![]() | This user assumes good faith. |
![]() | This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. |
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you :) @Gerda Arendt – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- On the main page Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart, the video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances, - yesterday's story. - "places" come with food and flowers, - sharing with you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Help Regarding editorial oversight
Hi DreamRimmer, Can you please tell me, what are the easiest way to check editorial oversight on a news reference? Jitujadab90 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Jitujadab90: The easiest way to check for editorial oversight on a news site is to look at the publication's reputation, whether it has named editors, and if it follows a clear correction policy. Checking if the article cites credible sources and shows signs of fact-checking also helps. Also, you can see if the publication adheres to journalistic standards and whether it has a history of retractions or controversial reporting. Another simple way is to compare the information with other reliable sources to see if it matches. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. Do you mind if I ask you an editorial oversight and a non editorial oversight news example for better understanding? Jitujadab90 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Tech News: 2025-07
MediaWiki message delivery 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Tech News: 2025-08
MediaWiki message delivery 21:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
![]() |
Hey dropping by to say hi. Any collabs you wanna do, like GA or FA? I've been busy irl for the past few months. Hit me up, if so. Seeya :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC) |
Tech News: 2025-09
MediaWiki message delivery 00:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
- In the media: The end of the world
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
You must be logged in to post a comment.