Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/In focus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


File:Paonroue.JPG
Jebulon
CC BY-SA 3.0
50
400
In focus

Questions and answers about the court case

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bluerasberry
The Indian peafowl is one of the national symbols of India.

Asian News International sued the Wikimedia Foundation over defamation, and to reveal the private identities of Wikipedia editors. In this lawsuit, the Delhi High Court also ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the Wikipedia article about the court case. See additional coverage elsewhere in The Signpost.

What happened?

A news agency called Asian News International (ANI) sued the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation, based on things written in its article on the English Wikipedia. Then other Wikipedia editors made an article about that lawsuit, and the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to delete that article in its entirety. Wikipedia's community of editors is upset at all of this, and feels unfairly treated.

Again, the three issues are

  1. Asian News International says that the Wikipedia article Asian News International contains defamation.
  2. Asian News International wants the identities disclosed of three volunteer Wikipedia editors who edited that article.
  3. The Delhi High Court ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the Wikipedia article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

Who all is involved in this?

  • Wikipedia editors are the volunteer community of encyclopedia writers who develop Wikipedia, using normal editorial practices like fact-checking and quality control. Hundreds of them have edited Wikipedia content related to Asian News International, and this entire situation.
  • News agencies, including BBC, The Caravan, The Ken, and The Diplomat authored and published the information which Wikipedia editors added to the news article "Asian News International", and which that organization says is defamation.
  • Asian News International is the organization suing the Wikimedia Foundation, and seeking the identity of three particular Wikipedia editors among the hundreds who have edited the Wikipedia article titled "Asian News International".
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is the legal organization that hosts the Wikimedia platform, including Wikipedia. This foundation does not have editorial staff, and cannot tell the Wikipedia editors what to do. Wikipedia editors have some governance ability to tell the Wikimedia Foundation what to do.
  • The three particular Wikipedia editors seem to be random Internet people. The Wikipedia community wants them to be safe, and not to be put into a global spotlight or multinational diplomatic conflict, because what happens to them could happen to any Wikipedia editor.
  • The Delhi High Court is a court in India which is hearing the defamation case, demanded the identity of three Wikipedia editors, and ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the Wikipedia article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.
  • The Signpost is the Wikipedia community newspaper producing journalism for Wikipedia editors, by Wikipedia editors, and in advocacy of Wikipedia editors. It is editorially independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Signpost reports stories like this one.
  • Wikimedia editors in India are particular stakeholders of this whole situation. Although most Wikipedia editors engage with Wikipedia only online, editors are more likely to form friendships and collaborations with people from their own culture and region. Also, throughout the world, there are Wikimedia community organizations which provide local training, support, and partnerships to encourage Wikipedia content development. Several such organizations exist in India. They get funding and support from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Who is seeking Wikipedia content change, such as blanking or deletion?

Two entities are seeking Wikipedia content change: Asian News International, and the Delhi High Court.

Asian News International initiated a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. They claim that the Wikipedia article about their organization, Asian News International, contains defamation against them. They want that content removed.

The Delhi High Court is overseeing that defamation lawsuit, and under the sub judice surrounding the proceedings, it ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the Wikipedia article about the lawsuit. That Wikipedia article is titled, Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

Why do these organizations want Wikipedia content deleted?

Asian News International is complaining of defamation in the Wikipedia article about itself.

The Delhi High Court seems to want Wikipedia to enforce privacy and discretion of the ongoing court case, but strangely, does not seem to react to the news agencies which create the information which Wikipedia editors are summarizing. From a Wikipedia editor's perspective, the court's actions seem confused with regard to Wikipedia being a publication which relays information from other sources.

What is the alleged defamatory content?

The specific disputed content is uncertain, and Wikipedia editors have had no communication with Asian News International to clarify the situation; the guess is that the alleged defamation is this content from Asian News International:

Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that it has served as a mouthpiece for the incumbent government of India for decades, especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014.[1][2] ANI has been accused of amplifying a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government and anti-Pakistan propaganda.[3][4][5]

  1. ^ Donthi, Praveen (1 March 2019). "The Image Makers : How ANI Reports The Government's Version Of Truth". The Caravan. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  2. ^ Ahluwalia, Harveen; Srivilasan, Pranav (21 October 2018). "How ANI quietly built a monopoly". The Ken. Archived from the original on 16 January 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  3. ^ Hussain, Abid; Menon, Shruti (10 December 2020). "The dead professor and the vast pro-India disinformation campaign". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 November 2022. Retrieved 10 December 2020. The network was designed primarily to "discredit Pakistan internationally" and influence decision-making at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and European Parliament, EU DisinfoLab said.
  4. ^ Saeed, Saim; Kayali, Laura (9 December 2020). "New pro-India EU website enrolling MEPs campaigns against Pakistan". Politico. Archived from the original on 6 January 2021. Retrieved 9 December 2020.
  5. ^ Rej, Abhijnan (12 October 2020). "EU Non-Profit Unearths Massive Indian Disinformation Campaign". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 12 November 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2020.

Who is seeking Wikipedia editor information from the Wikimedia Foundation and why?

Asian News International is seeking the identities of three of the editors of the Wikipedia article "Asian News International". Presumably, their motive is to bring those editors to justice against the accusation of defamation, and to deter future defamation.

The Delhi High Court ordered the disclosure of those editors.

What kind of editor information is available through Wikipedia?

As a website, the Wikimedia Foundation necessarily gathers some user information. However, whereas typical major commercial websites gather as much user information as possible, Wikimedia sites seek to only gather information in advocacy of user rights. The Wikimedia Foundation describes the specifics at wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy and Requests for user data, but all values and ethics in Wikipedia come from the volunteer community of users, and not the Wikimedia Foundation itself.

What danger is there to editors for editing particular Wikipedia pages?

Editing Wikipedia is not supposed to be dangerous — but see, for example, List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has deleted the Wikipedia article for the court case. Right now probably is not the time to re-create that deleted article, but other than that, Wikipedia editors wish to encourage everyone to edit Wikipedia articles in useful ways. Perhaps anyone who feels intimidated by Asian News International should avoid editing about that organization.

How does contempt of court differ in India from other countries with English law tradition?

The Signpost invites anyone with legal insight to post in the comments section, or submit articles for publication in the next issue.

Does the Wikimedia Foundation currently have an office in India?

No. The government of India may have made, or may be considering, rules requiring media and technology platforms including Wikipedia to have a physical office and presence in India. The Signpost is uncertain if or how this applies.

Might the court or the country of India completely block all of Wikipedia?

Courts in India have said that they might block all of Wikipedia for the entire country if Wikipedia does not comply with certain requests. The court discussed blocking Wikipedia for this defamation case. Previously in 2020, another court discussed blocking Wikipedia related to maps in Wikipedia differing from India's official maps on the matter of the India–Pakistan border. Before that, there was a Wikipedia dispute related to the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

How are Wikipedia editors feeling about any of this?

Bad. They feel justified in using Wikipedia as a place where anyone can cite and summarize information from other sources. Also they want privacy and freedom from persecution for editors. On-wiki discussions about the case include the following:

Talk:Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation was a place to do fact-checking about this case, but was deleted by order of the Delhi High Court.

Has this case had any chilling effect?

Typically Wikipedia editors prefer to discuss things on-wiki, but in this case, there are editors having off-wiki discussions based on fear that posting on-site carries the risk of having one's identity revealed.

Some editors suggested that The Signpost not report on this, or seek permission or approval to publish from staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, or the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, or from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; while we share basic principles with the community and the Foundation, we are an independent newspaper. That independence is a strength of journalism, and not a flaw or error.

Two Wikipedia community-deleted versions of the article include

A global and multilingual community discussion on how to react to censorship is likely forthcoming. Thanks to the admins who deleted these articles to protect the safety of other editors. This is a big issue for broader conversation.

How much money does the Wikimedia Foundation gather from donations in India?

The Wikimedia Foundation announced the start of its fundraising campaign in India in 2020. Community outreach for the latest campaign is at meta:Fundraising/WMF India fundraising campaign.

How much money does the Wikimedia Foundation send to the editor community in India?

The 2023-24 report says that the Wikimedia Foundation sent US$398,000 in that year, which is about 3 crore rupees.

What do Wikimedia editors in India say about this case?

They say a few things. These are not quotations either.

One is that many individuals do not want global public attention speaking on controversial things. If The Signpost is mistaken and there are Indian people out there with opinions and perspectives that they want to voice about this case, then post to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions or contact us otherwise. To understand the avoidance of commenting, one must understand the public perception of courts and lawsuits in India.

Another common line of discussion is to change the subject to the broader context of the difficult relationship which the Wikipedia community in India has had with the Wikimedia Foundation and global Wikimedia community for more than 10 years. Common complaints include lack of representation in important Wikimedia community governance committees, lack of justice in access to Wikimania travel scholarships, and a persistent sense of not being heard in important movement decisions as a result of not having representation. Also, to a lesser degree, the community complains of lack of access to movement grant funding, but very much and truly wants much more legitimate representation and voice before having more Western money come into India. In general, people in India may not talk about this case without also raising the context of the difficult relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community in India.

What is the public perception of courts in India?

It is common knowledge that pendency of court cases in India is a major problem. Popular television shows like the comedic 2024 Maamla Legal Hai make court-related conversation fun for anyone, but the Indian film industry including Bollywood and beyond produces all sorts of dramatic, informational, and theatrical films as in Category:Indian courtroom films or Category:Indian legal drama films.

One common perception that people in India have is that court cases sometimes take a long time. Also, people involved in court cases must spend a lot of their time engaging in legal matters, as if it were a second profession which consumed all free time.

In general, many people in India will not seek to become involved in controversial issues which do not concern them, especially if that could mean that they may become a party to a court case which would last 3-5 years or possibly longer. To non-lawyers who watch Bollywood court films, the Asian News International case seems like one of the sort which could take years at its present level of court, years more in appeal, then more years to the Supreme Court of India. For anyone who does not want to be compelled to engage for years to come, it seems best to leave reactions to this case to others.

What is there to say about the relationship of Wikipedia editors in India to the broader Wikimedia community?

The article "Wikipedia in India" presents Wikipedians' view of this relationship, which anyone can edit by citing and summarizing reliable sources.

Many countries have a national Wikimedia movement affiliate community organization. India does not. It did, but Wikimedia India closed in 2019, with deep thanks from the Wikimedia Foundation CEO for all that editors in India do for the Wikimedia Movement, and a commitment that the Wikimedia Foundation would support the growth and development of community organization in the region. Since then other Affiliates based in South Asia have organized their own activities and make annual reports of what they have accomplished, and what they are planning.

While the easiest way to get reports and status updates is to look to such Wikimedia community organizations, these organizations do not represent the majority of Wikimedia editors in India. In India, just like everywhere else, most editors simply go on the computer and edit articles on Wikipedia, upload images to Wikimedia Commons, post texts to Wikisource, write definitions in Wiktionary, and add data to Wikidata. The majority of Wikimedians do not engage with formal community organizations or the Wikimedia Foundation at all. The usual experience is that people are happy to share knowledge online, and to socialize with other people almost exclusively for the purpose of collaborating on Wikimedia general reference knowledge development, rather than volunteer administration, organization, or outreach.

The reality of the relationship is challenging to identify among media messages, organizational annual reports, and online posts and Wikipedia edits related to building the encyclopedia. There is no journalism, student research, or reports of important community stories such as the community of editors in India submitting multiple candidates for representation to the 2024 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election, and getting none accepted. The problem is not just lack of representation here; the problem is the perceived lack of representation in all such leadership opportunities, repeatedly for a generation, and with no obviously changes or plans coming which could increase future representation.

While journalists may have difficulty finding people in India to interview about the Asian News International case, there is no shortage of interesting, positive Wikimedia projects which people in the region would like to share and profile. Also, there is no shortage of people in India who are willing to share interesting, positive perspectives on major challenges which people in the region face. There is significant exhaustion about the Western commentators — including me, here, the journalist for this article — continually asking questions and talking rather than explicitly presenting ways to bring increased representation and leadership opportunities for regional community growth immediately.

What is the most negative thing that Wikimedians in India have said about this case?

Some people have said that the Asian News International case is a matter of disrespect by the Wikimedia Foundation to India, Indian people, and the courts of India. The Signpost does not have journalistic or editorial capacity to know how common such beliefs are. It is possible to find such comments in discussions hosted in the Wikimedia platform.

A general idea among non-lawyer, Wikimedia editors who criticize is that the Wikimedia Foundation should eagerly and politely follow the law in India. It is fine to challenge ideas in court, but when the court requests something, the Wikimedia Foundation should respectfully reply. Bar and Bench, a legal newspaper, quoted Justice Navin Chawla as saying to the Wikimedia Foundation, "If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." Ideally for Wikimedia community editor interests, the Wikimedia Foundation could retain a public image of being well-liked in India by Wikimedia editors, the public, and the judiciary.

How can I ask questions about this case to the volunteer Wikipedia community of editors?

Wikipedia's community of editors invites anyone to discuss Wikipedia article content in appropriate discussion forums.

Anyone can start by posting in the comments section here in The Signpost. The Wikipedia community maintains a forum for discussing issues which overlap with the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), and that is a good place to discuss this.

How can I share journalism and perspectives on this case in The Signpost?

Please share submissions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions.

← Previous "In focus"
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
That linked story says per media reports, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry claimed in its notice that a small group exercises editorial control on Wikipedia’s pages which we saw repeated in several breaking stories the day we published. I dug into it a little bit and it seems possible that it all stems from an unnamed source reported by ANI, one of the parties to the case we're reporting on, which seems a little ... well, we're going to need corroboration before deciding what to write in the next issue. If anybody can find the supposed communication from Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, please let us know either here or through the confidential tips link at WP:POST/TIPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting. Thanks Bluerasberry for the insightful writeup. Do you have any sense of what kinds of things Indian editors would like to change in the movement strategy if they could? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with getting the views of Indian editors is that they are the targets of the Indian government and ANI and might be sued or worse if they live in India, so I'd suggest they not reply on-Wiki. I suppose Indians living outside India might respond, so long as they don't have property in India and don't expect to return to India for a long time. They may, of course, send their views to Signpost editors with our promise that we won't reveal names, usernames, etc. about them. IF they are comfortable that their emails can't be hacked, I'd suggest that, but that's a big IF. The final way that we could get genuine Indian opinion here is through the regular Indian press. There are a few commentators who have supported Wikipedia in this case and most of them are saying about what we're saying, with a better understanding of how the Indian legal system works. They also do a bit of "both siding" giving at least a pro forma statement of the government's side of the argument (which is pretty hard for us to do). Why can some in the Indian press give the Wikipedia side of the case? Well, they are more experienced in dealing with the government and know how far they can go. There's also a hint of an argument that I don't quite understand, that if a small newspaper libels somebody it doesn't matter because they won't be heard, but if a big information source like Wikipedia repeats what they say it's a much more serious matter. Hope that helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear - I understand the barriers for Indian editors when it comes to the current court case. I'm wondering more about the difficult relationship which the Wikipedia community in India has had with the Wikimedia Foundation and global Wikimedia community for more than 10 years. Common complaints include lack of representation in important Wikimedia community governance committees... and a persistent sense of not being heard in important movement decisions as a result of not having representation. I'm wondering how our overall movement strategy might be different if Indian representation over the past 10(!) years had been more substantial. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Clayoquot: for clarifying. You want to know about the big picture, mostly about governance. I'll divide that into 2 parts, 1) why Indians don't have a strong enough say in Wiki governance? and 2) what to do about it? (the more useful part)
  • I believe that India is the fifth largest source of Wikipedia readers, and that Wiki editors would be a smaller proportion than that suggests on ENwiki. It's easier to read a foreign language than write a foreign langue adequately. ENwiki has a disproportionate effect on governance simply because of its size. Thus a proportionate representation is not going to change things as much as Indians might want. That's compounded by our slow moving ways and emphasis on consensus.
  • What to do? Certainly more travel grants, support of local Indian groups and individual project will help, if the Indian government allows it. Bringing money into a country is more difficult than you might think, e.g. Russia and China. My suggestions might be considered a bit radical. Institutions like the BoT, a global council, Aff Com, should all have serious observer positions for under-represented groups. For example, the board might include 4 non-voting observers in the month-to-month business that they do (but that would be at most 2 Indians!). That will ensure that when Indians and other groups have the organization and voting power to put their representatives on the board, there will be somebody prepared to take advantage of it and be known to other groups. When there are non-observer elections that reserve positions for regional seats, e.g. in the 4C group, only regional voters should vote for the regional representatives. Finding a South Asian who represents South Asian views should not depend on what North American and Europeans think (as it is now). I do wonder how much time this will take to have an effect and also whether North Americans and Europeans will be offended by this "affirmative action." But ultimately training for top positions and money is what will work.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: you said Certainly more travel grants speaking from my involvement with Wikimania scholarships people from the region have been prioritised within the limited budgets, and make a significant percentage of the inital offers. In offer scholarship the limitation is not in the WMF or the Wikimania COT decisions it stems from the visa process which are outside our control, Singapore is one of the easiest places to get visas yet many were rejected, Europe is obviously harder for both events the WMF, COT, and a local affiliate all provide the necessary supporting documents, the WMF start providing bursaries for scholars to ensure everyone meets the "financial capacity" to look after themselves while at Wikimania. From my role on the 2021 COT restrictions on cash support directly into India, government requirements mean UG cant be directly funded all money must go through a third part with additional handling fees being paid. There are significant barriers but every effort is done to support the community financially if anything compared to other countries there is a bais towards the community. For the rest WP:BEANS.
There is no comparison between Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some other countries is that UN sanctions current prevent money flowing there, its actions by Indian Governments has caused it to erect its own barriers the Indian Government can change that any day they like.
As for the whole issue of this report, sadly knowingly how it will impact many fine people I'd rather Wikipedia be blocked than the identity of contributors be compromised. Gnangarra 07:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bunch of twits. Wikipedia should just let itself go dark in India if the HC can't get the stick out of its ass, setting a precedent that every article related to India can be torched by the fucking idiots in our government would make this whole site pointless. AryKun (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see few voices here from the region itself, so here's my "What I would like for Indian editing" from the movement -
The best thing any Indian community can get from the greater Wikimedia movement (and any similar free organisations) is direct engagement. The dozens of communities that exist are not well connected (and there are more that should exist but do not). Nearly all of them lack resources, with several not aware of what resources they lack.
Any engagement with outside organisations, or direct interactions with skilled veterans in the movement, is going to be a strict positive to the region going forward. The communities have plenty of competent contributors. What they require, above all, is an open ended mind to hear our concerns, and a forum to speak them.
Comments like Smallbones are certainly in the right direction imo. It sometimes is impossible to compete with a Global North contributor, simply because there's just a lot more chances for "committee experience", furthering chances for higher positions. Not to mention the benefits from exposure to different communities and conferences.
Fun story, last Wikimania, one editor unilaterally started helping other South Asian community members with polishing their scholarship applications; anecdotally, that improved the number of scholarships while also teaching editors. That is the kind of resources that the community could really use, more than just straight up money in my opinion.
Soni (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crucial info missing: I am not seeing this important issue: "on October 28, Wikimedia relented to the High Court’s demand that Wikipedia reveal identifying information of the online users involved in editing the ANI page" [Source https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html]. Seems like a major item to mention in this otherwise solid FAQ. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is correcting typos on Signpost articles allowed?

Double-checking if random Wiki editors A) can fix typos and B) do so post-publication. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's something we've been doing for 20 years. It would be better, of course, for more copy editors to show up before publication! But please don't make substantive edits, as in changing the meaning, these all have to be approved by the editor-in-chief. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content ANI has issues with

This article mentions the exact content ANI has issues with. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting quotes, as the link is paywalled.

ANI has objected to following descriptions on its Wikipedia page:

  • The news agency has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events"
  • Under a new management, ANI has been accused of practicing an aggressive model of journalism focused at maximum revenue output, where journalists were easily dispensable with. Multiple employees have accused ANI of not having any human resource management system and ill-treating their ex-employees."
  • In 2020, an investigation by EU DisinfoLab concluded that ANI had on multiple occasions published mostly anti-Pakistan and sometimes anti-China opinion pieces and news content, including opinion pieces falsely attributed to European politicians and other instances of disinformation, and that this material was known to have been sourced from a vast network of pro-India fake news websites run by a certain "Srivasta Group". The report noted that mainstream Indian news media regularly relies on content provided by ANI, and that ANI had on several occasions provided legitimacy and coverage to the entire "influence operation" run by the fake news network, which relied "more on ANI than on any other distribution channel" [to give it] "both credibility and a wide reach to its content". A primary aim of this fake news coverage was to "discredit Pakistan" in international forums. ANI is also believed to have played significant roles as allies of the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency; many of its videos depicted protests by fringe lobby groups and activists, on the aspects of human rights abuse in Pakistan."
  • ANI has been also accused of misreporting events, by checkers certified by the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). The Caravan came across several video footages from ANI, wherein logos of random television channels from Pakistan along with Urdu tickers were superimposed on news showcasing India in a positive light; their video editors have admitted to forging clips.
  • On 20 July 2023, ANI falsely blamed Muslims for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women during the 2023 Manipur violence.

ANI has said that these edits are false and misleading.

"This malicious conduct of the Defendants ex-facie establishes their ulterior motives of defaming Plaintiff by publishing false and misleading content against Plaintiff," it has argued

I posted this because this signpost issue appears to be doing a guesswork of what ANI finds defamatory. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/In_focus&oldid=1256234653"