me to say whether I like it or not. If you're ready to publish and you don;t like it, just leave it out. Back in 15 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record: Per Bri, publication time is now 9pm Pacific/midnight Eastern. (I should still have RR publishable in less than an hour from now.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That was actually a math error but we can stick with it if people need the time. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm done and wrung out. Whenever HaeB is ready is fine with me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and Haeb: Trump just signed the pandemic relief bill into law. I've added a sentence to that part of the NandN article and will check that the following text is not contradictory. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: again Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll be done within an hour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 01:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

An important update! I have moved the signature bit to the end, as we already mention at the beginning that Congress passed the act. I'm about to wrap up RR shortly, will ping Bri when it's ready. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 02:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: just waiting for the Recent research to come in. Will be afk for about 1 hour for rib roast ☆ Bri (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Done now, should be ready to go out. (Sorry about the delay, I encountered a small mishap.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll get started in a few moments. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyeditors, to your stations!

@Megalibrarygirl, Isaacl, Bluerasberry, ProgrammingGeek, and MJL: Writing deadline is nigh; it's time to copyedit. Thanks for all the help! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hands off keyboards

I'm about to do a few things to prepare for publication, then get started soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

December 28 issue is out

No publishing errors, just the usual "Remember to announce the new issue on the mailing list, Twitter, and Facebook" which I can't do! Great work everybody who contributed to this rather thick issue. Happy new year! ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bri (and everybody!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Next issue. 20th birthday, January 31 - quite an important issue

Hi Signposters and page watchers,

I think this next issue will be as important or more important than any since I've been E-i-C. 20 years of Wikipedia calls for some fundamental deep dives into what's going on and will be going on. I want to encourage everybody to think about the most important aspects of Wikipedia that are under covered by us and the press and write your best work for this issue, Or just write down your ideas here. Some of my ideas are:

the state of the internet (and Wikipedia's place in it) - there's lots of things going on here and I can't really make any sense of it. Antitrust suits against Google and others, a new administration in DC, new laws in the EU, probably some new technology e.g. AI gone wild, climate change rules might affect this too. I'll ask @HaeB: if he'd like to do this (or recommend somebody equally knowledgeable) but anybody should feel free to volunteer.
I'll likely have a serious case of paid/coi editing to explore. I hope @Zarasophos: will join with me in writing this. It's a big complicated story, with some pretty easy parts as well. There's room for another person to join in as well, especially for somebody who knows about the complexities of international criminal law.
This one might be too hard, but I've thought that people need a guide to how Wikipedia actually works. I mean lets ignore the ideology for awhile and look at what really happens. This would be analogous to looking at how the US government works, without mentioning that the founders were geniuses inspired by the Almighty who got really lucky and started the most perfect form of government of all time. That last part is fine for school kids, but it sometimes gets in the way of describing how things really work. Mythology does play an important part in the real world, so we'd want to briefly describe the Wiki ideology, and make a short bow in front of it, but then move on to purely practical questions. This one would be tough, but anybody who wants to try would be very welcome.
Of course we need to celebrate the occasion as well. Some different, quirky ways to celebrate Wikipedians would be nice, e.g. "who is the most important Wikipedian who people seldom notice?" Who is the best photographer? Best pure writer? Best person at getting warring parties to work together? Most important institution in the overall movement that is outside the WMF sphere? (Internet archives? or ...?) Anything along those lines would be very welcome.
And of course any stories you want to propose.

Any help appreciated, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO the most important fundamental question is what makes this community of interest work and what makes it sustainable?

Will the ad-hocracy be able to continue indefinitely or are there fundamental changes ahead?
Will it remain largely volunteer driven, or will monied interests wield greater and greater influence?
Will our interface need a radical overhaul to include people outside the current "in group" who are comfortable with it? Will it look more like conventional social media at some point?
More broadly, is there a generational divide? If so, how is it to be overcome? What happens when the current set of committed editors "age out" or (it happens) die?

The uneasy peace between community and WMF post-Framgate doesn't feel like it's really sustainable to me.

Can Arbcom continue to function as currently structured?
Can we sustain mass waves of resignations in the wake of unpopular decisions either by WMF or by Arbcom?
Are an ever-expanding set of Discretionary Sanctions sustainable? (ask DGG for a contrary opinion)

Then I have some blue-sky questions about the mutual influence of AI on Wikipedia and vice-versa. For instance:

Will we enable AI editors in the future?
What about AI assistance or autonomous execution of some administrative functions?
Even more blue-sky legal ponderings about the ownership of an AI trained on the public dataset available here – I smell a future intellectual property suit.

And finally a really broad set of questions about information warfare.

Start with the troubling issues we've covered previously in The Signpost, add the content of Disinformation attack plus State-sponsored Internet propaganda, and you're getting close. This potentially dwarfs the problems we have already had with undisclosed paid editing.
The Turkey blackout, and recent threats by India to shut down WP if they don't see maps they like are another symptom of the problem our own success/importance has brought us vis-à-vis national governments. Section 230 in the U.S. could be the next battleground (I don't actually think so, but some do).
What would prevent a future takeover from within by a special interest group who is sufficiently large, coordinated, and sufficiently motivated? Does our "all are welcome, all get an equal vote" model stand up to such a scenario? Think of something on the scale of a major political party who realizes the information potential of this outlet.

Happy to help as able, but I'll be off the grid for a good chunk of January/February. Bri.public (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

For me, many things come down to governance: significant changes and time-efficient resolution of issues are stalemated by English Wikipedia's decision-making tradition. The inability to deal with issues in a timely manner leads to so many behavioural issues. How much longer will the community continue to accept the shortcomings of its current decision-making framework? Alternatively, when will those shortcomings drive enough people away to cause a shift in the community's composition? isaacl (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I don't think you'll get any argument around here about the basic premise. Bri used the word "ad-hocracy" above. I've used the description before that our rules were "written by the Society of Byzantine Anarchists". But stating the almost undeniable fact that we have a crazy governance model would only be half of a good article. You'd probably need a description of how you would change the model and then what process we could use to get there and how long it would take. I'm not making fun of your proposal - those are all very serious questions. There is something in there though that would make a very good humour article. I'd say - whatever track you want to take from the basic premise - go for it. Our governance model likely seems "normal" to many editors now. Reminding everybody how crazy it is would be a great service. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've written lots about how to change decision-making processes (most recently I've tried to get people to think about process improvements that provide incentives for desired behaviours over uncollaborative ones) and what could trigger change, given that the libertarian roots of the Wikipedia community are opposed to moving away from a theoretical egalitarian ideal (though in practice it scales poorly, leading to inconsistent decisions based on whoever shows up). However I haven't done the in-depth background research needed as support (such as reviewing existing studies and making comparisons to other online communities and volunteer organizations), and it would take more time than I want to spend. isaacl (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it's been a while since I've written a Tech report for the Signpost, but I'd like to do some interviews with long-time developers looking back at the evolution of the software/technical stack (bots, templates, MediaWiki, editors, etc.) as well as looking forward - if people would be interested in something like that. Legoktm (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Legoktm: WP:Articles for Creation has changed a lot from the early days. If you ask for input from old-timers on WT:WPAFC you might get to hear the stories about how the process and the scripts that support it evolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I fear I might be one of those old-timers... ;) I'll add it to my notes. Legoktm (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Legoktm: you got it! The deadline posted above is January 30, but please give me a couple of days extra to copyedit it, and check to see if I have any questions. Especially since it's been so long since we've had a Tech report, interviews, and in depth would be appreciated and longer than usual would be acceptable. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Legoktm (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Legoktm: forgive me if you know this, but maybe our system has changed a bit since you wrote for The Signpost. You can click the "Start article" button in the Tech report row of the Newsroom page, and it will set up the article skeleton for you. - Bri.public (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And if you want some information on the very old days before it, poke me. Y'know, the ones where my firt project was W.S. Gilbert, because it was barely a stub when I joined. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)