The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2025-05-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Something about the tone of this feels weird. it's lio! | talk | work 09:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The ArbCom action or the reporting? If the latter, I agree: something about the grammar felt vaguely....AI-ish? The use of "the ArbCom" in the title, when we almost always colloquially use just "ArbCom" to reference the group by the diminutive name, the use of the past perfect in the opening sentence. Then again, the more likely explanation is that it was just slightly hastily composed and one's brain begins to ascribe every little typo or minor grammatical error/idiosyncrasy to AI these days. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The reporting, yes..."hastily composed" would be a problem, since the final version should always be well proofread before being published to the public. Still, whatever. it's lio! | talk | work 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Not really. That title was placed at the initial revision of this article, more than 48 hours before publication. No AI was in the loop, as far as I'm aware. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to see the ArbCom report and centralised discussion summaries returning to the Signpost. I want to keep up with these events but don't have the time to read through pages upon pages of discussion so these summaries are incredibly useful. WaggersTALK 10:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

First. 195.85.163.190 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• An interesting overview of the Wikimedia ecosystem. That said, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but the repeated frowning about how edit count minimums harm democratic processes is pretty laughable. I'm sorry, but while 100 edits may put someone in the top 1% of editors, it's also easily attainable in a few weeks of idle hobby writing or a few days of deeper effort. That the vast majority of editors don't reach that is more indicative that most people who sign up for an account don't return to use it on any subsequent days than of a conspiracy to keep the reigns of power within the hands of the elite. --PresN 01:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's about one per day in a bit over three months. I can guarentee you that very few three-month-old accounts have a thorough understanding of the runnings of the system. Heck, even I as a 8000-edit five-year-old account am still learning new policies every now and then. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's a decent summary of the various Wikimedia projects, but I'm confused as to why it's being published as an article here. Can't we assume that anyone reading The Signpost has a solid idea of what Wikipedia is, and has the capability of finding out about its sister projects for themselves, if they don't already know? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  I like hearing about Wikipedia from other points of view, especially if they're not here often (I myself got access to the [Wikipedia] library primarily for edits that I made on other projects). And perhaps some more industrious 'pedians read the back-of-house of each of the sister projects; as someone who hasn't, I appreciated the convenient summary! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wikisource also has annotated texts in which editors add original footnotes, illustrations, styling (rules). It's not been very popular, probably because it's not well known, but the end products can be very good. For example you may have read Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde before, but did you know "..surplus of their grains in coquetry.." .. refers to street merchants who were spending their profits on colorful advertisements (signs, props, etc) to lure new customers (Chapter 1)? -- GreenC 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for writing up this summary, it was an interesting read. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Indeed, I’m also thankful. Entertaining as well. To me, the close RfA’s are of great interest, and the ‘Crat role in deciding who gets the mop in those cases is probably the most prominent duty you have. Best wishes, always! Jusdafax (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, these are useful and appreciated. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Goldsztajn that this is extremely helpful – I often forget about these big discussions and miss the close. I'm concerned, though, that only users on specific trusted groups are currently allowed to use OAUTH is not accurate – any user is allowed to request 2FA access at m:Steward requests/Global permissions#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions, and OAuth is something completely different from 2FA. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to edit this directly so pinging @User:JPxG instead. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• I thought about correcting that in the copy but didn't ... I'm one of those 2FA users myself. Help:Two-factor authentication gives all the necessary info. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, I have edited the article to be more accurate. I wanted to highlight the part where 2FA is a privilege not a default, since Wikimedia spaces differ quite a bit from a lot of the other websites (and many editors forget about it because they don't enable/enabled a long time back) Soni (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Just echoing the thanks! I wasn't planning on biting newbies but I definitely won't now that my favorite dog on all of Wikipedia said so Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Could someone clarify what is meant by 'fact-checking process'? I ask, because I can think of nothing in Wikipedia editorial practice that either mandates such a thing, or even approximates it - it least as the term is normally used. Content certainly isn't normally 'fact-checked' before it is published, and in as much as it ever gets checked at all, it is generally only as a result of an individual choosing to do so, generally after noticing an issue. The general disclaimer sums this up nicely: Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate, or reliable information, and I really don't think we should be claiming otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia and fact-checking, to which I contributed greatly. I would be happy to say all this in my own voice as an opinion piece, but there are lots of accurate ways to communicate that Wikipedia does much more fact checking than any other media organization. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you bother to check the 22 references given in the article Blue Rasberry linked for you. If you are going to blather on about fact checking, you should do some for yourself. (more below after dinner!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Which of those sources states that "Wikipedia does much more fact checking than any other media organization"? Not that it really matters, since it isn't how much you do, but how effective the process is that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

BR said an "opinion piece" ie. an original research essay that is not governed by Wikipedia rules and regulations ie. the real world. Until you see the essay, you'll either have to believe or not believe BR that such an opinion could convincingly be made. Given BR's stated experience and expertise in this area, and other tangential information from various academic studies (some cited in this issue of Signpost) I'm generally inclined to give BR the benefit of the doubt. I did see the National Geographic Magazine fact checking operation once and it was impressive, at least 20 years ago, and I suspect NYT is also very good, among others. -- GreenC 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Bluerasberry is loosely using the term "fact checking" to mean "verifiability" when he says Wikipedia editors use several fact-checking processes. It doesn't mean that the verifiability has actually been carried out 100% of the time, i.e. verifiable≠verified. A word or two could be changed for more technical correctness, Wikipedia editors use several fact-checking processes enable verification and fact-checking with several processes, but I don't think that is particularly readable or necessary. In fact the more I think about it, I think the original is more correct: editors include all editors who ever improve the article, not just the first editor(s) who create an imcompletely fact-checked article. Surely that larger set of editors use several fact-checking processes. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• At some point "we" (not just Wikipedia) need people on the ground going to organizations and looking at their fact checking departments and grading them on metrics. It would be voluntary. Sort of like the seafood and forestry seals of approval, those who have it will have greater currency. -- GreenC 16:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01/Gallery

• I like this kind of humor (I wonder what that reveals about my mind), but the use of transparent png combined with jpg displays funny on my end, with the png rendering a checkerboard background in the galleries. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  If only there were a file format that could display geometric illustrations and be rendered as a PNG by MediaWiki... Oh yeah, and it would help if the format was the default output for most graphics software. JayCubby 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  For whatever reason, the problem is the gallery code. The simplest and easiest fix is to get rid of the gallery and replace it with a table with no borders. The transparent images display fine when you do that. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• I CU, Sockpuppet got a genuine chuckle :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Me too! Toadspike [Talk] 13:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• +1 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Brilliant! Schwede66 23:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I like this way too much! :D - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is brilliant! — Cosmic6811 T/C 01:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Here's some love for pagemovers: "Will you PM my move request?" – robertsky (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wonderful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• These are brilliant. Take my money! Well, on second thought, don't, but I still want one. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have a genuinely nice Wikipedia t-shirt. DS (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• The topmost bullet in subsection "The future that needs to be prepared today" correctly describes the limit on Wikipedia size. Simple English Wikipedia, though far from the biggest WP, illustrates this, as obvious vandalism often goes uncorrected for days or months because we don't have enough article watchers. If we can't keep up with quality problems, growth becomes unprofitable as it makes the encyclopedia more misinformative and untrustworthy. As for a catalog of a billion stars, or of everyone who ever lived, or every road or building everywhere, they should not even get a Wikidata item each, since specialized Web sites can take care of them. Wikipedia need not say all that is known about everything. Being an overall rough map and epitome of the universe of knowledge is a goal we can approach; we should not try to be the universe. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • +1 couldn't have said it better. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I found the comment above by Jim.henderson meaningful and useful, went on to share its meaning with Wikimedia Language Diversity Community Russian. The last sentence Being an overall rough map and epitome of the universe of knowledge is a goal we can approach; we should not try to be the universe. seems a vote for Federation of Wikimedia Wikis, all describing different universes, as all language and cultural communities understand boundaries of valuable knowledge differently, whilst Wikidata with its elements is what's actually keeping us together. Frhdkazan (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • +1 XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • One issue that has never been given sufficient thought is what should the purpose of this encyclopedia be? By this, I am defining two possible purposes. The first is that an encyclopedia should contain all information, thus making all other reference works redundant. (This is a goal many encyclopedias have striven for, as documented by Richard Yeo in Encyclopaedia Visions:Scientific Dictionaries and Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge: University Press, 2001) ISBN 978-0-521-15292-1.) This goal is obviously unobtainable: it's a well-known fact that knowledge expands faster than it can be recorded; no citation is needed for this assertion, although I can provide one if demanded. The other purpose is to be a springboard for further research, a purpose that is achievable, yet is often baffled by Wikipedia policies. (For example, policy is to rely on secondary sources, not primary, which means the reader or user is not alerted to all of the sources.) If Wikipedia should be a place to begin researching or learning on a subject, then policy needs to be revised to accommodate that purpose. -- llywrch (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• In the "how big can Wikipedia be?" section, though this content amount is intriguing, I fail to see how AI could help with this. As previously mentioned in Signpost articles, AI draws most of its knowledge from online sources such as Wikipedia itself, and with such a limitation to online sources and many sources being offline (especially ones regarding events in big Indian cities between 1975 and 2025, due to India being a country with a high poverty rate and the fact that the Internet did not exist in such a form in '75 and afterwards). Humans could better write these articles since they have access to these sources. Not to mention the many so-called "hallucinations" of artificial intelligence. ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • +1 to the recognition that Wikipedia is actually the largest source of training data for mainstream LLMs (e.g. GPT), the second largest are newspapers by the way. This only works because each Wikipedia article is hand-checked by authors. If Wikipedia articles and news sources were mass-written by LLMs, the entire AI ecosystem would implode. So this is a terrible idea.--Nordostsüdwest (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Rather than something like a ban, we could try an extension of our old bot license system. Designate responsible operators of generative AI and mark their work, with either the simple B in the watchlist or with its own maker. Set AI to work searching for edits by unlicensed generatives, and template them for closer inspection. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Actually, there are kinds of bot work that I would like to see done, though I don't know whether "generative" would describe them. I work the geocoordinates of historical sites and buildings, and wish Wikidata items, with coords where available, were made for all the items in list articles like National Register of Historic Places in Essex County, New Jersey. I would also like WD items for every marker in the Historical Marker Database even though almost none of them ought ever be the subject of an article. But, that's all Wikidata, where errors and duplications already abound and clumsy AI can make it more comprehensive while probably not making it much dirtier. WP has to be much cleaner. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lots of coverage this issue! Thanks for rounding it all up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Ganesha811: It wasn't an easy task, in all honesty... : D

  Also, let me take advantage of the occasion to thank seefooddiet, GorillaWarfare, Lsj and PlanetAri, who are all featured on this column! Oltrepier (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree with Sanger's statements. Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect, and POV-pushers may creep in without anyone knowing, adding content in favor of one side. However, saying that Wikipedia is "woke leftist propaganda" is outright stretching the truth. He cites the fact that mainstream media and the establishment (i.e. the highly-educated) has become more progressive over time, and as Wikipedia tends to cite these sources, it has turned "leftist". Much of the news outlets out there that Sanger is talking about are left-leaning, STILL not leftist, (neo)liberal publications. His opinions are affected by Americentrism, and as a result, he fails to realize that the left is not composed of liberals in living in NYC who got a PhD in Economics at Harvard. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Addendum: I find it really disappointing that one of this site's co-founders has turned to conservative reactionary grifting. Right-wing reactionaries present a usually whitewashed and warped view of reality, and to them, people who disagree are just Marxist-Leninists or adversary propagandists. The fact that these people, especially those in power, have Sanger on their side to justify their nonsense is a threat to free access to information in itself as they use his statements as a justification for censorship. So much for "making America great again". 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• It's also hilariously inconsistent for Sanger's claims to be used as an argument there. Because if the issue is non-Americans editing Wikipedia, then they're not going to be pushing the American ideas or subjects related to "woke leftist propaganda", as Sanger puts it. Also, his complaints, even four years ago, of what constitutes such propaganda is that we don't treat right wing conspiracies about Biden as fact, among other such whacko things he was pushing back then and is even more extreme now. Silverseren^C 05:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• I've watched Sanger's career over the years. At first, Sanger actually had substantial sympathy at Wikipedia -- his role with Wikipedia was being unfairly minimized -- & his disagreements with Wikipedia were constructive & primarily about the content. He could have stopped there & simply been content with his achievement in creating Wikipedia, something that will keep him in history books. But as time passed & Sanger aged & his connection to Wikipedia's beginnings faded from people's memories, his criticism became harsher & his views more politically extreme. It's as if he believes history is ignoring him, & he needs to act out so people won't forget he exists, he needs to accept any role & embrace any opinion for attention. If that is the case, it's sad. -- llywrch (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Who is being counted among the " . . . content moderation is overseen by nearly 260,000 volunteers . . . "? Anybody who has ever reverted an edit? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it does get confusing when folks announce large numbers of editors, especially when they don't give when or where or activity level. Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number of editors gives about 120,000 for all editors last month (at least 1 edit) in the English language Wikipedia. I think it's about 23,000 on enWiki for all editors (with over 5 edits) last month from the US - somehow I think the District Attorney is thinking of American editors. So take your pick, there's lots of numbers to pick from. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • But, it isn't a District Attorney giving this number. It seems to be some official spokesman for WMF. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• I really dislike how right-leaning media takes whatever Sanger says as fact simply because he was a founder of Wikipedia. It's not like we do the same with Wales. He is certainly a mentor but not some be-all-end-all. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• An article on this issue has just appeared on the ABC News (Australia) website: Can Wikipedia survive the rise of AI and Trump?. Bahudhara (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The animated short of Wikipedians By Number Of Edits (2002-2025) is so cool. Thanks Panamitsu! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It was fun making it! ^_^ 📶Panamitsu (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: An impressive job, indeed. Thank you for reporting it to us in the first place! Oltrepier (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

[...] we began an experiment to remix Wikipedia content into short "fun fact" videos and publish them on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube – popular platforms where younger generations like to spend time and learn. Over the course of October 2024 to January 2025, we attained a total of 1.87M views and 1.51M unique users reached via this experiment, indicating that this is an effective strategy to bring Wikipedia knowledge to younger audiences at scale.

I'm glad WMF is working on bringing Wikipedia content to new and younger audiences. But I'm curious about the meaning of "effective" and "at scale" here.

• For context, during those four months, Wikimedia projects attracted over 60 billion human pageviews (the vast majority of them for Wikipedia). So this WMF effort increased Wikipedia's readership by less than 0.005% during that time.
• Now, perhaps these videos enabled us to reach people who had never before heard of Wikipedia and caused them to become regular Wikipedia readers (possibly for the rest of their lives). But do we have any evidence that this has happened "at scale"?
• Lastly, m:Future Audiences/Generated Video doesn't provide any information about how much effort and donor money went into creating these videos, i.e. about efficiency - how much did we need to spend to generate those 1.87 milion views? I know that the Foundation is not in financial distress of course, it can (and to some extent should) afford experiments. But there has been a call (including from the current CEO IIRC) to focus its resources more on the most impactful work, and this report leaves one with doubts whether that includes this kind of video content production by WMF staff.

HaeB (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @HaeB, happy to provide more context on your two questions:

• On the cost: The Future Audiences team (which at the time was one software developer and me) was able to create our homebrewed video generation tool and the first few months' worth of video content during a 1-week focused hackathon last August. We approached this project as "creating a self-serve tool for our External Comms team" precisely so that it would be as cost-effective as possible – i.e., require as little time/labor to create as many videos as possible – and External Comms has continued to use the tool to generate more videos on more topics. In addition to these videos, you'll also see some that were made by the agency our External Comms team works with on other social content (e.g., Wikimania content) – they've been helping us create different kinds of content (e.g. videos featuring community members) to see how this performs as compared to our little DYK explainers. Having worked on many WMF software projects over the years, I can confidently tell you this is some of the scrappiest software development I've personally been involved in (as are all FA projects, by design). (For scale: I think the comparably scrappy things at WMF were some of the Editor Engagement Experiments from Ye Olden Days of 2013-4, and even that was a bigger & higher-resourced team than FA!)
• On scale: The "scale" in the snippet you quote refers to the size of the audience we were able to reach and the time to get to that number relative to kinds of social campaigns we've done over the years. Getting these kinds of numbers this quickly (let alone with the very minimal investment we put in) in the social space is, as far as I understand, unprecedented. But you're right, that while getting a few million views on social content is a big deal for us, it is absolutely not a large scale for these platforms! Successful creators can achieve many orders of magnitude more reach. We intentionally chose to start with the scrappy version of this work to learn quickly/cheaply, and based on the results we believe there is room for achieving true "at-scale" reach with additional investment into higher content quality/quantity next fiscal year.

HTH, and let me know if you have more questions! Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and this additional information! It is indeed helpful, but it still leaves me a bit puzzled about several aspects:

• during a 1-week focused hackathon / some of the scrappiest software development I've personally been involved in - I see, that makes sense, good to know that 1) this didn't take up an entire 7-person team for half a year and 2) appears to have been built as a tool with many future reuses in mind. That said, now I'm a bit confused why m:Future_Audiences#2024-25 seems to list this ("Generated Video") as one of only four projects for the entire year (from which a naive observer might have estimated that it took the team an entire quarter)? In any case, I guess we need to keep in mind as readers of these "Progress on the Annual Plan" posts that they are not a comprehensive activity reports, but rather just compile some highlights (as the intro transparently says).
• Either way, I think it's great that WMF invests in experiments and that your team exists; one might even think that there should be more experiments of this kind. But any experiment should eventually be evaluated in terms of impact and costs of the thing being tested (including opportunity costs).
• In addition to these videos, you'll also see some that were made by the agency our External Comms team works with on other social content (e.g., Wikimania content) – they've been helping us create different kinds of content (e.g. videos featuring community members) to see how this performs as compared to our little DYK explainers. - that sounds great, but why would one use the same metric to directly compare videos about our movement itself (such as Wikimania content) with those highlighting engaging information about arbitrary topics (even if attributed to Wikipedia)? That indicates a rather unreflected conception of impact, and a lack of a theory of change. As a concrete example, 10000 views for a video that helps bring in (say) 30 more Wikimania attendees from targeted audiences or 10 more high-quality program submissions for Wikimania are orders of magnitude more valuable for us than 10000 views for a video that presents information from a Wikipedia article about some non-Wikimedia conference. Or to put it differently: It will always be easier for Comms staff to find engaging "fun facts" among arbitrary Wikipedia topics (and often, well, more fun).
• I am also kind of curious whether the team was aware of this past WMF research that we covered a while ago here in the Signpost/research newsletter: "An awareness campaign in India did not affect Wikipedia pageviews, but a new software feature did" (regarding a video that many Wikimedians found indeed very engaging and which gathered about 4 million views, but did not translate into measurable increases of readership on Wikipedia itself).
• But you're right, that while getting a few million views on social content is a big deal for us, it is absolutely not a large scale for these platforms! - I guess that's true, but my comparison was actually to views on Wikipedia itself, not to views on those platform in general. And I still have to say that even if it can be maintained without further costs (and that would seem unlikely, given that the External Comms team presumably consists of decently paid staff), a persistent 0.005% increase in views of Wikipedia content (on external platforms and Wikipedia itself combined) would pale in comparison to say the estimated 1.4% increase we gained from this experiment a few years back (yes, I'm a bit biased there, but I do think WMF and others in the movement have long been too blase in assuming Wikipedia will always rank first on search engines and thus have neglected basic SEO too much). That would be a 280 times higher impact.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

RIP JarrahTree. I've had a few respectful conversions with him after various reverts. Always most courteous. The part of the bio that I don't understand, though, is where it says in the caption that he preferred to be known only by his username. On one of his userpages, he links to his ORCID account, which has his real name in full sight. Was he really that secretive, given the ORCID link? Schwede66 23:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Yes he was, especially later on. I had to dig quite a bit to find out what you were talking about; on his Meta user page, he did indeed add an ORCID link in September 2020. This seems out-of-character to me for him to link his username and real name like that; perhaps he didn't understand the implications of what he was doing? The ORCID link was last updated in 2016 (click "Show recoerd summary). Graham87 (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I deliberately didn't post the link here because ... Schwede66 05:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

But the other thing that's odd about this is that he lists his user name in his ORCID profile as well. Schwede66 05:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought so too, but he changed his username to his current one in 2015, before making the ORCID profile (all the usernames he's used on here have been pseudonyms, so it's OK to link to them IMO). Yeah, a bit odd, because I distinctly remember him getting tetchy when his username and real name were linked, but more so as time went on ... Graham87 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm supposed to read this??? Willbill6272 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The graph shows that for e.g. Portuguese, 0.08% of medical articles have reliable sources, and 0.008% of them have unreliable sources. That implies that less that one article in a thousand has any sources at all. Maybe that's only counting sources on a very restricted list; but even so, I don't believe it. Not reading seems a good option. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Missing space between Reviewswas. I checked the abstract, there it was correct.Rolluik (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC) (Tilman)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01/Traffic report