The Signpost isn’t just another newsletter. It’s the only ongoing, editor-run newspaper dedicated entirely to the inner workings of Wikipedia. Since its launch in January 2005, it has documented the messy, human, and often dramatic stories behind the world’s largest encyclopedia. If you’ve ever wondered how a controversial edit made it onto a high-profile page, or why a top editor vanished overnight, The Signpost was there to report it.
How The Signpost Started - And Why It Still Matters
The Signpost was born out of frustration. In the early 2000s, Wikipedia’s editing community was growing fast, but communication was scattered. Disputes flared on talk pages. Blocks and bans happened without public explanation. New editors got lost. A small group of volunteers decided they needed a centralized place to track what was really going on - not just what Wikipedia said, but how it got there.
Unlike official Wikimedia press releases, The Signpost didn’t shy away from conflict. It reported on edit wars, policy changes, sockpuppet investigations, and even legal threats. It gave voice to editors who had no platform elsewhere. By 2010, it had become the go-to source for anyone trying to understand Wikipedia’s internal politics - from casual readers to academic researchers studying online collaboration.
Landmark Stories That Shook the Wikipedia World
One of the earliest major stories The Signpost broke was the Seigenthaler biography incident in 2005. A false entry claimed that journalist John Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. The article stayed live for over four months before being corrected. The Signpost covered the fallout, including the public apology from Wikipedia’s founder and the eventual policy changes that led to semi-protection for biographies of living people.
In 2013, the paper broke the story of the Wikimedia Foundation’s secret surveillance program, where staff had accessed private user data without proper oversight. The Signpost didn’t just report it - it published internal emails and policy documents. The resulting outcry forced the Foundation to overhaul its privacy guidelines and appoint an independent ombudsperson.
Then came the 2017 “Arbitration Committee purge”. A wave of resignations from the Arbitration Committee - Wikipedia’s highest dispute-resolution body - sent shockwaves through the community. The Signpost interviewed outgoing members, analyzed voting patterns, and revealed that burnout, harassment, and lack of institutional support were driving experienced editors away. The article sparked a year-long debate on how to make volunteer governance sustainable.
How The Signpost Reports - And Who Writes It
Every issue is written and edited entirely by volunteers. There’s no paid staff. Contributors are active Wikipedia editors who write during their free time. They don’t just summarize events - they dig into edit histories, analyze talk page threads, and interview sources anonymously when needed.
Stories are vetted through a public draft process. Anyone can comment on a proposed article before it’s published. This transparency is part of the paper’s credibility. If a claim is made - say, that a user was banned for coordinated editing - the article must link to the evidence: archive links, diff URLs, and policy references.
Unlike mainstream media, The Signpost doesn’t chase clicks. It doesn’t sensationalize. It reports facts, context, and consequences. That’s why university libraries, journalism schools, and digital humanities researchers cite it as a primary source on online community dynamics.
The Decline of Community Journalism on Wikipedia
But The Signpost’s influence has waned. In 2010, it had over 20 regular contributors. By 2024, that number had dropped to fewer than five. The reasons are clear: Wikipedia’s editor base has shrunk by nearly 40% since its peak in 2007. Fewer people are editing. Fewer people are paying attention to policy debates. The community that once fueled The Signpost has aged, burned out, or left entirely.
Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Foundation has shifted focus to mobile apps, AI tools, and global outreach - not internal governance. The Signpost’s stories about moderation disputes, fundraising controversies, and editorial bias now feel like relics from a more active era.
And yet, the paper still publishes. Every week. Without funding. Without institutional backing. Because someone still believes the story of Wikipedia isn’t just in its articles - it’s in how they’re made.
What The Signpost Archive Teaches Us About Online Communities
Browsing The Signpost’s archive is like watching a live experiment in digital democracy. You see how norms form - and how they break. You see how power shifts from informal leaders to centralized authority. You see how the same issues recur: anonymity vs accountability, consensus vs control, openness vs safety.
One recurring theme? The tension between growth and sustainability. Every major policy change - from blocking tools to article creation restrictions - was introduced to make Wikipedia easier for new users. But each change also made it harder for long-term editors to keep up. The Signpost documented this cycle repeatedly.
Another lesson? Trust is fragile. When editors felt their work was ignored or punished unfairly, they left. The Signpost didn’t just report those departures - it gave them names, reasons, and context. That accountability kept the Foundation honest, at least for a while.
Why You Should Still Read The Signpost Today
Even with fewer readers, The Signpost remains essential. It’s the only place that tracks how Wikipedia’s rules evolve in real time. Want to know why a page was locked? Check The Signpost. Wondering why a popular editor was banned? It’s probably covered there. Looking for evidence of bias in how topics are handled? The archive has decades of examples.
It’s not a news site for casual readers. It’s a tool for anyone who cares about how knowledge is built - and who gets to decide what counts as true. If you’ve ever edited Wikipedia, even once, you owe it to yourself to read a few issues. Not because it’s entertaining. But because it’s honest.
Where to Find The Signpost Archive
The full archive is free and publicly accessible at Wikipedia:The Signpost. All issues from 2005 to today are archived with full metadata, author credits, and links to source material. You can search by topic, date, or author. The site doesn’t look fancy - it’s built on MediaWiki, just like Wikipedia. But that’s part of its charm. It hasn’t changed because it doesn’t need to.
For researchers, the archive is a goldmine. Over 1,800 issues contain detailed records of Wikipedia’s governance, conflicts, and cultural shifts. Academic papers on online collaboration often cite The Signpost as their primary source of primary data.
Is The Signpost still active in 2026?
Yes. As of January 2026, The Signpost continues to publish weekly, though with a smaller team. It still covers major disputes, policy changes, and community events on Wikipedia. Its content remains entirely volunteer-run and unpaid.
Can anyone write for The Signpost?
Yes. Any registered Wikipedia editor can propose an article idea or submit a draft. All submissions go through a public review process on the paper’s talk page. Contributors don’t need to be experts - just thorough, fair, and willing to cite sources.
Is The Signpost affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation?
No. The Signpost is an independent, community-run publication. While it’s hosted on Wikipedia’s servers and uses the same software, it has no editorial or financial ties to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation does not fund, approve, or edit its content.
Why doesn’t The Signpost have more readers?
Most Wikipedia readers don’t care about how articles are made - they just want the information. The Signpost’s audience is small because it’s written for editors, not consumers. Its readers are people who care about the rules, the debates, and the people behind the edits. That’s a niche group, but a vital one.
Has The Signpost ever been wrong?
Yes. Like any community-run publication, it has made mistakes - misidentified users, misinterpreted policies, or published incomplete reports. But it always corrects them publicly. Corrections are appended to articles with timestamps and explanations. That transparency is part of why it’s trusted.
What Comes Next for The Signpost?
The future is uncertain. Fewer new editors mean fewer potential contributors. The tools for tracking edits have become more complex. The rise of AI-generated content has introduced new challenges - and new stories - that The Signpost is only beginning to explore.
But if Wikipedia is to survive as a community-driven project, someone needs to keep telling its story. The Signpost may be small. It may be quiet. But for over two decades, it’s been the only record of what really happens when thousands of strangers try to build the world’s most trusted encyclopedia - together.
