Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Boneyard/Opinion desk
Opinion desk
This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
The Signpost (talk · chat) |
---|
|
|
|
Recent changes: main · talk |
|
Previous Submissions |
---|
The Signpost is calling for 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. The Signpost actively solicits op-eds from the community, subject the approval of the editor-in-chief, Pete Forsyth.
How it works
editThe opinion desk acts as a holding pen for submissions to give feedback and try to find ways to improve and polish them, and to collect sets of related pieces. The publication of opinion pieces is at the ultimate discretion of the Signpost's editor in chief, Pete Forsyth (typically in consultation with Signpost team members). Before continuing please make sure that your particular publication is not more appropriate as a special report instead.
Do you have a proposal for an essay you'd like to write and publish? If so please read and understand the submission guidelines below, then create a new submission in the submissions column below explaining the content of your essay and the reason you think it is topical or should be pursued. Because of the sensitive nature of op-eds, it's good habit to wait on editorial feedback from the editor(s)-in-chief before starting writing.
Would you like to publish an essay you've already written? Do the same as you would with a new proposal, but be sure to include a link to the essay in your submission.
Would you like to comment on essays and ideas currently under consideration? Feel free to do so; this process is open to the community at large. While submissions that take strong positions on important issues are welcome, 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.
If you are ready to submit a proposal simply list your submission below; items here are automatically transcluded to the Signpost hub, the Newsroom, and so no further action on your part is required until you get a response from the editors.
Old submission buttons (please make new submissions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions)
|
---|
If you are ready to submit a proposal you can use the proposal button below to do so. If you are ready to start writing you can use the draft button below to do so.
|
Submission guidelines
editThe 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 and 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.
Proposals
editPrevious publications
editNote: The following list is automatically generated using {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Article list}}
. It is complete.
- 2008-01-07, WikBack: New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam
- 2009-09-28, Opinion essay: White Barbarian
- 2009-12-07, Editorial: A digital restoration
- 2011-08-15, News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common
- 2011-08-29, Opinion essay: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- 2011-09-05, Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- 2011-09-12, Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
- 2011-09-26, Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"
- 2011-10-10, Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians
- 2011-10-24, Opinion essay: There is a deadline
- 2011-10-31, Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- 2011-12-12, Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa
- 2011-12-26, Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it
- 2012-06-25, Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing
- 2012-07-02, Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data
- 2012-07-23, Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia
- 2012-08-06, Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold
- 2012-08-13, Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
- 2012-08-20, Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary
- 2012-09-03, Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing
- 2012-09-10, Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention
- 2012-10-15, Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins
- 2012-11-05, Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- 2012-12-17, Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook
- 2012-12-31, From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum
- 2013-01-07, Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die
- 2013-01-28, In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention; Sue Gardner's op-ed; Women of Wikipedia
- 2013-02-11, Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia
- 2013-03-04, Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors
- 2013-04-15, Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?
- 2013-06-12, Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons
- 2013-06-19, Op-ed: Two responses to "The Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons"
- 2013-07-10, Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project
- 2013-07-31, Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change
- 2013-09-25, Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
- 2013-10-02, Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership
- 2014-01-08, Op-ed: WikiCup competition beginning a new year
- 2014-01-15, Op-ed: Licensed for reuse? Citing open-access sources in Wikipedia articles
- 2014-02-26, Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
- 2014-03-19, Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?
- 2014-03-26, Comment: A foolish request
- 2014-03-26, Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia
- 2014-04-23, Op-ed: Five things a Wikipedian in Residence can do
- 2014-06-04, Op-ed: "Hospitality, jerks, and what I learned"—the amazing keynote at WikiConference USA
- 2014-07-23, Forum: Did you know?—good idea, needs reform
- 2014-08-13, Op-ed: Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia
- 2014-08-20, Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia
- 2014-09-03, Op-ed: Automated copy-and-paste detection under trial
- 2014-09-10, Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready
- 2014-10-15, Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?
- 2014-10-22, Op-ed: Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution—a wiki-protest
- 2014-12-03, Op-ed: Who edits health-related content on Wikipedia and why?
- 2014-12-10, Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!
- 2014-12-31, Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation
- 2015-01-14, Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you
- 2015-01-21, Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better
- 2015-01-28, Forum: Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate
- 2015-02-04, Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?
- 2015-02-18, Editorial: Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition
- 2015-02-25, Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
- 2015-03-04, Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report
- 2015-03-11, Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
- 2015-03-18, Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?
- 2015-03-25, Op-ed: How my father's railroad image collection now benefits the world: the value of digitization
- 2015-04-08, Op-ed: We are drowning in promotional artspam
- 2015-05-13, Op-ed: What made Wikipedia lose its reputation?
- 2015-06-17, Op-ed: Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time
- 2015-06-24, Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia
- 2015-07-08, Editorial: So you want to get your message out. Where do you turn?
- 2015-07-15, Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
- 2015-07-29, Op-ed: My life as an autistic Wikipedian
- 2015-08-05, Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google
- 2015-08-12, Forum: Community voices on paid editing
- 2015-08-19, Op-ed: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus
- 2015-08-26, Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences?
- 2015-10-14, Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith
- 2015-10-28, Op-ed: It’s time to stop the bullying
- 2015-11-04, Op-ed: You are invited to participate in the Community Wishlist Survey
- 2015-11-11, Op-ed: As one thousand of us requested, Superprotect has been removed
- 2015-12-02, Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?
- 2015-12-09, Op-ed: Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view
- 2016-01-13, Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF
- 2016-01-13, Op-ed: Transparency
- 2016-01-20, Op-ed: Not a pretty picture: Thoughts on the "monkey selfie" debacle
- 2016-01-27, Op-ed: Lila Tretikov: the WMF needs your input in developing our strategy
- 2016-02-03, Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?
- 2016-02-17, Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month
- 2016-02-24, Op-ed: Backward the Foundation
- 2016-03-09, Op-ed: A modest proposal for Wikimedia’s future
- 2016-03-16, Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges
- 2016-04-24, Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails
- 2016-06-15, Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing
- 2017-02-27, Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- 2018-05-24, Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?
- 2018-06-29, Op-ed: What do admins actually do?
- 2018-07-31, Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise
- 2018-12-01, Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia
- 2018-12-24, Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee
- 2019-01-31, Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- 2019-03-31, Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
- 2019-04-30, Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps
- 2019-06-30, Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results
- 2019-06-30, Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might
- 2019-08-30, Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored
- 2019-08-30, Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia
- 2019-12-27, Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap
- 2020-03-01, Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator
- 2020-03-01, Opinion: Wikipedia is another country
- 2020-04-26, Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
- 2020-05-31, Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?
- 2020-06-28, Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
- 2020-08-30, Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- 2020-11-01, Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward
- 2020-11-29, Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia
- 2020-11-29, Opinion: How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
- 2020-12-28, Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget
- 2020-12-28, Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear
- 2021-01-31, Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation
- 2021-02-28, Opinion: The call for feedback on community seats is a distraction
- 2021-04-25, Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- 2021-04-25, Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- 2021-06-27, Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- 2021-09-26, Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- 2021-09-26, Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned
- 2021-10-31, Opinion: A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life
- 2021-11-29, From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?
- 2022-01-30, Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial
- 2022-01-30, Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?
- 2022-02-27, Opinion: Why student editors are good for Wikipedia
- 2022-05-29, Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency
- 2022-06-26, Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it
- 2022-08-01, Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
- 2022-08-01, Opinion: Criminals among us
- 2022-09-30, Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?
- 2022-11-28, Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality
- 2022-11-28, Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future
- 2023-01-16, Opinion: Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our librarious litany
- 2023-02-04, Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- 2023-02-04, Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage
- 2023-02-20, Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground
- 2023-02-20, Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia
- 2023-04-26, Op-Ed: Wikipedia as an anchor of truth
- 2023-04-26, Opinion: What Jimbo's question revealed about scamming
- 2023-08-01, Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- 2023-08-15, Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?
- 2023-11-06, Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk