Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Guidelines

Please comment on submissions below: share ideas about how to improve pieces that catch your interest, make suggestions as to whether a given piece is ready for publication, or pitch ideas for future pieces. Note that news submissions should be kept relatively neutral. We ask that comments be kept constructive; if you are unclear on any of the process or have questions related thereto, feel free to use the talkpage. Generally speaking special reports are less factional than op-eds are, so are not subject to quite as much approval.

The criteria for publishing opinion pieces are quality of argument, originality, and relevance to the community, as judged by The Signpost. Similar to newspaper op-eds, opinion pieces should be accompanied by an extended byline (suggestion: one to three sentences), that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader. The purpose of publishing opinion pieces is to provoke thought and discussion in a productive rather than antagonistic fashion, and so submissions should be well-researched and not factually misleading or unnecessarily inflammatory. A related set of submissions that address the same issue but from editors' different perspectives are especially encouraged.

Unlike the weekly news reporting focus of the standard Signpost articles, and the investigative and evaluative focus of its special reports, opinion pieces are primarily editorial in tone. As The Signpost does not have a house point-of-view or political agenda, it does not endorse the perspectives of opinion pieces, which express only the views of their authors.

Formatting

To easily set up a new page with Signpost formatting, create the page with {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} as the only content in the edit window, and save the page. For more advanced formatting, see the style guide and style cheatsheet.

Alternatively, you can just focus on the writing, and Signpost editors can help with formatting later.

Current submissions

{{close}}

Commentary on the 2019 WMF Board of Trustees election

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
@Smallbones: If a few people ask for this then I think a few people would contribute to writing that story. It could be a full story on a complicated issue which recurs in every wiki election. Also, I think that the Wikimedia practice will set the norm for what other online communities adopt in their elections. A few more sentences could be possible in this article, maybe, but the full story has lots of voices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{close}}

How Wikipedia promoted alternative Holocaust history for 15 years

Status:
V ?
On hold
  • As noted at
    WP:GAME (related to trying to raise sympathy and/or preparing for an early topic ban appeal citing 'a prominent hoax hunting efforts written up in a Singpost'). Anyway, this is one hand a commendable effort cleaning up an article, reasonably well described, but on another, in all honesty, this is bread and butter for many editors, particularly ones who have written/rewritten multiple articles at GA to FA level. Still, given that Singpost, like Wiki, is not paper, we have room to publish such stuff, so it's not much of an issue to discuss such routine wiki adventures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    1. I've made changes per your comments.
    2. I've notified SQL;[1] I'll notify one of the Arbs as well. Having taken over the article a week ago and posted it myself, there shouldn't be any reason to sanction anyone.
    3. The fact that it is bread and butter for many editors is exactly why this should be published. Also, recall this piece, which touched on a similar subject. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. My only remaining concern is whether it is correct to use the word hoax (I believe it is not the right one here). I have no other comments/concerns about this piece (I just hope it won't get anyone banned for a topic ban violation/gaming; hopefully an ArbCom member will reply to ensure nobody is getting into any trouble...). PS. I don't have much experience in reviewing content for Signpost, so please don't consider this 'properly reviewed'. I just offered my two cents :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        1. As I wrote in the TP linked above, I think it's a lacuna in Policy. As long as no specific accusations are made against editors (intent being one of the core differences between application of HOAX and FRINGE), I don't think there should be a problem using the term in this case. But I'd like to hear from more editors.
        2. I've notified Opabinia regalis.
        3. Your input is much appreciated. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          1. All my concerns are addressed. Hope this gets published, it's always nice to tell a story about fixing errors and such. PS. I'd suggest changing 'describes a conspiracy theory ' to 'describes a
            fringe theory', as I don't think we have any source that actually calls this a conspiracy? (We also have to ask: a conspiracy by whom, against whom)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            1. The term is from Davies.[2] François Robere (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with with Piotrus, this doesn't seem to be a hoax.Also this seems to have been written in 99% by user Icewhiz who is now banned from editing or commenting on Holocaust in Poland.It would seem very controversial to stand in for him to allow him continuing to circumvent the ban in my view.I note it also tries to push forward some Icewhizism such as presenting frnge view about "Polocaust" as some main motivation behind the flawed estimates.It also omits to mention, that indeed there were 10,000 murdered Poles on the site of the camp,not 200,000. Current version implies the whole informationof Poles being murdered there is wrong.In short, it is very exaggerated and gives undue weight to minority views, while omitting some important information--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we don't use the word "hoax" anymore, so that shouldn't be an issue.
  • Par. 3: What do reputable sources say? [That] this was a medium-sized camp, with 8,000-9,000 inmates and (by the end of the war) some 4,000-5,000 fatalities... Sources mention a series of death marches, starting in July 1944... François Robere (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the comments - they've really helped. There are a lot of pros and cons here.
    • Pros - it's a good article, the issues raised are important and in the limited time I've had to check the facts, they all seem to line up. Ordinarily, that would be enough to publish, with a bit more fact-checking.
    • Cons - I don't want "Signpost-washing" to become a thing like Flickr-washing. The interaction of this with the case at Arbcom doesn't work for me very well. So the question I'm asking myself is "Would I block Icewhiz and/or François Robere for publishing this if I were Arbcom?" I'm leaning toward "yes", but am still thinking about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worst case, I'd suggest shelving this for a year (or until related topic bans are lifted), at which point any potential COI/inter-POV issues will no longer be relevant. In the end, Signpost will be here in a year, and this type of story doesn't really age. PS. One more thought, 'promoted' in the title is rather misleading. We didn't promote anything, we just had incorrect information in it, which, unfortunately happens a lot. When this incorrect information was removed nobody objected. "Promoted" suggests some kind of concerted effort and/or pushing the information on to the main page or something which wasn't the case, outside of one or two fringe-theory pushing editors sneaking a minor fact into a couple of articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great idea - this will be "on hold" until I'm sure that nobody will be blocked or otherwise punished for printing it. At which point we'll start anew, with the understanding that it certainly appears to be a very good article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly disagree. The story isn't about some "old event" that will be just as dusted in a year as it is now - it's about an ongoing problem with fact checking of major historical events. It is important that the community is made aware to the degree to which the editorial process has failed, that something like this - highly notable, easily verifiable, and 95% wrong - managed to spread to Wikipedias in 12 languages. What else is out there that we haven't caught?
          • ArbCom is aware of the article AFAIK (I messaged both an Arb and a clerk), and hasn't objected. There's no reason to shelf this, and it's too important to drop. Let the community know now, so it can move ahead with fixing whatever went wrong as soon as possible. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Smallbones, Francios Robere is not under any editing restrictions as far as I can tell. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCA?--Shrike (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Today on Haaretz:

For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw were presented as fact. Haaretz reveals they are just the tip of an iceberg of a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists.

— Benjakob, Omer (2019-10-03). "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia's Longest Hoax, Exposed". Haaretz. Retrieved 2019-10-03.

François Robere (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC) {{close}}[reply]

News Proposals

News stories present facts and analysis. We intend "news" in a broad sense (as distinct from opinion pieces); submissions may be for any of The Signpost's regular sections, as well as "special reports". These can cover a diverse range of topics, such as project history or statistical reports, and may have an investigative or evaluative focus. Simple narratives of interesting events, whether online or in person, that offer our readers an informative or entertaining glimpse into the Wikipedia or Wikimedia world, are also welcome.


Opinion Proposals

Position pieces, calls to arms, perspectives from other projects, debates and essays addressing important issues facing the English Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia community. Have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? An essay you'd like to publish? Bring it to us and let us help you make it known. Book reviews are also welcome, for new books that explore topics of relevance to the Wikipedia community.


Give a suggestion instead

If you don't want to write a story yourself, you can just give The Signpost a suggestion or tip (but publication will be subject to staffing constraints, in addition to suitability).


Email a private tip to the EiC

Guidelines

Please comment on submissions below: share ideas about how to improve pieces that catch your interest, make suggestions as to whether a given piece is ready for publication, or pitch ideas for future pieces. Note that news submissions should be kept relatively neutral. We ask that comments be kept constructive; if you are unclear on any of the process or have questions related thereto, feel free to use the talkpage. Generally speaking special reports are less factional than op-eds are, so are not subject to quite as much approval.

The criteria for publishing opinion pieces are quality of argument, originality, and relevance to the community, as judged by The Signpost. Similar to newspaper op-eds, opinion pieces should be accompanied by an extended byline (suggestion: one to three sentences), that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader. The purpose of publishing opinion pieces is to provoke thought and discussion in a productive rather than antagonistic fashion, and so submissions should be well-researched and not factually misleading or unnecessarily inflammatory. A related set of submissions that address the same issue but from editors' different perspectives are especially encouraged.

Unlike the weekly news reporting focus of the standard Signpost articles, and the investigative and evaluative focus of its special reports, opinion pieces are primarily editorial in tone. As The Signpost does not have a house point-of-view or political agenda, it does not endorse the perspectives of opinion pieces, which express only the views of their authors.

Formatting

To easily set up a new page with Signpost formatting, create the page with {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} as the only content in the edit window, and save the page. For more advanced formatting, see the style guide and style cheatsheet.

Alternatively, you can just focus on the writing, and Signpost editors can help with formatting later.

TITLE:4 years in the trenches at Wikimedia UK Communications

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Accepted

A newbie reflects

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Accepted
  • Submission: User:Gog the Mild/sandbox5
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: Gog the Mild
  • Discussion:
    This piece is a reflective essay I wrote to contemplate my first 13 months or so of being active on Wikipedia. That was 13 months ago and it occurs to me that it may be of some general interest. It fails to clearly highlight any problems, offer any opinions or generalise from the specific, so feel entirely free to toss it back. Withershins, if you would like it expanding and/or focusing in any direction, feel free to point me that way. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lindberg Affair

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
@Indy beetle: I made room for feedback and asked for a summary at User:Indy_beetle/sandbox#Feedback. Thanks for submitting.
For any other reviewers - I would really appreciate other comments on this story. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn -Indy beetle (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Accepted

Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Approved
  • Submission: User:Ɱ/sandbox5
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: Ɱ
  • Discussion:
    Hi, as recommended by others, I wanted to feature a recent project, enabled by the stay-at-home order in Ohio and me being furloughed as a result. It's mostly a mapping project highlighting some collaboration with this project and OpenStreetMap editors, something apparently uncommon. Please let me know what you think, --ɱ (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA backlog drive

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Approved
  • Submission:
    User:Eddie891/Signpost draft
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: Eddie891
  • Discussion:
    Coverage of the GA backlog drive and hopeful proposals for revitalization... needs a bit of work-- will be put in this weekend with any luck. All comments would be appreciated. Possible 'in focus' or something else Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interim Case Review Committee

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Needs review
  • Submission: User:Nosebagbear/Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee
  • Column: News
  • Author: Nosebagbear
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the WMF announcing the creation of the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee, designed to allow review of certain (not all) cases decided by the WMF (appeal by either the accused or the accuser (in cases where the WMF chooses not to act)). It will be based mostly off the proposed charter, application process, and (probably most interestingly) Maggie's (general counsel of the WMF) specific answers to questions. There were some interesting facets such as the unprecedented focus on secrecy. I am inclined to do it as a straight news piece, with any op-ed to follow, but welcome to thoughts on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: - hi there, done an initial stab over the content. I have a couple of requests for comment pending, but can add them in tomorrow if they come in. We're likely to get some additional detail (like the contract they sign) in the next week or two, but no idea if there's anything interesting in that on top of the updates they made two weeks ago. Alas, not really any pictures unless you'd like me to add one in of Maggie Dennis, which wouldn't seem to add much to the article. Nosebagbear (talk)

Notability and significant coverage

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Cancelled
  • Submission: User:Z1720/Signpost draft
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: Z1720
  • Discussion:
    This piece is describing flaws in the AfD system where articles that might be notable are deleted because of a lack of sources. The piece proposes to instead move articles without references that might be notable to a draft space that can be easily accessed and improved. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)    [reply]

I have decided to withdraw this submission. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Espernaza

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

Contributing to complicated discussions

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Contributing to complicated discussions
  • Column: Essay
  • Author: Sdkb
  • Discussion:
    I'm not sure how I never noticed the submissions page before... Anyways, this essay explores options for when one comes across a complicated discussion, something that pretty much all experienced Wikipedians have encountered at some point or another. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Build content to endure

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: WP:Build content to endure
  • Column: Essay
  • Author: Sdkb
  • Discussion:
    This essay lists steps everyone can take to ensure that content they write will not degrade or become outdated over time. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Call for Feedback community seats is a distraction

{{close}}

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission:
    User:Ad Huikeshoven/Signpost draft
  • Column: Opinion
  • Author: Ad Huikeshoven
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the current Call for Feedback community seats. How do you feel about freely and openly electing community representatives to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Huikeshoven: Well dang. I was myself writing up something on that topic (IGC, GC, Board events, call for feedback, and representation), though going with a rather different direction and focus. (Still unfinished.) Hm. Is publishing two opinion pieces at the same time with similar focuses an option? (Might not end up relevant, as I don't even know if I'd be able to get it finished in time for publication. (I also don't know when publication is going to be.)) --Yair rand (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, publication is scheduled for this Sunday. Definitely not enough time. Eh, maybe in a later issue, if it's still relevant. Ad, I don't know if there's any time for some last-minute edits to your piece (Smallbones has already started copyediting, so maybe not), but something you may want to take into account is that most Signpost readers do not (I think) really know what the Global Council is. (It has never been mentioned before in the Signpost) So maybe adding a bit of explanation would help, if that's an option. --Yair rand (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Create a draft

To create a draft of an article in your userspace, click the below button. This will preload a form, which you can use to create a draft article. It is best to save the pre-loaded draft without making any edits to the pre-loaded form first. If you lose the page you can find it at Special:Mypage/Signpost draft.


Signpost Stats 2020

Status:
V ?
Needs review
  • Submission: — Article draft
  • Column: Special Report
  • Author: DiplomatTesterMan
  • Discussion:
    This is a continuation of the 2018 and 2019 reports.
    talk) 03:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks. I really look forward to this - it's something we owe to our readers as well as to ourselves. I'll assume it'll be ready for the February issue, but please ping me if it'll be ready for January. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I have something presentable I will link it here and get (your) input/s. I will be busy for two days, after that I can devote ample time to it and then it will be easier to judge the completion date.
talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 12:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This will be ready for the February issue.
talk) 04:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Please review. Thank you.
talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Status:
V ?
Accepted

A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Status:
V ?
Accepted

SlimVirgin obituary

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Status:
V ?
Published

WikiProject Interview

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Awesome work

User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Obituary for Twofingered Typist

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Status:
V ?
Published
Published
talk) 00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Suez Canal problem is fixed

Status:
V ?
Rejected
{{
talk) 18:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The Death of Idriss Déby

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
Again, I don't get the connection to Wikipedia. I think what you may be looking for is Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where you nominate an article based on recent news, and the if it is approved you write a one paragraph intro. Thanks for thinking of us though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{
talk) 18:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability: Mailboxes

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Notability (mailboxes)
  • Column: Humor (I hope)
  • Authors: Sdkb
  • Discussion: Might require a little adaptation, and wouldn't be able to capture all the jokes from its original format, but still wanted to offer it up if you're looking for humor submissions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_4&oldid=1165737130"