Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17

@

@Adam Cuerden: Regarding the RFC - you seem surprised that there are some ill-informed jerks on Wikipedia. You obviously haven't been reading enough of The Signpost lately. IMHO if you're not taking some lumps at an RfC occasionally, you're not trying hard enough! As far as Featured content, I'd appreciate you doing as much as you can. I'll probably have an hour to tidy it up if you have to leave it in an unfinished state. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Wouldn't it be helpful to note, that members of three arbcoms signed "on behalf" (dewiki) or "for" (enwiki, plwiki) their arbcoms? Habitator terrae (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Habitator terrae: It strikes me as a technical distinction that is not supported by the meta page. The current wording is correct and supported. I'll check before publication to see if it is still correct and supported. If the chair of deArbCom wants to email me saying they think the distinction is important. I'd likely go with a very short addition, but I'd rather keep the focus on the words of the open letter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It is only confusing, because the letter says, that it's an "open letter from arbitrators and arbitration committees" and the wording for the enwiki-arbcom was explicitly changed. --Habitator terrae (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712, HaeB, and Bri: and all copy editors. I expect to be ready at 4:30 NY time (20:30 UTC) Any help with copy editing would help!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I just tested out the script in dry mode - is there a specific order that you want the articles to go in? Or is the default fine? DannyS712 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'll put them in a reasonable order, but usually it is no big deal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Make sure to get the right version of From the editor/From the editors, both drafts exist ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: Good point. We only want to publish "From the editor", not "From the editors", right? DannyS712 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's right. I've moved the other one to User:Smallbones/From the editors draft to prevent accidental publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes - *only* "From the editor" (singular). @Bri: Could you check the fist funky photo in "In the media" and maybe some CE? I think I've done about my limit for the time being and will just do finshing up stuff a wait for @HaeB: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: The publishing script also found Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery/photographers - I'm assuming that shouldn't be published, but if it could be moved to a different title it won't show up in the script (and also won't show up for future publishing in subsequent months, ensuring it isn't accidentally forgotten and published) DannyS712 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen it before, just don't publish it or Featured content. About 20 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: No featured content? Got it DannyS712 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you removed "Bodies of Chinese massacred by Japanese troops along a river in Nanjing"; do you want to keep it that way? I guess so since publishing maybe just started. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hands off the keyboards, we're publishing

@DannyS712: Let's publish. I'm back in 5 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Huh? Should I publish in 5 minutes, or now? DannyS712 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones:  Done - noticed Special:Diff/1014739788 - there is a paragraph removed that might have been meant to remain? DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Which article? @DannyS712: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this convo in time, there was a small edit conflict at Arbitration report. Smallbones you might want to review my final edits ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Gotta stop sometime. BTW. thanks Bri and DannyS. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

All: You can use the link above to monitor feedback on the March 28 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews

• January 31, 2021 issue 7 articles 6 articles 1st day 1,823; 2nd day 4,601; 3rd day 4,745; 5th day 7,178; 7th day 8,090; 14th day 9,559;
• February 28, 2021 9 articles: 1st day 1,014. 2nd day 3,513; 7th day 6,126; 14th day 7,513; 21st day 8,437
• March 28, 2021 5 articles 6 articles. 2nd day 4,296; 4th day 6,182; 7th day 7,497; 14th day 8,995; 21st day 9,966; 28th day 11,420.
• April 25, 2021 issue - (9 articles): 2nd day 4,241;

Thanks to all including @DannyS712, HaeB, Bri, and Igordebraga:

Lookks good to me, we'll see what the readers say Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation first time publishes budget allocation to community projects

• meta:Grantmaking/Reports/2019-2020

I think this is unprecedented disclosure and transparency. Many people probably believe that these numbers have always been available, but they have not. The following "grants spending analysis" previously existed, but the Wikimedia Foundation has made almost no attempt to seek community comment on this as there is no discussion page, almost no community editing, and only 8 inbound links from meta right now.

• meta:Community Resources/Grants spending analysis

The news here is that this is a first accounting by the Wikimedia Foundation of funding to the Wikimedia community. The significance is that this opens a pathway for open community conversation about the percentage of Wikimedia Movement revenue which goes to community versus foundation, and also for setting strategic priorities for funding within the Wikimedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations/Report/January <--- comments welcome here
• meta:Movement Charter <--- to define a community process for creating this

The Wikimedia Foundation is in the process of a lot of major changes including its internal governance, its relationship to the Wikimedia community, its view of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy and Implementation, and a flood of new high impact relationships with external organizations.

From the Movement Strategy and before there has always been talk of the Wikimedia Community developing a Wikimedia Constitution, or Wikimedia Movement Charter, or some fundamental document broadly defining roles, ethics, and values.

My view of the conversations between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Community these days is that they are tense because the WMF has paid advocates soliciting community support for about 10 high profile projects, including Movement Strategy, rebranding, grant making, the commercial sale of the API, global outreach, Code of Conduct, ending of community elections for board of trustees, and various other major spending initiatives which have unprecedented high dollar amounts. The conversation burden is beyond what the community can carry, so documentation is more complicated than in the past.

A big community initiative among all these is the so called meta:Movement Charter. I know there is not much documentation around, but I think there is broad awareness that this drafting is coming, and that the community expects to write in its values and ethics into this high level governance document. Lots of people have ideas for what the charter should be and how it could be developed. Just now I think we have someone putting a first actionable proposal on the table, which is at meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations/Report/January. I do not think anyone necessarily needs to make a big deal of this proposal, unless it actually develops into a plan for making the charter in which case then it would be a very big deal. I wanted to signal some charter awareness here. I would say that the ~1000 volunteer wiki community people who are highly active in Wikimedia Affiliate organizations and Wikimedia governance all have awareness of this and have formed opinions about aspects of it.

It really would take a journalist to come to terms with the breadth of the conversation, of which much is off-wiki and has happened over the years at in-person meetings of all kinds in many countries. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• meta:Community open letter on renaming
• Wikipedia:Times that 1000 or more Wikipedians supported something

The WMF gave US$5 million to design firm Snohetta to execute a process for renaming the "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia" or similar. It was unprecedented for Wikimedia community volunteers to try to have conversation on equal standing with people paid to guide community discussions with the goal of arriving at the Wikimedia Foundation's predefined political and ethical position on Wikimedia Movement governance.

Previously in The Signpost

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Community view
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Interview

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• meta:Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees

Concerns that I see are

• lack of meaningful community conversation
• lack of evidence that WMF has awareness of issues
• WMF asserting new powers, then applying powers without understanding consequences
• disruption of sensible local community moderation processes by applying global rules where they are not applicable

Anyone else can read other details into this.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding creating articles for rugby players: I understand the point being made regarding players from other nations, though personally I would prefer it be made in an editorial section rather than a news section. Nonetheless, I suggest that perhaps it could be made in a non-"what about" manner. I think initiatives with narrower scopes are also laudable, and ought to be encouraged. isaacl (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two four submissions pending review: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. A new one was added yesterday, total unreviewed now is one. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: The adapted content starts with Community is a broad term. In the case in which I refer to it—I refer to is as the constantly growing and evolving and diversification of the global Wikimedia community. I know this is taken from the source material, but I can't make sense of the second sentence. Do you think the phrase after the dash is supposed to be "I refer to it"? It's still a bit awkward, as it seems to be saying the author uses "community" to refer to the constant growth, etc., of the community, which doesn't quite fit the use of term in the rest of the piece. My suggestion would be to open with something like The global Wikimedia community is broad—constantly growing, evolving, and diversifying. But I don't know how closely you want to hew to the original. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies: I stopped reading when I couldn't understand the second sentence, so I didn't notice that the essay still has the sentence For PyCon 2013 I was asked by no less than four different sponsors if I had a Code of Conduct / Anti-harassment guide in place. from the original. I thought the original essay was being repurposed to present the point of view of the author in the byline, as evidenced by the change I quoted that used "I" and "Wikimedia community". But with the sentence about PyCon 2013, it seems to imply the byline author is the original author. If this is not the case, the shifting of perspective in the article is confusing. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Seeing Smallbones' appeal for users to join the Signpost, as he will be resigning as EiC, I'm here to offer my help. I'd be able to regularly provide copy-editing, and perhaps could also write regularly under the direction of the new EiC, whoever they may be. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't been on this page for awhile, but we shout be ready to go Sunday 16:00 UTC. @HaeB and Bri:.

@Igordebraga: is there another week for Traffic report?

This one will be done before the publishing time, I'll add it. igordebraga ≠ 17:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There should be about 9 articles. The opinion piece may be cancelled. @Isaacl and Megalibrarygirl: I'll try to get most of the articles ready for copy editing in about 4 hours.

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything seems to be coming together, though a bit behind schedule. Copy editing will help, e,g, the Opinion and Op-ED articles. I'd appreciate everybody taking a look at "From the editor". It's not really a resignation, but some people may be surprised by it. Please copyedit the main (top) section. You can add material in the bottom section if you'd like. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Still working on "Recent research", but it should be publishable by that time. By the way, I guess you meant 4pm Eastern Daylight Time, so I have fixed the deadline template accordingly (20:00 UTC instead of 21:00 UTC). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Now I see the daylght! @DannyS712: Will everybody be set to publish in about 3 hours? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm awake and will be ready to publish. Will check back - my understanding is scheduled publication time of 20:00 UTC, and for story order have from the editor go first? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: you got it. For the story order, I'd just go straight down the Newsroom order. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and HaeB: Just waiting on HaeB. I'll be back in 5 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll be ready once recent research is approved --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

break

@DannyS712 and HaeB: All ready to Publish. Let's go! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones:  sending... DannyS712 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

MassMessage failure

@Smallbones: So I ran the script, and there is a clear log entry of me sending the mass message, but the mass message bot isn't making edits to deliver it either here or on meta - and trying to resend it manually would be a pain to get the mass message content formatted right. Hopefully its just some lag? DannyS712 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: MassMessage appears to be broken, tried again with a test message, filed phab:T281072. Is there anything you'd like me to do? DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking... When was the last time you used the mass message sender? Last month? Might you need to get a permission renewed? Who to contact over there? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost 2024-04-25 Volume 20, Issue 6 In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

:@DannyS712, Bri, HaeB, and Evad37: don't know about the mass message sender. The pages themselves are fine, including the Single-page edition. This box works, but the usual talkpage message - e.g on Jimbos talk is not there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: do you know what to do if the mass messenger doesn't work? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: do you know what to do if the mass messenger doesn't work? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

OK @DannyS712 and David Gerard: I officially have no idea what's happening. I just pinged David G as my last random thought of desparation. Time to be cool now. MassMessage won't be down forever and the edition will be delivered sooner or later.

I'll wait and check back here every 10-15 minutes until somebody who knows something sees their ping and offers to help. Can you think of anything better to do? Thanks for your help today .

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the MassMessage log on Meta-wiki, it appears that a different message sent out right afterwards (by Romaine) was not delivered either, which may indicate that it's not a problem with the format of the messages per se. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to send out the mass message using the manual process - Evad37 [talk] 02:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sent on enwiki, log, example - Evad37 [talk] 02:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold on, it does appear to have already been delivered through meta example... - Evad37 [talk] 02:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

And also on enwiki? that now-struck example above was actually posted by Danny via the script. - Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The original message sent via script was posted to at least at least 500 pages. So it appears that the mass message was actually delivered, just late... so now people will be getting a second massage from me. Sorry. - Evad37 [talk] 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the message I sent doesn't fail, but is just delayed by some hours - Evad37 [talk] 04:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I just received it for a third time. Please try to skip those who have already received it if possible. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: The third copy is likely a software bug phab:T270873. It seems you were just unlucky to get duplicates from both human error and software errors. - Evad37 [talk] 12:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Pings for @Smallbones and DannyS712: - Evad37 [talk] 02:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Evad37: It looks like the MassMessage just delayed for no fault of ours and then worked just before I fell asleep. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I saw Smallbones' request for writers in the latest issue and thought I would offer my services. I'd be interested in doing some humble reporting on arbitration or discussions, but I'm not sure how to get started. Thanks! —Wingedserif (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also interested in contributing to the arbitration beat, though I am wondering what the time commitment would be and what the expectations are. Is there a central place where I can review these sorts of expectations/how contributing works? —

on the Disinformation report, Trump Organization report. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost has a history of sometimes re-assigning articles which are in the voice of the newspaper into the voice of some wiki editors who may or may not be all identified. Wikipedia has regularly been the target of political influence by actors from many countries. There have been accusations of this from nearly every country, and many of those accusations have proven to be correct. Regardless of the correctness in this case, the wiki community has an interest in uplifting concerns for public review. Even if anyone re-assesses that this article has not been through the height of Signpost fact-checking, at a glance the report seems to me to be of the quality that passes as a community report which The Signpost could publish.

I am disinterested in the politics one way or the other just because so many of these reports come in about so many political figures. This report seems like a matter of public interest because it presents the kind of info that wiki editors have to deal with routinely from many countries.

I oppose a retraction or censoring. I could support a re-assignment of this from "definite fact reporting from The Signpost" to "credible story from the community worth reporting in The Signpost". Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since another template has blanked the link to the deletion discussion here it is: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report. On a personal note I don't think I can contribute anymore to The Signpost with this kind of continual threat of censorship hanging over our heads. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: There are lots of reasons to take a break and if you need one then you take one.

The discussion is still ongoing but I think what has come from this is a healthy interest in Wikimedia community discussion about free press and its potential limits. My interpretation of the discussion so far is that the Wikipedia community may have limits on press, but those limits will set to nearly maximize the freedom for the press. Perhaps we could have a story about free press in The Signpost. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Signpost Editors and contributors,

We are writing to you to remind you that the

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Some changes to the Turkish War of Independence article on enwiki have stirred up outrage in the Turkish nationalist media. Pinging Smallbones who wrote the last In the media section. This has gotten written up in Yeniçağ[1], İnternet Haber[2], Haber İskelesi[3], Aydınlık[4] You can get the gist of them using Google Translate. On Turkish social media[5] the article talk page, it's stated that screenshots of the offending content were sent to BTK, the organization responsible for Block of Wikipedia in Turkey [6] (t · c) buidhe 20:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks. This could be quite difficult of course. A lot to sort thru. They seem to think you are the bete noire of the piece, so I may get back to you to see if you'd like to add an Op-ed. We'll see what happens. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, thanks! I'll add a summary of this to the In the Media section for next month. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@

• We always need copy editing in the days just before deadline. In general, I think if you publish a piece, others will do you the favor of checking your word choice, grammar, the logic and flow of your sentences, etc. and you should return the favor by copy editing at least as much material as you submit.
• beats
  • Discussion report - we could likely use 2 people on this. The job is to summarize in a couple of paragraphs the most important discussions that took place this month. It's straight reporting - your opinions don't count here. It is complex though to decide what are the most important points, and even in figuring out what was decided. Sources include
    WP:Arbcom
    , which is another article.

    I'd be happy to take the discussion report. Is there a preference regarding discussions that have concluded, or if there is an enormous discussion that is ongoing at the time of the publication should I also include that? —

    talk

    ) 06:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Arbitration report - this is likely the toughest article to write. Similar to the Discussion report but everybody takes themselves deadly seriously, and there are volumes of words to go thru.
  • Humour - an impossible task? Not really, but It takes talent, luck, and a sense of humor. Ganesha811, I sent you an email - would you like to try it?
  • Wikiproject report - this should be the easiest one. Select a Wikiproject or just a group of editors that regularly work together even if the project is not officially a Wikiproject. A chapter might work just as well. Interview them via email, or traditionally we've just posted them on a page and invited the main editors involved in to answer.
  • In the media - also pretty easy (in theory).Just read the news in the press and summarize what they say about Wikipedia. You can add one or two paragraph stories there anytime and the article accumulates until publication, when I try to make sense of it all. more in a bit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Smallbones, I'd be happy to take on the "In the Media" section regularly, if you'd like, and irregularly take on a "humor" or "offbeat" column. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to do the Arbcom report as I am not exactly well-versed with humor.

talk

) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If you feel comfortable with it, go ahead. @Bri: might be able to offer some tips. Even though she is a clerk or something official there @Liz: might be able to give you some pointers. But since she works there, you have to be skeptical of everything she says. We report on them - we don't just take their word on everything. Besides, we give her too much press in the Traffic report already! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

More - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Resources

• Gallery - this should be really fun. Make it a photo essay - we've got one of the world's best collections of free photos. It can be a news event, or Mother's Day , or a photo contest, or whatever you want to make it.

To start an article, just go to the Newsroom page click the article name and start typing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some details

@

@Ganesha811: looks like you are doing well collecting potential stories for In the media. One hint Type out just a few words on what you think the story is about as you add the links. That way you won't be wondering - why did I put this here? Also start looking for possible themes for the month. Sometimes one never shows up - people just write about all sorts of stuff, But usually there's some stories that get real popular - with many journalists writing about the same or similar stories.

@

@Wingedserif: - are you still interested?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is a good topic for In the media. I nearly put it there last month, but ran out of time. A couple of things I usually do with Itm stories. Chech the media source if you don't know it. I'll give TechRepublic a 3 or 4 out of 10 on my reliability scale, where 0-1 I would *not* print and 2 only in some cases. Also check anything that pops up "The Moleskine Foundation's WikiAfrica Education initiative" is new to me. Does it have any real connection to Wikipedia or the WMF? Positive stories are good, but don't go in assuming anything. Check it out please. If your mother tells you she loves you and you want to put it in The Signpost, check it out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 06:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Mikehawk10

: Overall an excellent piece on an interesting discussion that I'd be able to publish as is other than a few copy edits. On the specific question of length: I might write a bit less on this, but what is usually more important is what you feel is the right length. It didn't look like you were trying to stretch the piece (like most people do when a professor asks for a 1,000 word essay: they hand in a good 800 word essay transformed into a mediocre 1,000 word essay). I got a 408 word count here. I'd guess if you took 10 minutes you could get it down to 380 words without removing much more than minor redundancies or distracting fine points. That's a good skill to develop. A minor trim usually makes an article better - it forces you to empahsize the main points.

Quibbles

• I had some trouble in my first reading in finding the links to the actual disussions. Maybe if you didn't link to pages like
  WP:RS
  the important links might show up better. In my 2nd reading I found the proper links almost immediately. Most readers will skim, so you might as well make the links as obvious as possible.
• You could give the usernames of more discussants. It helps to personalize the story a bit. But please don't give a username as a method to embarrass somebody who says something silly.
• Per se is a disambiguation page, per se is not! There's a way in your account preferences to make the disambig pages show up as an orange link, so you'll never miss this again.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm interested in writing for the signpost. Will it be okay if I am given ideas and sources and write about it?

User:AeschyIus Great! It might take a few days. But tell me what you're interested in and I'll make some suggestions. Smallbones_(smalltalk

) 00:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I can write about just anything provided that I am not associated with it (which could induce bias). I would generally prefer to write about the administrative side of the project, but I would like to be given topics as finding topics is my weak point. In general, I write about things internal to the project.

talk

) 01:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

AeschyIus, the following sections would all involve reporting on Wikipedia and Wikimedia internally: Arbitration report, Community view, Discussion report, Featured content, Gallery, News from the WMF, and WikiProject Report. The Traffic report would also be included, although that one is not nearly as pressed for writers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done

) 13:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm planning to do a pass at finishing up the 'In the Media' column today. I'll try to come up with a title, move a bunch of things to 'In Brief', expand what we've got a little, etc. If there are linked articles I choose not to include that you think should've been, just drop me a note and we'll work it out. Smallbones, I'm also planning on writing up a humor column, so you'll see that soon. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, real life has caught up with me (as partially described in last month's From the editor) and I'm unavailable to publish this month. In any case we're not in a position to publish this Sunday. My apologies to everybody who has worked on this edition.

@HaeB, Igordebraga, Bri, 3family6, and Ganesha811: There's nothing to do but update the articles for the June edition, get a few more articles going, and keep on going as usual. I'll be mostly out of contact until Tuesday (but try email it should be faster than thru this page).

Thanks, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean it's all getting scrapped, or we just roll it into the next issue?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Roll into next issue and update if needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, awesome! Depending on my schedule, I might try my hand at some editing and organizing, if that will help. Can't promise it as a routine thing, but I probably can this time in the coming weeks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks for the heads-up and no worries, RL has to take priority and you had alraedy given ample advance notice!

I do think in general it would be better to put out at smaller than usual edition with say 3-4 sections than to skip an issue entirely - quite a few things will be a bit stale after two months, and on the other hand it seems to me that our normal length is already on the upper limit of readability. But again, that's on us all.

I have taken the liberty to update the deadline template. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding https://www.jpost.com/opinion/nyt-calls-isaac-bashevis-singer-polish-wikipedia-made-him-jewish-again-670167 which I noticed was linked to but not yet written up

Thank you for bringing this up, I hadn't looked at the article in question yet. We probably can't use it for the possible outing alone, even leaving aside all the other issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but it's also a syndicated opinion piece. This seems to make a good case for why we have

talk

) 01:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I noticed [7]. I could try to write up my take on this piece? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: it's probably better that I just say "no". I remember a previous dispute along this line that I just got sick of. There were lots of people on both sides who were arguing past each other in good faith and I decided that there was nothing I could do to help straighten out the mess. This topic looks ten times as serious IMHO. It's got very little to do with your side or the other side, and a lot more to do with my personal situation. If you want to pursue this at all, send me a very, very short e-mail requesting a confidential response. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What it says on the tin! ^ Would welcome any additions beyond copyediting as well. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: All set to publish Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm so sorry, I've changed timezones recently and completely forgot about what time this would be locally. Publishing now --DannyS712 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• no problem, Please go ahead and publish Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Smallbones: Done, and again sorry about the delay - next month I'll set an alarm for myself to remember DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • • Hey! Thanks. As long as it got published I'm happy! I checkedit already. Yes, I'm happy.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

All: You can use the button above to monitor feedback on the July 25 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bri, thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

All: You can use the button above to monitor feedback on the September 26 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all @DannyS712, Bri, and HaeB: especially.

We'll see how the readers like it, but I like it which is the 1st hurdle! I do expect a lot of comments this month probably from China. Thanks again! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank @HaeB, Smallbones, and Bri: for the work on the Olaf Kosinsky section in the Disinformation report. I only just discovered the discussion here in the talk page and am now quite mad that I missed all the parts about the missing grant money and reports... but oh well. Overall, this issue is looking absolutely great, I especially like the Opinion & Op-Ed combination. This is some next level stuff you're doing here. Zarasophos (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've privately sent my apology tp Zarasophos for my miscommunication with him this month. I'd like to say "thank you" to everybody @Zarasophos, Bri, HaeB, Ganesha811, Artoria2e5, 1233, Deryck Chan, Igordebraga, Benmite, SSSB, Mcrsftdog, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and IsaacL:. I think this was a really, really good issue. If not for a couple of misteps on my part it would have been a great issue. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for devoting attention to the Office Actions amidst such a busy month. Deryck C. 08:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bri! Thanks Danny! Thanks everybody who contributed this issue, and everybody who contributed this year! And I know Bri, as well as myself, always appreciate everybody who helps copy editing. I should be able to say more tomorrow.

Happy holidays and happy new year!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good to go. Please everyone stop editing and let DannyS712 publish now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bri published DannyS712 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Spot check of enwp and global subscribers looks great. I don't social media, did we tweet the issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just tweeted it right as you posted that ;) Will follow up with a general update re social media below on this occasion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall "In the media" having as much commentary in past issues. Perhaps we can more clearly define which columns are more straight news versus which ones may also contain editorial opinion? isaacl (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Is something specific too opinionated, or just the overall tone?

BTW our content guide, last substantially edited in 2018, uses the phrase "ruthlessly objective" only for News and notes, I think, but it also says both NaN and In the media are "core reports". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's fine for there to be embedded commentary if that's the goal. From a copy editing perspective, it's helpful to clearly know the intent, though, so any inappropriate editorial comments can be trimmed. "Like a beautiful garden with some thorns" has commentary in its last paragraph, and praise of a quote in the second paragraph. The last paragraph of "Wikipedia meets the history wars" to me kind of hangs there: it seems to be starting a discussion on the content of the referenced Wikipedia article, but then it doesn't lead to anything. So it comes across as an editorial comment on why the article shouldn't be deleted, without any summary of the actual article for deletion discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A not-so-liked report was written in 2017 (by a young version of myself) which included only commentary. Looking back at it, think it was a tad bit over the top. However, it is not unheard of to put some personal touches to these pieces. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I see some commentary, but I disagree the column is only commentary. Editorial commentary also differs from an irreverent tone, or other personal voice. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The main difference between N&N and ITM is that N&N reports the news. ITM reports how the media reported the news. Thus there's a need for *context* or call it commentary if you'd like. You can get a lot of news out of ITM, but ultimately if you want to get the in-depth news there you have to click thru to the story we're reporting on. So we let the reader know about the POV and scope of the article and just a bit on what the actual news is. So is it worth the readers' time to click through?

It usually works out that the the first quarter is just the article title and link, perhaps the author or news outlet. The 2nd quarter includes the most important facts, as might the 3rd quarter. The rest might be a quality assessment (on the article or writer) and other context.

This month might be heavier on the context, because December is often a "news-free zone" and I was trying as much as possible to get these done early. Or it might just be the particular stories. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Context and commentary are two different things. Calling a word "shrill" and speculating on an author's motivation is commentary. Describing communist regimes in the 20th century is context, but it only covers one side of the deletion discussion, and the absence of the other side makes the description seem like commentary. And I don't think it helps the reader decide if they want to click through; providing an overview of why people want to delete the article would be a better incentive. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Since figuring out how to use Quarry, I have been going there to find out things any time my interest takes me to a new pile of pages. Today it occurred to me that I'd never done this for the Signpost -- I wrote one in a couple seconds that let me fill out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Arbitration_report with every report since 2005. I think there may some interest or utility in posting the neat ones here, so I will give you all a few.

• List of all issues (I believe this works properly -- it searches for all Signpost subpages with titles with two dashes in them and no slash, so only the main issue pages). This says there are 667 of them, which if true means that December's issue carried a dark energy.
• Number of articles per year, 2005-2021: this might make a nice graph. Highest are 2006 (549) and 2007 (542); lowest are 2021 (130) and 2017 (140).
• Articles published over history in different months. Apparently January is the hottest month (703) and September the slowest (546).
• Articles by day of month (not very interesting)

I'll add more when I find them. jp×g 07:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Largest talk pages for Signpost articles, sorted by length. This one is pretty wild. jp×g 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made an on-wiki list of comment sections by length, as well as a top 100 -- some fairly obvious trends there. I guess if we ever end up getting paid by the click, we'll know what to write about, huh? jp×g 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The current issue's Special report feedback puts it at #5 and it's still going pretty strong. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now #4 at over 123,000 characters. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Re the list of all issues query, one returned spurious Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30_main_page, so I think the last issue was actually #666. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Largest articles. This one's quite interesting.
  talk
  ) 23:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Smallest articles. A bit less interesting, since some of it is drafts and redirects, but still nice to explore.

  talk

  ) 00:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Near as I can tell, the shortest published page is March 13, 2008 From the editor, three sentences long. I'm in the process of cleaning up some of the other short cruft, but it will probably never really get done. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, just wanted to suggest WikiProject Organized Labour in case you didn't have a subject for the next WikiProject highlight yet. We have a few highly active editors who would probably be glad to give an interview, and a bit of exposure would do wonders to general activity. Thanks for your work, everyone! Zarasophos (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @

talk

) 18:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There are matters of policy that we must respect when we link to off-Wiki articles. If you find yourself wanting to link to an article in a well-known website whose name begins with p and ends in o, please contact me by email before proceeding. Note that this type of notice is generally not pleasant, but is necessary in a few cases. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that

Blargh - resorted to using the template. If I'm doing a big style no-no, please scream at me.

talk

) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The content guidance for the Traffic Report currently is, (in a summarized form) This section is written in collaboration with the Top 25 Report. I feel like similar with the change from simply republishing Tech News in the Technology Report, the Traffic Report should be repurposed or expanded some way. It looks like many of the previous versions were just copyedited versions of the Report. Given that the commentary for the Report is often contentious (as seen in the ANI thread linked above), I feel that the scope for the Report should be changed to independent Signpost articles about traffic patterns when writers see fit.

Newsroomers: I'd like to start a conversation about how to announce the Editor-in-Chief departure to the readers. It's probably better for everyone if we get out ahead of this. You can look at June 2010 "From the team" as an example of how this was handled in the past. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I should start a "one week to go" section today (I'll make the time) and we should cover this in that section. I set a deadline for the June issue on me leaving, it should be earlier. Folks who have bylines in the last 2 years should vote. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I will work on generating that byline list. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ladies and gents: You can monitor feeder readback, feeder feedback, reader readback and reader feedback by pressing the button, or clicking here. jp×g 21:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, sections currently aren't transcluded as usual at

Oh, I think I know what's going on at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single. The last few template links are just links to the template because the page somehow managed to go over the transclusion limit. Of course, I have no idea how the hell that happened (maybe some loop where pages are transcluding each other?) jp×g 22:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what is going on. If you edit the single page, you will see it's trying to transclude a fuckload of navbox templates from Shakespeare plays. Something is probably wrong with the featured content article. I'll check it out. jp×g 22:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I guess not. Wtf. jp×g 22:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out. The

Whoops! Let's say that's my bad. Thanks for fixing it. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm the single-page issue and I'll add that the reader feedback is for the March issue. @JPxG: any chance you could fix that? I don't know who else to ask. I enjoyed this issue, even if I was a bit nervous. It looks good to me and we'll see what the readers have to say. I really want to thank everybody who participated. It's been a fun 3 year ride.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like User:JPxG/Signpost 2022-04 talk wasn't created yet. If I don't see it in a few minutes I'll gin one up. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Button works now. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks JPxG, Bri, and Shakespeare. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)