Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 1

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | Newsroom | Submissions


Opinion desk submissions (2011-11 to 2015-01)

edit
Originally at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 1. jp×g 01:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Openness vs Quality – Resident Mario

edit

This still needs to address the comments from myself and Sven; it's a way off publication standard right now and time is short. Is this going to be ready 24 hours from now? Skomorokh 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back over it and addressed comments, can you add any others you have in and I'll work them out later today? I'm sorry but I got swamped yesterday and didn't have time to check back again. ResMar 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this, or more of that thread be copied here? Is this off? Alarbus (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on for this week (finally) ;) ResMar 22:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo

edit
  • Submission: User:Fifelfoo/signpost
  • Author: Fifelfoo
  • User:Fifelfoo/signpost needs me to sit on it for 24 hours, refine the argument, presentation and format; but, like sand forming a pearl, recent debates have acted as an irritant over this statement against changes to the pedagogical and encyclopaedic organisational model in favour of a model derived from neo-liberalism and the firm. Like I said, I need 24 hours to sit on this contribution. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like where it's going, but I'd also like to see a couple of things before it gets run. First of all, if you could back up your assertions, either in text or using footnotes, about the 'organizing off-line' aspect, that would be great. I'm uncomfortable with it as it is now, because it seems too weakly backed. Many of your other points could also use backing up, expanding, and clarifying (which also means making it a bit less hyperbolic). Sven Manguard Wha? 08:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I'm reliant upon the behaviour of User:Sue Gardner [here at WMF London 2011-11-19], particular at 1:20 regarding commodification with reference to Wikimonument's reward structure; and at 44:00 where she suggests WMF members pressure other editors based on offline / external to en.wikipedia forums over policy. Regarding the political economy stuff, I think sleeping on it, and making a clear exposition of the "wikipedia is libertarian socialism actualised, and it doesn't require you to believe anything" argument might benefit the exposition, by outlining it clearly before the comparator of Firm based structure of labour discipline. (By replying to help desk recently, I have come to notice how many of our Firm / Organisation level political articles are red links, even in 2011, even despite the polishing-a-stone metaphor being put). Thank you for your comments, it makes me more certain that I need to edit the oped after a good sleep. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a friendly comment/warning; most people will have no idea what the heck you're talking about of you start weaving IR theory and IPE into an op-ed here. I have enough background in poly-sci to know what you're talking about myself (although I disagree with the "Wikipedia is libertarian socialism actualized" comment), so you might want to phrase your argument with as few discourse-specific terms as possible, to avoid losing/confusing too many people. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks that is valuable editorial advice to make the piece work for readers. The primary point of the op-ed is volunteerism / work. I will attempt to footnote as much as possible of the extended debate during the next major edit. (And, of course, I don't expect everyone to agree with my position/analysis, but I want it to be broadly useful and readable). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everyone agreeing is most certainly not a requirement. You should see the opposition my piece got. (My next piece will have at least triple that). Just so you know, there are two pieces ahead of yours in line. One's an evergreen, the other is time sensitive, and neither of them are complete right now. If you can get it ready in time for Monday, we might be able to run it on the next issue, but it might get pushed back as far as the December 19th issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move forward with this now? ResMar 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, thank you for your patience and apologies for the extreme length of time it has taken us to engage with your submission. In my re-reading it, I found that the contemporary references date what might have been a timely call for awareness, which is unfortunate. Overall, the condensed nature of the argument and the obscurity of the language register makes it difficult to draw out exactly what you're trying to express on a single read, and I say that as someone quite familiar with the terminology of political economy you've adopted. Its compact format means there isn't sufficient context to situate the reader, nor enough play-by-play for the reader to follow to your conclusion. I get what you're trying to say, after a third read, but "showing your work" more would do a better job of keeping readers engaged and amenable to being convinced.

Another tactic employed that holds the piece back is the association of the different models of conceiving of our work – the production/efficiency model and the bossed worker one – with two figureheads of questionable appropriateness. We typically discourage naming editors, but the way you've done it here serves to distract from the point rather than emphasise it – the TCO article is arguably representative of an analysis fetishising metrics and denigrating volunteerism, but your association of Sue Gardner with the second model comes across as glib and I'm not sure she would embrace any version of it. I think laying out the theoretical bases of these models first, and using specific, referenced claims borne out by research for emphasis would benefit both the clarity and impact of your argument.

Thirdly, while you give good reasons to doubt the paradigms you critique, your conclusion doesn't deliver a coherent theory of just how you think we should think of our work here. You invoke the FSF, without elaborating on what that might mean as a model, and describe yourself as a communist sociologist without detailing what compelling theoretical tools a devotee of such a discipline alien to 99% of Wikipedians might bring to analysing what they do. If not unit knowledge workers or crowdsourcers exploited by a domineering and parasitic Wikimedia Foundation, just what are we, Comrade Fifelfoo?

It's a compelling question, and that's why I'm reticent to turn down the submission outright. The timeliness might be somewhat diminished, but I think a piece along these lines could do valuable work in arresting Wikipedians from slipping into unthinking acceptance of self-conceptions smuggled in from dubious sources, and awaking a critical introspection as to what we are doing and why. I'd be interested in publishing a critique that could accomplish such a task, if you would be interested in developing it. Skomorokh 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the apt and excellent review. I consider this a rewrite and resubmit piece given the major expression and readability issues. I'm encouraged by the interest in a piece covering similar ground. Sadly my involvement in the project is in Arbcom limbo still. If I'm here after the finding I intend to rewrite for a general public based on these critiques. If this section is archived could an editor please note a diff to me? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Martijn Hoekstra

edit

An admirably concise statement of a sentiment many have expressed, Martijn, but in order to reach a publishable standard, it would need to respond convincingly to the opposing arguments (expressed here and elsewhere). Isn't Wikipedia inherently political? Isn't there a distinction between the neutrality of content and the neutrality of the community/website? Doesn't being upfront make Wikipedia more trustworthy/credible? Why have so many Wikimedians and much of the news media rejected the views you outline, and why are they wrong to do so? Best, Skomorokh 05:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll polish it up a little, address the issues you named here, and bring it to the modern time. At the time of writing, it was all but clear what kind of impact the blackout would have. Now it's clear that the blackout was hugely successful. Not noting the actions success would keep this piece floating. I'll comment here when it's done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sven Manguard (2)

edit

Just to let you know, I've got two pieces in next-to-final draft stage. One is on the SOPA protests, which I wrote about a week ago. The other I'm keeping entirely under wraps, is probably an evergreen, which I wrote over a month ago. When the Opinion Desk becomes active again, I'll be ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec it is active :s ResMar 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sven, can you link or send me the SOPA piece asap? It's time sensitive so the longer we delay the less likely publication becomes. Skomorokh 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I don't watchlist any of the Signpost pages any more, hence not responding earlier. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, I've decided that I don't want it to run. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimedia and political advocacy

edit

The Signpost is currently seeking submissions on the issue of the Wikimedia movement's emerging role in political advocacy. Specifically, some pertinent questions which demand answers are:

  • Is the Wikimedia movement inherently political?
  • Does taking an active political stance imperil Wikimedia projects' claim to neutrality?
  • Is the Wikimedia Foundation right to be taking the initiative to marshal the contributor community behind advocacy efforts?
  • If the Wikimedia movement is to take an active political stance, how should this best be expressed and advanced?

For submission guidelines, see above. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, it might be helpful to personally ask Wikipedians who have written on this topic, e.g. User:Bdell555 on "the Wikipedia agenda: civil liberties at the expense of the facts" or User:Scott_MacDonald on "Wikipedia should remain ideology-free" (disclaimer: mentioning these pieces does not mean I agree with everything in them or all the views of the authors) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have given it some thought but I have not, and am not likely to, put together an article-length exposition. All I have to offer is a one-sided, non-neutral nutshell:
  • Those who think the Wikipedia movement should be politically neutral are confusing the content of the encyclopedia, which should be, with the activity of the movement, which is not. It cannot be: Undertaking to freely share the sum of human knowledge is an inherently disruptive political act, not a neutral one, because knowledge is power.
In addition to Francis Bacon's famous maxim, "nam et ipsa scientia potestas est," this nutshell was inspired by the words of Jacob Bronowski: "Those who think that science is ethically neutral confuse the findings of science, which are, with the activity of science, which is not." —Science and Human Values (1956, 1965), Part 3, §6
When I tried to write something to expand upon this observation and elucidate some of its ramifications, it just seemed superfluous and trite. The failing is entirely mine. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation has been pushing that point, but I regard it as a classical rhetorical fallacy of ambiguity on the word "political" - sort of like "The United States inherently promotes democracy just by existing - therefore, it should promote democracy by invading Iraq and overthrowing a dictatorship". Unfortunately, the, err, "political" aspects make me ill-suited to be the person saying that to the Wikipedia community (ironically for literal logical ad-hominem fallacy reasons). Anyway, it seems like the Signpost will need to cast a wider net in order to get an opinion piece on this topic. Perhaps a note in the current round-up would generate some interest, if the editors want to keep trying. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the call for submissions, and hope a wider net will catch some folks who are more articulate than I.

Note that I was addressing Skomorokh's first two questions, not his last two questions about advocacy and activism. All I said was that the foundation vision, as expressed in its vision statement, is an inherently disruptive political stance. (In terms of your analogy, consider the distinction between having a local democracy and envisioning a democratic world.) One may disagree about the vision statement, but to say this is rhetorical abuse of ambiguity in the word "political" is to adopt a very narrow understanding of what politics is. Your inference that my observation about first two questions dictates fallacious reasoning about last two questions does not reflect a logical necessity. Fallacious reasoning does not need a reason.

I apologize to the SP editors for engaging in side discussion here, but a claim of "rhetorical fallacy" (i.e. sophistical disingenuousness) on my part is hard ignore. I now recognize that it was an error to express an opinion here in the first place, and will say no more on the subject. My bad. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ningauble wrote about his "nutshell" above: "When I tried to write something to expand upon this observation and elucidate some of its ramifications, it just seemed superfluous and trite." I too think the first three questions posed above have rather obvious, almost trivial, answers. For example:
Is the Wikimedia movement inherently political?
It must be. Just as a fish cannot escape the fact it exists in a vast sea of water, the Wikimedia movement cannot escape the fact it exists in a vast sea of politics. We’re surrounded by politics. Politics affects practically all aspects of our lives including and especially our access to knowledge.
Free universal access to all knowledge will likely never be attained without playing the game of politics effectively. As user, Ningauble, so eloquently stated: “undertaking to freely share the sum of human knowledge is an inherently disruptive political act, not a neutral one, because knowledge is power.”
Does taking an active political stance imperil Wikimedia projects' claim to neutrality?
Not at all. As long as the high standards of neutrality for presenting the content of its projects is diligently maintained, the non-neutral activity of the movement will remain a separate issue.
Is the Wikimedia Foundation right to be taking the initiative to marshal the contributor community behind advocacy efforts?
Yes. The Foundation typically has the resources to initiate and coordinate advocacy efforts more efficiently than individuals or other community groups. Taking the initiative is merely participating in the activity of the movement (a prerogative of anyone, including the WMF). Of course the form and scope of the advocacy efforts should ultimately (and openly) be determined by the community. [Above comments are mine. Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)][reply]
I have created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Political, and am looking for two editors to contribute their views. ResMar 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, the phrasing "Is Wikipedia's existence inherently political?" is problematic, as the answer is merely one's definition of "political". One can give either answer, depending on how one uses the word. Hence it's not very illuminating, and only plays into conflation rhetoric. A better question might be "Should Wikipedia be politicized?" - meaning, used as a platform for partisan campaigning (tedious - "partisan" is used here in the general English sense of "advocacy on an issue", rather than the political jargon sense of "Democratic or Republican party"). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, the English word "partisan" specifically refers to alignment with and support for a party or faction, not advocacy on an issue. The notion that taking a position on an issue constitutes partisan campaigning is a sign and symptom of the sorry state of contemporary politics. To be partisan is political but, in a healthy polis, not all politics is partisan. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, note (emphasis added) "Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.". And Wikipedia was not simply just "taking a position" - it was definitely "Devote to" (the whole platform!), and I'd argue "biased in" (misinformation: Wikipedia-in-peril) support of a cause (Google/YouTube side in megabucks copyright infringement liability allocation debate, err, sorry, I meant to say freedom and liberty of the Internet, don't know what came over me). And this is NOT inherent in Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for illustrating why framing an issue in partisan terms is equivalent to argumentum ad hominem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrusso

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined

Yarrusso, thank you for your patience, and apologies for any frustrations you had in trying to submit this. Your summary of the logical outline of the argument is useful, and helps me articulate just where this piece goes awry. That the Foundation and the Wikipedia community specifically has a political stance is a premise that most Wikipedians increasingly accept, but that's where the congruence of your views and ours seems to end. The view that "Political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as encyclopedic knowledge", and the unspoken premises that the first cannot be subsumed in the second, that the political content you're describing can be accurately called knowledge, and that whatever knowledge-related aims that might important to humanity are the responsibility of the Foundation are not plausible. Consequently, the specific course you advocate has not earned the right to a platform like this, as its assumptions are not granted. So, while interesting, I am afraid this essay fails the relevance requirement of Signpost submissions. Regards, Skomorokh 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, thank you for reviewing my opinion essay. I know it’s your prerogative to simply reject an essay you don’t like without providing a clear explanation. I also know you have no obligation to respond to arguments against your decision regardless of their merit. However, I hope you’ll consider my questions below and reconsider your decision.
You apparently based your rejection on four of my assumptions you say are “not plausible” and thus “not granted”. I’ve diligently tried, but I honestly don’t understand why you think these four assumptions are so obviously “not plausible” that you don’t need to explain why.
You claim these four assumptions are worse than not true. You declare they’re not plausible (they don’t have even an appearance of truth or reason). Don’t you think that’s a rather bold assertion for an intellectually honest person to make without a clear explanation? Here are the four assumptions you claim are not even plausible (not in the order you mention them):
1) Political content you're describing can be accurately called knowledge.
Why do you think “clearly-written pro and con arguments presented by our government representatives to explain and justify their positions” can’t be accurately called knowledge? Please, what’s your definition of knowledge?
2) Political knowledge cannot be subsumed in encyclopedic knowledge.
The above-mentioned arguments by government representatives would obviously express POV. Encyclopedic knowledge is supposed to be NPOV. How do you envision POV arguments by government representatives being subsumed in encyclopedic knowledge so it's as useful to readers as what I propose?
3) Political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as encyclopedic knowledge.
Why do you think “clearly-written pro and con arguments presented by our government representatives to explain and justify their positions” cannot be plausibly assumed to be at least as important to humanity as encyclopedic knowledge? Conversely, why do you think encyclopedic knowledge is obviously more important to humanity?
4) Knowledge-related aims that might be important to humanity are the responsibility of the Foundation.
This is a blatant straw man. My essay doesn’t remotely imply this assumption. The essay merely claims the Foundation’s philosophy (as stated in its Movement roles/charter and in its Strategic Plan) and its stated goals (e.g. “reducing the barriers to sharing knowledge”) are highly consistent with providing reliable political knowledge.
I assume you acknowledge you don’t have to agree with the views expressed in an opinion essay to publish it. Even if one or more of the four assumptions you cite are truly “not plausible” in your mind, why would that make the essay (in toto) irrelevant to Signpost readers? Regards, Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't you think it's a bit dubious for you to reject a piece that addresses your call for submissions' questions 1,2, and 4 (the only non-trivial one) below? Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Wikipedia

edit

Wikipedia:Cyberbullying - an Essay to show us the way to minimise it

edit
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Wikipedia:Cyberbullying
  • Author: Timtrent
  • Rationale: Call to action for people who wish to do their best to remove or minimise cyberbullying from Wikipedia, including requests for us all to help to formulate the reaction, and a strong note that action is not compulsory, but that the roadmap should be provided
    • Thanks for submitting this here. I think we can improve on this, though. Would you consider expanding it and using the section headers more for organization? Right now it is very short and rather conversational, while we aim for a more formal tone. For comparison and inspiration, links to previous op-eds are below; the best pieces we've featured are probably "The Athena Project: being bold" and "Wikimedians are rightfully wary". Thanks very much, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before I try accede to your very reasonable request, may I ask you to take a step back from it and consider with me how we might best introduce the topic to Wikipedians. I'm going to try, if I may, to convince you to make exceptions, perhaps only one exception, fopr a piece that needs promotion rather than flat statements. If you still disagree with my thinking then I'm happy to work with you to create a flatter piece from the more emotive piece that I've submitted
Let me try to marshall my arguments:
  1. Signpost is an excellent vehicle, from the few editions that I have now seen, for communicating information to people. It is, or seems to be, the Wikipedia equivalent of a good broadsheet newspaper. While this seems at first to run counter to my desire to be somewhat more brash, sometimes, just sometimes, a piece needs to break that style, even in the most respectable broadsheet. This allows the usual format to remain well liked and respected, and allows the extraordinary item to stand out
  2. I think it is usual for Signpost to publish good reportage, even in the excellent opinion pieces you have shown me. Those are each excellent pieces. Even so they report things, even future things the author would like to see. They do not call folk to action
  3. This piece is a true call to action because the topic is in its embryo state. We need, wish for, actively want to encourage other editors to come and own this piece, not just to read it. I could flatten it. It is as easy to write a flat piece as an emotive piece, a conversational piece.
  4. I do feel the need to have a conversation with editors over this topic. Sometimes we must involve people in the things they read as well as interest them.
  5. I am not sure that increasing the length increases the value the topic adds. There is a danger of the oped becoming larger than the essay
As editor you have, of course, the final say. You set the tone for Signpost. You have the right to accept, reject or ask for changes. I am just asking for you to hold this particular piece slightly differently and to consider which style adds the best value to it, to Signpost and to Wikipedia. I'd like, in other words, to discuss before making changes. We must both see the value of what is produced in the end or the item fails. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hold up White Barbarian as an excellent piece that has already stood apart and been different. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not opposed to different pieces—I just don't think this comes across in the way you think it does. Right now, it looks short and malformed, and in my view, it doesn't grab a reader's attention. It also provides little context as to what the problem is. I suspect many don't know what cyberbullying is, especially in non-English countries, or grasp its full implications. This is your chance to spell that out to people here, explain how to recognize it, and show what we need to do about it/when we come across it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need some time to consider. But we are none of us in a rush :) Your additional point makes sense. I just need to process that thought. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that I am used to writing attention grabbing press releases, but not about something where I stand very close to the problem. I may or may not be the best person to do this, but I will have a darned good try. It may take more than a moment, though. I had not considered until you suggested it that it might be malformed. That is very similar to the sound mixer in a live gig knowing the words of the songs so being unable to hear how to set microphone levels correctly. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, it just might. :-) I'm glad you saw what I mean; I wasn't sure if I was being clear! "Malformed" was a bit strong of a word, though. All I meant is that your audience will be, by and large, Wikipedians from various languages. These people are used to using headers as organizational tools for what follows—not as integral parts of the text. I don't think many people watch this page, so if you would like help, I'd advise you to solicit on- (or off-wiki) friends to help. As I said before, I can't really help draft it. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've brushed its tail and plaited its mane. I do see what you mean about use of section titles, and I have met your thoughts a smidgen over halfway on that part. I would say we are closer to what you hope for. Extra feedback would be useful. I also doubt that many folk watch this page. Wouldn't a pool of copywriters and copyeditors here be a great thing? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have one, Tony1, who knows more about the English language than I hope I'll ever know. ;-) It's looking much better to me! I'll give some detailed feedback and do some copyediting after I grab a few hours of sleep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WIkipedia means no-one may sleep :) Seriously, there can be no rush. If it takes a while ping me on my talk page. This page may be lost in a welter of recent watchlist stuff! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have discovered, I am not wedded to anything I write, certainly on WP. I don't care if every last word has to be changed as long as the message is improved. I have just got to the point where I can't see the wood form the trees. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft from a strictly argumentation theory point of view, the basic design is flawed. I recommend to introduce the issue by something the average reader can connect with in the project's frame (not least to drive home the distinction with the project internal policy), get the message straight, and turn down the volume of the intro - currently leading to false expectations by readers regarding the issue to be dealt with in the piece, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the wording changes you have in mind would be received happily. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Jan wants to (philosophically) argue more with you over the argumentative structure you are employing, so I'll let him hash that out before giving more comments. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jan is more than welcome to. I probably need to be spoon fed though. While I don't want this to stall I am also in no rush. It's worth doing well not fast. I am standing very close to the article, though, and find it hard to see how to make further useful changes. Changes I can make, but useful ones? Pinging me on my talk page would be useful to bring me back here. a Talkback will work just fine. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue (strictly in argumentative terms) starts at the beginning. The draft does not take into account the (most likely) wide variety of relevant knowledge degrees across the audience. To fix this, I would start with a known point of departure. The initial task to get the point argued in this piece across seems to be: distinguishing it properly from the established community guideline. Lets provide the idea with some breathing space first, and explain its details thereafter. Something like:

  • 1) We all know A)
  • 2) Our concept misses B), defined as the misuse of Wikipedia to bully third parties.
  • 3) Implication B1)
  • ...
  • ...

and I would not recommend to explicitly call for readers of the actual essay. The design should ensure (by its own virtue) that the reader considers the problem worth his time, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful. I need to take some time to digest this and reconsider the piece's wording. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping I either am on the right road, or have done sufficient to reach the end of that road. I wonder if you would have a look at the way it's changed and give me more advice? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as weak, I'm afraid. I have myself seen bad effects of "wiki-bullying" a couple of times, but this essay gives no examples and no evidence that there is a significant problem. An essay saying "X might be a problem" and saying it in a very emotional tone, at unnecessary length, without any suggestion of a possible solution, is mainly going to have the effect of annoying readers. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good feedback. Any chance you can have a crack at the article. And do you mean the article or the essay about which the article is written? All improvements are truly welcome, but I am so far out of my writing comfort zone as to be somewhat 'all at sea'. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The writing style is not the main issue. As I see it, the main issues are the lack of evidence that a genuine problem exists and the lack of any concrete ideas for addressing it even if one does. I can't help with those. Looie496 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In defence, the opinion piece is not intended to be a treatise and nor is the essay (which does make concrete proposals) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes Round 2: A view from the closer's perspective

edit

Opinion desk submissions, 2015-03 to 2015-11

edit

Core Contest

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

Submitted via Suggestions. ResMar 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An edited version of this is now present in this week's structure. ResMar 05:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response op-ed

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: In Google Doc
  • Author: not Gamaliel
  • Rationale:
  • Discussion:

@Gamaliel: I've modified the template so that all op-ed discussion is force-directed here so as to keep all discussions logically organized in one place. If we're doing a submission that is being handled off-wiki it's still a good idea to create a ticket here. ResMar 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This op-ed will run this week, and is essentially complete pending copyedits at this point. Go Phightins! 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Value of digitizing analog personal photography

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

I'm interested in writing an op-ed on my experience last year digitizing and uploading my father/grandfather's personal railroad slides from the 1960s and 1970s, 146 images in all, and the usefulness of such a project to both (primarily English) Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. From my perspective, it is an effective (albeit somewhat challenging) way to address the image content gap that exists between the length of current copyright restrictions and the advent of digital cameras, Wikipedia, and Creative Commons licenses (if I may generalize, between 1923 and 2001). This op-ed would discuss themes that I encountered during my experience, such as motivation for contributing, the (lack of) interest in monetizing personal photographic collections (at least in this case), and key advantages to freely sharing such collections (such as "free" subject identification and color correction thanks to other dedicated Wikimedians). I've never submitted a proposal for a Signpost article before, and I'm open to any and all feedback. Also, I'd be happy to move this project to the special desk if you think that is more appropriate. Thanks for taking the time and effort to read and consider my proposal!

  • Discussion:
  • This is absolutely something we would be interested in publishing, and would be a nice balance on the "soft news" side to some of our more "hard news". You have the green light, as far as I am concerned -- aim for anywhere from 600-1200 words, and make sure to include information on how other editors can get involved in the process. Thanks for your submission! Go Phightins! 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music to my ears! =) ResMar 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've been working on my op-ed for about a week now, and I think it is coming along quite well; I've written it, revised it, and incorporated the perspectives of the two other people who played critical parts in the whole process of slide digitization. At this point, I think it is ready for editorial review. It is still in my sandbox, and I'll be willing to move it to Signpost space whenever you think it is ready. Thanks again for your support and enthusiasm for this project! Michael Barera (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ready to me. Thank you for your contribution! =) ResMar 03:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Resident Mario. Is there anywhere that I need to move it? And when, realistically, do you expect it to run? Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Barera: If you click on the namespace link you'll see that I've already moved it into this week's namespace; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status. We're publishing on Thursday this week, I believe, to give time for the finishing of the special report on the Commons POTY. ResMar 03:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, Resident Mario! One last note: please feel free to change the title of my op-ed as you see fit. It's descriptive, but not exactly snappy. Michael Barera (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure myself—I just copied the submission title in setting up the article form. @The ed17: what can we title it? ResMar 03:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Barera and Resident Mario: I changed the title—what do you think? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great to me! Thanks for applying that editor's Midas touch, The ed17! Michael Barera (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title a bit again to try and emphasize that (A) anyone's train photo collection can benefit the world and (B) it is continually in the process of benefiting said world. I like it, you guys? ResMar 02:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Michael Barera (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed part of it back to "my father" -- I like the personalization with it. Otherwise, great! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WiR for WikiAfrica

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Cancelled

I served as WiR with the WikiAfrica Project for all of last year. I wanna write about the experience and the achievements. Fits in here? Under what category will it be under? Can I write in google docs and later transfer here or ask for review on there? Thanks --Nkansahrexford (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you were involved in it, it would have to be an op-ed. Otherwise, go for it! Create it as a personal sandbox page and leave a link to it here. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nkansahrexford. Any update on this? We would still be interested in running it. Go Phightins! 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go Phightins!, I started the article after receiving the notification today. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diQaf0WF5gxrpPVKMFWRpfH-syKzjYaBKsli5KUHf3k/edit?usp=sharing . Still working on.--Nkansahrexford (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me know when it's ready for review. Thanks, Nkansahrexford. Go Phightins! 02:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkansahrexford: bump =). ResMar 03:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkansahrexford:, you're already half-way there but you've not updated in a while, what are your prospects of finishing the draft? ResMar 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User was blocked for copyvio, submission declined. ResMar 05:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Are we quietly drowning in spam?

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed
  • Author: Piotrus
  • Rationale:For a while, I've been increasingly concerned about a certain type of spam, that has low visibility, but also - nobody seems to be doing much about it. At the very least, I would like to bring to others attention through Signpost. I have a draft ready, through I am sure it may benefit from various comments and suggestions.
  • Discussion:
I moved the proposal to here. This is definitely publishable once formalized but we're going to want to sit on this for a little bit, as the April 1 issue already has a lot of content. Are you OK with a provisional April 8 publication date? ResMar 18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: ResMar 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, no hurry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I think it looks good, but can we do something about the paragraphing and images? Some of the paragraphs could be split into two or three for easier digestion, and if the captions are going to be that long, the images either need to be in a gallery for 400px and centered (IMHO). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Ed, I am not sure what TS MoS is. I suggested a gallery for some if not all of the images, due to lengthy captions. Another option would be to split captions into footnotes... Could you arrange this in your preferred format? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: How does it look now? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do modern Wikipedians understand foundation values?

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Cancelled

Mostly in reference to the five pillars.

I think that it is imperative that we have an op-ed (at least) that covers whether the Wikipedians of today agree with the same principles of the early Wikipedians, or if there has been a shift in outlook since 2001 within the minds of Wikipedians.

Thoughts? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I think this is an okay topic, however are you planning to write one via research, conjecture, personal opinion, or what? The angle should be fleshed out. Thanks for your submission. Go Phightins! 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Research is imperative to getting any sort of potential and/or possible accuracy in it whatsoever. So yes, absolutely. Conjecture is... iffy. I mean, I would wonder if statements such as "The study's results show A to be the majority view on the subject, as well as showing B and also C to be seemingly common concerns and beliefs of Wikipedians as well. It may be that A's high presence as the most common outlook here is due to influence from X. A study done by Q concludes that A ______, often due to _____, _____, and _____. However, counter studies done by _____ and _____ seem to say that A is in fact _____, often due to _____. The overall conclusion seems to be that _____ is _____. Personally, from my experience _______. etc. etc." would be all right. Thoughts? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharthan: Can you swing it? (write it, I mean). ResMar 03:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to obtain working studies first. Plus, this needs further discussion before it can go anywhere. 70.188.164.87 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: I can write it, yes. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can go on ahead, then. Tough topic, something I'm really interested in myself but haven't (yet) had the time to dig through research for, so I'm certainly enthusiastic to hear your take. Our archives are the best place to start looking for research, particularly the monthly research report, and if you ask HaeB he can probably point you in the direction of some studies to look at. I think that in writing it, though, you should make a focused effort to make this technically simple reading. That framework will work well but only if you give it enough descriptive space that you don't lose readers in the statistics. Some references in terms of writing style could be here and here. ResMar 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and @Tharthan:. ResMar 04:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been a bit busy as of late. I'll get to draughting this soon, though. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, I don't think that this is one you'd quite be able to dash off in one go anyway. ResMar 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharthan: How goes it? ResMar 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry. I've had personal problems that I haven't been able to get to draughting it. I am doing my best in preparing to work on it. I have done some research already and will add the results of that research into the draught, however. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, as long as it's a work-in-progress. There isn't really a time limit, per se. ResMar 03:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please Just Join Me??? - National Names 2000 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm sorry? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies but this proposal is going on indefinite hiatus (so long as I am going to be writing it) due to not only my own personal life, but also due to my intent on being even less active than I already am, due to my distaste with where Wikipedia and the greater Wikimedia Projects are heading. I have no intention of sitting around here until foul oppressors start showing up to ruin Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects.
I will still be active on Wiktionary, though. In addition, if things miraculously manage to get better than they are now somehow (and by that, I mean "better as far as I am concerned" not "better as in how Guy Fellow and Sam Person are concerned"), then I may return. Until then, I shall be on very, very rarely.
I am very sorry, Resident Mario. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He retired on us." Alas. Well, if you come up with something down the line, I'd read it. ResMar 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What made Wikipedia lose its reputation?

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Wikipedia in 2015
  • Author: TParis
  • Rationale: To address the misinformed criticism of Wikipedia about the threat of anonymous editors.
  • Discussion:

Thrusts look good, you get a little too personal at the end though. ResMar 05:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I can tone it done.--v/r - TP 07:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the designation "Top Writer '14" on Quora is given automatically to multiple people based purely on the number of upvotes, and isn't actually a leadership position. We should get their structure right (and I'm not even sure I understand it properly!), even as we want them to get ours right.--Pharos (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's with Quora? Why is everyone on Quora? I never got that. Wales, Brandon Harris, several others seem active on that site. It feels almost out-of-place. ResMar 05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My hypothesis is that the wiki-fascination has something to do with the unfulfilled ambitions of WP:RD. Looking again at Quora's Top Writers program, it appears nor to be not based purely on metrics, but an honorary award of a kind given to superusers based on somewhat subjective criteria. Still, it is not a leadership position, really; as far as I can tell, all the actual governance of that site is by Quora staff (it is after all a commercial operation).--Pharos (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: I hammered into shape, and left comments for you. This is too personal and a little too off-the-cuff, and though I think the kernel is something worth running with it needs some additional input on your part to get there. ResMar 05:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a bit as requested. @Resident Mario:, feel free to edit it again. I really appreciate your edits.--v/r - TP 17:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TP, I just read over the op-ed, and I think that it is on the right track, especially at the beginning – would it be possible to sort of broaden the scope of the piece so that if focuses more on common misconceptions about Wikipedia rather than the specific Quora stuff you mention? I think this can definitely be publishable this week, but we (the editors) were discussing it a bit, and think it might be better if the scope were broadened. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta wanted to target the "Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit" myth that gets propagated around like candy. I only mention the other reasons it's unreliable as a "if you wanted to sound like you know what you're talking about - say these things" sort of thing.--v/r - TP 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a pretty thorough copyedit and left a few clarification tags. Could you check them, TParis? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis:. Does {{u}} ping? ResMar 16:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. But I've been in class all week and unable to use a computer during the day or evenings.--66.91.113.125 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I've made some fixes, I hope they address your concerns.--v/r - TP 05:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm In - National Names 2000 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)National Names 2000[reply]

Local project

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined
  • Submission:
  • Author: Unknown
  • Rationale:

Kindly permit me to lend my voice to the stream of the ongoing discussions and also to report activities from Series 1 Week 1 of the project.

We started the project today has promised at Alimoso Junior Grammar school at Alimoso, Lagos Nigeria. The students responded so well with a huge attendance of over 30 Participants including 5 teachers.

The program started with general information to WMF anchored by Kayode Yusuf and collaborated by Babatunde Osiyale. It was an electrifying moment . The students and teachers alike couldn't believe that there was a platform that could permit them to contribute to the global knowledge base like WIKI.

Olaniyan Olushola handled the Wikipedia Adventure game. Although we stopped at Mission 1, we will continue with the remaining missions in the subsequent weeks. ‎Episode 2 will continue by 26th May 2015. However, One of the high points of the Episode 1 is the online Wiki registration by the students and their Teachers. More so, one of the teachers volunteered to be the Class Supervisor.

The creation of ID and password was suspended because Wikipedia limits the numbers of registrations that could be done per IP. Ten students were able to personally created their accounts on WIKI.

The program culminated with a group photograph.

At the end of this series, we hope to engage the students through the help of their Supervisor on a task to be decided at the later stage of the program. Their underground plan is to convert this group of participants into a WIKI Club at the school. Hopefully this same concept will be replicated in other schools.

Some of the photograph ‎of the Series 1 Week 1 have been loaded on Wiki. More photos will be loaded tomorrow. ( I will share links to the uploaded photograph tomorrow)

  • Discussion:

Hello Olaniyan Olushola, thank you for your contribution but we are declining this particular project. It sounds to me like the venue you should investigate is the Wikimedia Blog; we occasionally re-publish content like this that was published by the blog first in our own pages. The blog is a better place for a publication like this, has access to people who better understand the scope of the project that you are speaking about, and has a larger viewership outside of the immediate "hardcore" editing community. For more info on submitting things to the blog go to here. ResMar 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
I am submitting this proposal because we wanted to promote the upcoming GA Cup, and it was suggested at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk that instead of making a project report, that we write up an op-ed piece. The result sits in my sandbox and awaits your consideration.
I did that seven days ago, immediately you asked. Tony (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan:This should have been published this week, but wasn't because of an editorial oversight. Because it's not time sensitive (arguably moving the publication date closer to the date that the competition starts will be more effective) we'll hold onto it for next week, then. ResMar 18:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, that's fine. You're right, it is better to it to appear closer to the start date. Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Conference 2015: Challenges and opportunities for WMF and affiliates

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Hi Pine. I talked to some of the editorial board about the piece, and we were talking about the structure as it stands. There are two choices, basically: 1) it can be a stand-alone "travelogue", which is sort of what it is now or b) it can be an op-ed analyzing the conference from the perspective of an attendee. Which direction do you want to go? Go Phightins! 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pine: Tony was acting on behalf of the editorial board with his revisions to your travelogue. In all honesty, it is long, and many sections are too detailed. We need to streamline much of the content to have reader appeal, and we think some of the images should be placed in an accompanying gallery to reduce vertical space. Having been in our shoes before, I know you can understand our predicament. If you would prefer, we could move the unabridged draft to your userspace and link to it as a NAN in brief. Let us know. -- Go Phightins! 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Go Phightins!: I'm fine with shortening the report, but I wish you would have discussed that with me instead of asking Tony to do it. Anyway, what I suggest is breaking the travelogue into a 3 part series. We did something similar last year with my Wikimedia in Education series, which started as a long one-part report and turned into a series. If this is ok with you then I'll break up WMCON report into a series. --Pine✉ 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pine: Pine, it is not about the length, it is about the level of detail. We have decided that we need to make cuts in order to facilitate reader interest. Due respect, readers will not be interested in what movies you watched on your flight over, with whom you ate breakfast, or even about the history of Wikimedia Cascadia, etc. No matter how many installments this is presented in, it is too detailed. Go Phightins! 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Go Phightins!, there are a couple of points to having those sections in there. First, this is intended to be a travelogue and sort of autobiographical. The reason that is important is that this isn't the cut-and-dry WMDE grant report or list of official follow-up activities; this is my subjective report about the conference, and it's important that readers understand the perspective from which the report was written. Second, those sections are intended to humanize the author of the report. I realize that some Wikipedians have a cut-to-the-chase, just-the-facts mentality that is appropriate for writing many content articles, but that approach is suboptimal when writing what is inherently a subjective report. I could shorten the report by cutting out most of it and going straight to the conclusions section, but I think that would deprive readers of a great deal of information that they might find useful for understanding how I came to those conclusions, and would also deprive readers of links and imagery that would be helpful to people who might have been unable to attend the conference but would like to get a feel for the experience. --Pine✉ 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pine, the personal stuff needs to be treated with care. That you had breakfast each day is not something you'd even bother to write home about. I'd remove the trivia. And the photographs are huge lumps in whatever narrative there is. It's a very disjointed effect. Meeting x and y on the street could well be a slight breach of their privacy. Tony (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the large number of pictures I suggest moving to a slideshow format, something like this. And absolutely removing the airplanes-and-hotels cruft. ResMar 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given the consensus here, I'll work on shortening the piece sometime next week. --Pine✉ 05:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? The entire travel section is gone from the first part, and I made a few other tweaks to remove some of the lighter material. I left the photos as they are, since I think that they are helpful for understanding the conference. Pinging Gamaliel, Tony1 and Resident Mario. --Pine✉ 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: The draft we agreed to run via N&N looks good. A couple of things I would do. First of all, I think that the big banner on the right hand side is to obtrusive to be useful—you could summarize that information in a short paragraph if necessary, or remove it entirely if appropriate. Second, you should experiment with the new narrative layout, described in detail here. In particular this format would give a lot more "wow" to the many photos you report, since you safely blow them up to 800px, Gallery-style. ResMar 00:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: OK about the sidebar, I can come up with an alternative. But I'm not sure how the gallery would work, and there isn't example on the page that you linked. Can you show an example? --Pine✉ 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Pine: I mean that you could make a stack of images with {{Signpost inline image}}. ResMar 01:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: OK, I tried that and it makes the article far too long, so I think that I'll stay with the normal gallery. Thanks, --Pine✉ 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Not a barbarian horde

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Not a barbarian horde
  • Author: Djembayz is an editor who has been blessed with unusually good access to information. As a result, she believes in the civilizing mission of all encyclopedias, including this one.
  • Discussion:
  Djembayz: Though this does remind me of the first op-ed the Signpost ever published, the Signpost has strict standards regarding the quality of the content we publish, and a very short and non-specific rants/metaphors don't cut them. There's something like 200 of these a day out there. For an example of a good rant see this op-ed. Expand on this a lot and maybe it'll be worth a second look. ResMar 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Panel discussion on paid editing

A Q&A with three editors that have balanced, non-controversial, non-extreme views where either:

  • each one offers a short response to each question
  • different editors provide longer responses to whatever question they can answer best
  • or some mix of the two
  • Author: CorporateM
  • Rationale: We should have more content about paid editing that is in the ideal Wikipedia-style of being calm, thoughtful discussion by reasonable editors, as oppose to extremists, financial interests advocating for their best interest and the routine news of manipulation.
  • Discussion:

See here, opening a ticket for this now. First thing first, this needs a format. CorporateM, what do you suggest? ResMar 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown out an idea for a sort of panel discussion above. A lot of the prior articles are done by people with extreme views on paid editing, or are authored by paid editors advocating for an obviously self-serving point-of-view. I think it would be ideal to do something more in-line with NOADVOCACY and find editors that do not have strong views and are therefore more equipped to offer thoughtful, even-tone discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A note on previous coverage:   For more Signpost coverage on paidediting see our paidediting series. ResMar 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM: We discussed this at our editorial board meeting this evening, and we all think it's a fine idea. Do you plan to find the editors/do you have them in mind? We think either a forum style or an interview might be the best way. Let us know how we can support you with this. Thanks! Go Phightins! 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few editors in mind. It may take time to sort our who wants to participate. What does a forum style mean and how many editors were you thinking of? CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  CorporateM: BTW, up this week: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Op-ed. ResMar 03:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That piece is unfortunate... CorporateM (Talk) 04:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In timing, I hope, not in content. =)
Paid editing seems to be one topic that our readers never get tired of (unlike, say, 80% of stuff having to do with the WMF). ResMar 19:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, just let us know when you have something, it sounds like you have a good idea of where you want to go. ResMar 02:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CorporateM. Just checking in -- have you made any progress on this? We remain interested in the topic, and are looking forward to publishing your piece. Let me know if we can be of assistance in anyway. Thanks! Go Phightins! 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!:Thanks for the reminder. I've gotten it started here and invited the editors I felt would be a good fit. The format feels a bit awkward, but I think the content will be really good this way. It's more of a brainstorming session and less of a venting or lobbying item. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Go Phightins! 18:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? I think it accurately captures the types of views most editors have, rather than the extreme viewpoints held by the most vocal editors. It also has some pretty reasonable suggestions for improvement. It's not as polished as the regular articles authored by Signpost staff, but I think it has its place. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Format-wise, it should be good. I will read the content soon. Can we publish this next week instead of this week? Go Phightins! 21:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far. ResMar 04:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: @Go Phightins!: This looks ready to go I think. Any problem if we run it this week? Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing is believing

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  TonyTheTiger, Go Phightins!: Creating a ticket now, previous discussion here. ResMar 00:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're loaded for the current issue atm so we'll look into this in-depth next week. ResMar 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger:, I enjoyed reading this, thank you for submitting it. Sorry we haven't published it yet. We'll run it next issue. Everyone else, what do we run this under? 'op-ed'? 'travelogue'? Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travelogue seems proper. ResMar 02:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a few last minute changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: We added some images to your travelogue here, and were wondering what you thought of them. Are there any you would like to change, add, remove, etc.? Feel free to do whatever you'd like in the next 24 hours or so ... we hope to publish by Thursday or so. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job with the illustrations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-09/Op-ed - I'm working on a submission about DYK problems, with (many) very recent factual errors that appeared on our mainpage as the backbone of it. It will not discuss specific editors, although of course every example I'll give is written and approved by a number of editors. Before I continue writing this, I'ld like to know if the subject is acceptable (without implying that my text will be acceptable of course). I have not edited Wikipedia for 8 months (and don't know if or when I'll return to editing), but have a lot of experience both in general (as editor and admin) and as a DYK-contributor and -patroller in particular.
  • You mean the "create new op-ed proposal" button? I used this at first to start this section, but it was a lot more confusing than simply opening this section. Or, wait, I see, you mean the bluelinked text beneath that one, "I understand the submission guidelines and my proposal has been approved by the editors.", which opens a small (one-line) box, where I can put some text (my name? the title? A link to the "acceptance"?) after which the button "create new op-ed draft" finally becomes clickable? I have no idea where that one will take me or what I do need to type. Simply stating somewhere that I could or should create a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Proposals would have been easier, but thanks anyway. Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My draft is now at User:Fram/OpEd, feel free to move it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/DYK or whatever place you want it of course. Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fram: No, see the line: "I understand the submission guidelines and my proposal has been approved by the editors." This opens the draft creation dialogue. I'll remove the cover now, it's less helpful than I had hoped it would be. ResMar 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fram (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I've rolled the formatting. ResMar 13:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Fram (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trypophobia

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined
  • Submission: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Trypophobia?
  • Author: Tortle
  • Discussion:On Talk:Trypophobia, one user claimed to feel physical discomfort from looking at a picture and a discussion has been in progress to decide whether the picture should be deleted, should stay, or should be outfitted with a warning. Initially, from reading the comments, I immediatedly sided with keeping it but installing a warning so that one would have to intentionally view the picture. But after reading more about the phobia, it has not been confirmed and scientific research is just beginning and the phobia seems more like a fad or trend online, being all over twitter and facebook and less like a real phobia. I still though believed the users claims of discomfort and thought that the request was valid as the photos made me a little queasy myself. I think that the real issue going on on that talkpage is more widespread and it is where do we cross the line? And the opinions are varying, polarizing the conversation. I think that I can write a good piece about this theme of not wanting to cross the line that is sure to come up many times in the future. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Tortle:, based on your sudden semi-retirement I just that you do not think you have the time at the moment to complete this story...? I would attempt to construct a broader dialogue about this if possible, perhaps by extrapolating out from this singular case study into a wider discussion on similarly pedantic discussions of import on Wikipedia. If you come around with a draft typed out be sure to ping me, and I can have another look at it. I'm moving this to archive for now, however. I...also have a number of unfinished special reports that I started, did significant work on, and never finished...unfortunately. ResMar 05:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

Moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-30/Op-ed Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walled Garden

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined
@StudiesWorld: You seem to be missing a link...? ResMar 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Generation Z is not Generation Wiki

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Declined

Special desk submissions, 2015-02 to 2016-08

edit

Wikidata

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

I'm working on a research proposal about integrating Wikidata more closely with research workflows and would be interested in writing a piece on that for the Dec 31 issue. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, that sounds great. Why don't you go ahead. Tony (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. There was an initial N&N piece, but I'd be happy to provide an update if that is still of interest. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Mietchen:, ah I see. In the absence of a regular editor a lot of what would usually be published as special reports have been published in N&N; I missed that. My apologies! Sorry :-(
If there have been updates be sure to bring them to the newsroom! ResMar 14:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one important update would be that the proposal was actually submitted (details). The other is that there have been some follow-up activities, e.g. in Berlin and Bern last week. In any case, I'm not sure where in the Signpost that would fit. We expect the decision on the initial proposal to come in somewhen during early summer, and then it may perhaps be worth discussing the topic again. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an "in brief" follow up in NAN would be in order. How about it, Resident Mario? Go Phightins! 01:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. ResMar 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Discussion:

April 1 silliness

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
You fools!
  • Discussion:

More April 1 silliness

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: In g-doc.
  • Author: The ed17
  • Rationale:
You fools!
  • Discussion:

Gender ratio

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Cancelled
  • Submission: ---
  • Author: Rich Farmbrough
  • Rationale: This is a strategic piece to be publishing now during WikiWoman's Month and on a high-priority topic.
  • Discussion:

Submission via the Suggestions, creating the ticket now. I'm hoping to time this with closing reporting on WikiWoman's Month end-of-March. ResMar 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: How are things looking? I'm hoping to send out questions to the A+F team later today, if you want to ask some of your own specifically as well that'd work. ResMar 01:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the A+F team? I'll upload a draft later today. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: The A+F team says they're traveling and won't be able to respond until after the April 8th deadline is over, so I've agreed to extent it to April 15th, which gives you more time as well. Getting to be a little late at this point, but! Ok. ResMar 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: A+F seems to have fallen through. We would still be interested in publishing this independently, but we need confirmation if this is still something that you are working on. ResMar 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding myself unexpectedly busy, I am still working on it, but it may be some time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Ack! Bad time to respond late. Ok: just ping me when you're ready and I'll pull this out of the archive box. The A+F team was going, going, nothing. ResMar 21:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
Maybe. Much higher chance of happening if you can find someone to write it. ResMar 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone better than Miyagawa? -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Much higher chance of happening if you can find someone to write it." should be our motto. Or maybe "please help!" Gamaliel (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't unprecedented. J Milburn used to write it for us, basing it off the WikiCup newsletter he also wrote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do it - I'll be drafting the newsletter in the next 24 hours anyway so I suspect it'll be a straight forward expansion. It'll be good to be able to feature more the Wikicup related FPs than I'm able to in a newsletter. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be combine it with the next FC issue. I'm ready for that (as the editor responsible for FC)..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 19:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm aiming to get the newsletter out by close of play on Saturday. So once that is complete, we can look to see what needs to be expanded to add to the FC issue. Miyagawa (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald and Miyagawa: This really needs to be its own report next time: the FC is transcluded onto Portal:Featured content, an inappropriate place for contest results. Easy enough to deal with it this time - a little code to hide it on Portal:Featured content alone - but that's an ugly solution, especially as there's no good way to link to the Wikicup report from the Portal:Featured content version of our FC report without making us look bad. We're far better having it as a separate report linked from the FC page.
I suspect there would have been complaints had I not caught this and yanked Portal:Featured content back on topic, but the thing is, this is a good report; it could deserve a prominent link.
Possible solution: Work up Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-06/Featured_content/Wikicup with a banner in the >noinclude<, and a similarly set-up footer? Then we could add a link to that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it can't appear on Portal:Featured content... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather off-topic for there, surely? I can't imagine we wouldn't get complaints. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this to the special desk because I agree with Adam. It ought to be separable as a special report. That being said, fixing the transclusion so that a WikiCup section does not appear on the Featured content portal would a simple technical operation. ResMar 13:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: I've added the code to strip it from Portal:Featured content. I'd like to link it from the Portal, though, which would be easier if we split it, or used >noinclude< to make Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-06/Featured_content/Wikicup stand alone when linked from the Portal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the split page is publishable on its own, as its own section—as a special report. But it looks like we published it as a part of featured content. Well—I would have done otherwise but fine. Coordination was not very good this issue. ResMar 14:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was only added about 1 day before publication. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went to include it as done here but saw this now. Thanks Adam..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this problem before, with things changing last minute that solidify because post-publication changes are heavily discouraged, even though they are not necessarily ideal. The solution is to work these things out well ahead of publication time, but that does not always happen... ResMar 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I'm happy to produce a separate page for the Cup next time around. I think it'd be interesting to have a handful of competitors interviewed for the piece rather than have me write some fairly dry commentary I've written about who got what points. Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger. Ok, archiving this submission now. ResMar 21:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone tracking

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/News and notes.
  • Discussion:
Discussion here. Creating a ticket to keep track of things. ResMar 01:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can finish this for this week's Signpost. Certainly, the short "News and notes" item can run this time, but since I lack expertise in a few pertinent areas (well, to be honest, most pertinent areas), I'm going to have to talk to other users about some of the specifics. Also, when I'm finished I may ask a couple of users to review what I've written for any obvious errors. It should be ready to go next week. - dcljr (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: That's quite alright, there's no deadline. Just send us the draft whenever you're ready. ResMar 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: Update? ResMar 15:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting really close… Unfortunately, not likely to be ready in the next few days. I can't imagine it won't be ready for the 29th though (when articles are next recounted)! - dcljr (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: Ooh, so next-next issue then? ResMar 13:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh… Now I don't know what to do. It's getting down to the wire for this week, and I'm still unsure about some things (factually) in my write-up. (As recently as yesterday I was still learning new things — in particular, about how Wikistats handles article counts, which is relevant because I think many people think that those counts are directly comparable to the on-wiki stats, and they really aren't.) Also, I've basically been writing it (stylistically) like an "essay" in the main namespace of Meta (although with certain nods to the idea that it might be moved to another wiki). I actually planned to move it to m:Article counts revisited (to replace the 3-year-old content that's currently there) when I was finished. I'm not sure if I should try to use the current text (once "finished", of course) directly as the Signpost article or assume that readers will consult the full version at the Meta page if they want and try to condense it down to a more reasonable size for the Signpost. What do you think? - dcljr (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: Sigh… sorry, but it doesn't look like I'll be able to have this ready for this week's Signpost, after all. Unless publication gets delayed a couple of days for other reasons (this seems to happen occasionally). But don't delay publication just on my account, because I don't know how much time I'll actually be able to spend on it in the next few days. (Oh, and BTW, I've decided writing a more compact summary for the Signpost and linking to the full details in the Meta main namespace is the way to go. I think it will result in a much more "enjoyable" article.) - dcljr (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: Ahhhh. I typed out a response to you last night but I don't see it here now—that's happened to me before, hate that. The gist of it was like this: yes, you definitely need to condense the material a little, and discuss the problem of article oounting and how it's been done over time in front, then talk a little about the numbers we have now (your efforts) towards the end. Here are some references: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-04/Special report, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-01/Special report, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-08/Technology report, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-18/Special report. Going for next issue is fine. ResMar 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: I might as well move this into the "Wikipedia:" namespace, so you and other interested parties can start copyediting it (if desired) to more closely fit Signpost style. I'm still not finished with the last section, but everything else is basically as good as it's gonna get from me. I've condensed the original text down a bit (c. 30%), but it got longer again just because I wasn't finished adding information. As a result, it's almost the same size overall as it was before. It should read a lot "cleaner" now, though. (I've removed most of the linking to further information like Help pages.) "Newspaper-style" writing is not my thing, so if someone wants to go to town on it stylistically, they can do so once it's moved. Otherwise, there's just a few places here and there that could be streamlined a bit (marked in the text). I am loathe to cut it down much more, however, because then you start to lose important information (IMO). See what you think... So, where should I move it? (The "Create new special report draft" button above didn't work for me.) - dcljr (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editing this down will be challenging, let's see what we can do. ResMar 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: I have now thoroughly gone through the piece. In particular I hid most of the statistics regarding individual wikis in the recount section; I tried to keep the most interesting bits there, but there are more details tables available for review by those that want them, and they otherwise break the flow of a good narrative read. I would suggest graphics to summarize this information: mw:Extension:Graph recently went live and this looks like an excellent opportunity for playing around with visual reporting in the Signpost. Not knowing anything about them, though, I can't contribute much on that front, unfortunately. ResMar 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: I've copyedited your copyedit. [grin] I can live with the merciless cuts, but I've had to fix a few errors that crept in. (Will a second editor look over it?) As for graphs, that can possibly replace some of the excised quantitative information (e.g., what percent of wikis changed by how much); I'll have to look into that… - dcljr (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcljr: Great! Another editor will CE ahead of publication but in terms of content we're basically there. Graphics would be amazing, and we're also on the super cutting-edge of that: last week's FDC guide could have used the just-enabled visualization engine for instance. I suggest a stacked bar chart showing the mean size of each of the evaluated project sets before and then after recount. Another: perhaps one showing the biggest winner and biggest loser, percentage-wise, in each set of projects. ResMar 13:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you beat me to it. (Thanks for that, BTW.) Maybe you should add some other graphs instead of me? I haven't had a chance to learn how to actually create the graphs yet. The biggest "winner" and "loser" info is easy enough to get from the big table (although showing the largest percent changes might be somewhat misleading, since smaller wikis are naturally more "variable", percentage-wise, than larger ones — OTOH, the absolute changes can also be considered misleading for a similar reason: the larger [technically, higher-traffic] wikis are naturally more variable in terms of absolute changes to counts than the smaller ones!). As for the "mean size of each", do you really mean "mean" or just "total"? I think the latter metric is probably a more useful (and familiar) one — although I guess the latter would make for a more visually "appealing" graph (unless a logarithmic y-axis is used for total articles, smallest projects at the bottom and biggest at the top??). Anyway, here's the total articles and number of wikis (so you can calculate the means) for each recounted project: Wikipedia = from 34,795,319 to 34,836,734 (in 288 wikis); Wiktionary = 22,263,625 to 22,244,087 (171 wikis); Wikiquote = 180,392 to 159,845 158,845 (89 wikis); Wikisource = 4,200,261 to 3,679,110 (63 wikis); Wikinews = 217,288 to 202,885 (33 wikis); Wikiversity = 86,031 to 73,137 (16 wikis); Wikivoyage = 84,315 to 81,072 (17 wikis). - dcljr (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea for visualizing the changes within each project. I'll add the numbers to the article itself, and you (or I) can try to graph them or not: For each project, we can show a cube whose volume represents the article count before the change, then two smaller cubes beside it representing the total increase among wikis whose counts grew and the total decrease in wikis whose counts shrunk. Using cubes will reduce (visually) the order-of-magnitude differences in the numbers involved — and, if possible, we could even try to use perspective (larger projects in the "back", smaller ones "up front") to further reduce the visual differences in the sizes. Not sure if perspective is supported by the Graph extension, but hopefully making cubes of given sizes is. Will calculate the required numbers this evening (in 8 or 9 hrs). - dcljr (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Doesn't look like Extension:Graph can do 3D cubes. :( - dcljr (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extension seems very complicated and I will have to spend quite some time figuring it out, I think, at some later date. I stripped a list of all of the numbers from the 2015 effort and make a CSV out of them, but I can't get them to work in a graph because the grah only sorts by x values and I don't have a way to automatically (nor have the space to) provide x-axis labels for every item. ResMar 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't even figure out how to do a stacked bar graph with a logarithmic y-axis! Doesn't matter though, because when I finally got the plot I wanted on my Gnumeric at home, it didn't look as good as I was hoping. Bummer. I still like the cube idea (or some variation on it): the ratio of the side lengths for the largest [Wikipedia] and smallest [Wikiversity] cubes would be a mere 7.8: entirely reasonable; and the "change" cubes, while tiny, would at least be larger than 1 pixel in size [depending on the size of the full graph, of course]). But actually making such a graph would require using a more sophisticated program (I do have such a program here at home, but I don't have the skills [or, if I do, I don't have the time] necessary to actually create the plot — as you said, maybe later). Note also that I have changed one number in my above summary of total articles by project. See the shiny new table at m:Article counts revisited#Changes to article counts on 29 March 2015 for the same info with more details. - dcljr (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
I am submitting this proposal because Google Translation Project carried out during 2009-2011 is the only one of its kind during the history of Telugu Wikipedia and no analysis of the impact has been reported till date.

As part of the plan to extend Google Translate software for languages of India, Google launched the translation project [1] to translate popular English wikipedia articles into various Indian languages using paid translators. The project was presented in Wikimania 2010 by Google and critical review of the project in Tamil was also shared. Google tried to address the shortcomings by engaging with Tamil Wikipedian community, but could not make much progress. Google finally announced that the project was completed in July 2011. In this review, I utilise the metrics on contributions, page views from Wikipedia to analyse the impact of the project on Telugu wikipedia. The initial findings suggest that the impact of the project on page requests is about 3%, and more than 90% of translated articles remain unimproved. The proposal plans to include lessons learnt from this initiative, that could help any future initiatives. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussion:
Hi Arjunaraoc. Just to be clear, you would like to write a special report sharing your findings based on the metrics of contributions of the Telugu Wikipedia? If so, I would say go ahead and move forward, and we can refine the scope as you go. Let me know if you have further questions. All the best, Go Phightins! 01:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go Phightins!, Thanks for your response. I will update the link for the submission after the draft is ready.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 21:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go Phightins!, The draft is ready. The link is updated in the Submission column above. Let me know your feedback. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a comprehensive article ... to be blunt, very few if anyone will read the whole thing, and it will be a major TL;DR event. Can it be shortened to no more than 1200 words? I will give more thorough feedback once we can decide what is pertinent and what is not. Thanks again for your interest. Go Phightins! 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Go Phightins! for your frank feedback. I have revised the text by keeping the essential elements. The link for revised article is updated above. The new size is about 1/4 of the previous size. Let me know whether the revision fits the requirements. It is possible to reduce further by removing the tables, but these provide essential data for better understanding. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to be of a better size. I will read as soon as I get a chance. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Go Phightins!,Can you let me know how much more time you may need for the review?. As an author, I would like to see it published as soon as possible.In case you are busy, will it be possible for other editors to review my contribution.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for the delay. Another member of the editorial board will have to review this. @Gamaliel: Sorry, I will be away next week, and will not have time; can either you or Tony look at this? Thanks. -- Go Phightins! 15:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be available for new stuff after the 29th. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjunaraoc: I looked at this essay and started thinking about your approach. You are presenting quantified information about a certain technical initiative that occurred some time ago. In this case, I would say that you should let your data tell the story. You have buried your charts in the sidebar, but I would bring them out in 500px in the center, with full explanations and opinions on what's going on in them. I would also want to turn that large table in "Key editing statistics" into an additional data visualization. ResMar 18:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Go Phightins! for your response. Thanks User:Resident Mario for a quick and very thoughtful feedback. I have improved the article. Please review and let me know if any changes are required. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Arjunaraoc: I have begun revising the essay after moving it to here, at this desk. I left some initial comments for you. ResMar 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Resident Mario for improving the lead paragraphs. I have made few edits clarifying your questions and improving the article further. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Resident Mario. I have updated and addressed your comments. Google referred to the project as Google's Wikipedia Translation Project in its wikimania communication. Should the reference be changed from GTP to GWTP? Any suggestions about the title?
  Arjunaraoc: I would say that this is one of those cases where you have leeway: pick one name for it and stick with it in the article. Since you've been using GTP so far, I'd say stick with GTP (unless a strong reason to pick the other name comes up). Res Mar 14:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Resident Mario, Thanks for your critical feedback which is really an eye opener for me, as I am used to technical communication in general. I have improved the essay further with a clear call for action and improved story telling further. Please review.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Arjunaraoc: Ok, I am mostly finished with revisions now. You should address the remaining points and assess whether or not you agree with the conclusions I have drawn from you data and more strongly stated in your conclusion. Once that's done we can pass it to our copy-editors for finer refinement. ResMar 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Resident Mario, Thanks for your updates. The article is much better. I agree with your assessment. I have addressed the feedback and left some responses (in green colour) for your feedback(in red). You may review and disposition that part before pushing it to the next step with appropriate title for the report.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the article published. Thanks @User:Go Phightins! and others who helped with this.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The credit must go to Resident Mario. He did almost all of the work :-) Go Phightins! 01:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FoP

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Cancelled
@Jheald: I am creating a ticket for this item now here, where discussions about it should be centralized. I've up-converted your format to the new narrative one and left some comments at the front about the need for a more thorough introduction to the matter: why is it important? How does it affect us? What did we try to do about it? Etc. Thanks, ResMar 03:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resident Mario: The piece was conceived as a news update, just to let people know what had happened on Thursday. I am sorry I didn't get it finished in time. When I got to the point on Friday night that I was too tired to do any more with it, I should have just left it as it was, finishing with Oettinger's statements and gone with that. But I had wanted to cover some of the reactions to the Reda report as a whole, and also fit in some mention of some of the coverage about the campaign, eg this piece from Euronews, or link to some of Orlowski's anti-Wikipedia columns on the campaign in The Register.
I appreciate it's the wrong shape for a more general stand-alone feature rather than a news update. But I have really had enough of the subject. I've written pieces for the Signpost for the last three weeks before this, and I really don't want to have to re-hash them all again. All I wanted to write was a straightforward news update, and I'm sorry I didn't file in time. If you want something more, then somebody else should write it; and if you want a review piece it should probably be somebody with a bit more distance from the events being described.
One other thing: note that the image with the EP blacked out was a political image made by Reda's office directly to attack Cavada. For that reason IMO we should be wary of using it as a routine editorial image, but instead be clear to caption it as such and make clear the context it came from -- as I hope I did in the previous piece when I covered it before the vote. I also regret that somebody seems to have cut the [:File:European Parliament rejects clause against Freedom of Panorama.jpg|climactic vote screen] from the article -- at least when written as a news update, the information on that screen was the key culmination of the process.
The other thing that a review piece really ought to do would be to cover more of the campaigning and reactions and press coverage from around Europe outwith the English language material that I have almost exclusively covered in previous weeks. The Germans, the Catalans, the Czechs, the Estonians, and probably more languages, all ran significant campaigning with significant results. I know about this video that a Catalan tv station ran, which included a piece to camera with its own station buildings blacked out; but there was more from all over Europe, and even outside the EU as in Switzerland [2]. Particular value might be found in reviewing the (limited, but not non-existent) press coverage in France, as the most significant hold-out against freedom of panorama.
But it's more than I want to do. I've done too much on this in the last three weeks, there are other projects I want to get back to now. Writing isn't something that comes particularly easily to me, still less when under pressure to try to condense the most information into the tightest possible space. The pieces I wrote in the last three weeks were pieces I wrote because I felt I had to, because people needed to know what was going on. Similarly a news update to tell people how it had turned out, what had just happened. But a properly done review piece of the whole process? It would be great to have, but really I have had enough of writing on this subject. I wrote what I felt needed to be written, for people to know what had happened. Anything more I am very happy to leave to somebody else. Jheald (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Jheald: Ok, understood. Thanks for your contributions so far! Our coverage of the issue so far is quite excellent, but having more never hurts. As for the images, It's your piece, I merely threw images that stood out to me at the layout. ResMar 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Health

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

Drone photography: New possibilities and new challenges

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published


Public Domain Day 2016

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

Women in Antarctica

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published

@Evolution and evolvability: Thank you for the submission! I have skimmed through this, and am impressed; I have not given it a close read yet, but a couple quick suggestions for now:

  • Can the headline be rewritten in a way that makes it clearer to the uninitiated what the article's about? Readers may be more interested in an article about an expansion or improvement of WP content, or about recruiting and retaining expert contributors, than one that's about a group's experience.
  • Can you define the term "Wikibomb" the first time it's used in the article? I haven't heard the term before -- while I get a sense of what is meant, it would be better to have it explicitly described.

Overall, it looks great, and we'll be sure to review more closely. We plan to publish soon -- we're behind schedule and getting caught up. I don't know a specific deadline yet, will need to confer with co-editors -- but the sooner you can address this stuff, the easier it'll be. Many thanks for the interesting submission! -Pete (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did, Evolution and evolvability. I've gone through and made a few more suggestions, and added some inline comments in the wiki text. (If you're using VisualEditor, I'm not sure if you can see them -- so let me know, and I'll find another way to communicate them to you!) On the whole: excellent detail, but it took me until the end of the piece to understand that everything you were describing was preparation for an event that is still forthcoming. If you could work that info into the first few paragraphs, the piece would be easier to follow. That's my only significant concern, the rest is small details. Thanks for doing this work, and for writing it up here! -Pete (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Our publication target for this is noon UTC on Thursday. If you're able to make final edits by, say, 4pm Pacific time tomorrow (Wednesday), that will give me a little time to review. -Pete (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm happy to edit MarkUp when necessary ^_^. I've addressed the first few point. You're right that it was unclear what was done virtually, and what we're doing at the event on the 23rd of August. I'll finish clarifying it this evening, and add in some quotes from our volunteers. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth, Megalibrarygirl, Go Phightins!, and Jayen466: Ok, so I think I've addressed the specific comments and suggestions. I've added a few things in. Please have a check for length and flow, and absolutely feel free to cut sections if you feel its too appropriate! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits look good to me, Evolution and evolvability. I'm quite pleased with the story. I think another set of eyes on it might be advisable if somebody's available, but we might be a little spread thin as we push this issue out. Thank you for sharing the news! By the way, would you prefer that your byline reads like your username here? (T.Shafee(Evo&Evo))? -Pete (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: Hi, yes "T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)" would be ideal. I'll see if I can get an extra proofreader before tomorrow noon (pacific time). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also had it proof-read by a non-Wikipedian and integrated their suggestions. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marvelous -- thanks for taking the initiative on that, big help! -Pete (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User script report

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Started work over at User:Evad37/New userscripts
  • Author: Evad37
  • Discussion:
    Several new user scripts get added to the list at WP:User scripts each month (or at least most months). I thought it would a good idea to let people know of these new (or newly listed) scripts so more people can enjoy the work of the community's javascript coders. I would also be willing to put together new listings on an ongoing basis (maybe monthly?), if you can find somewhere in the Signpost to put them. - Evad37 [talk] 13:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Jayen466: - Evad37 [talk] 13:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Signpost editorial board, we think it is a terrific idea, and we can't wait to see where you take it, Evad37. Why don't you draft a first edition in your userspace, drop a note here, we can see how long it is, and then decide where to put it or whether it might be best as a stand-alone feature. Thanks for getting in touch! Go Phightins! 02:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a short bulleted list, news and notes IB? Add it to the end of tech news, if you start that again? Just ideas. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the first one, I was thinking of a longer report covering from the beginning of the year, which I have drafted here. For ongoing monthly coverage, it could just be some bullet points, like this - Evad37 [talk] 06:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Ping @Go Phightins! and Jayen466: - Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike, Ed, as tech report was where I had in the back of my mind as a regular location if we can get that running. Evad37: I think you did a good job with that first report ... my only concern is that there are so many scripts there that some are bound to get lost in the shuffle. I wonder if it might be best to limit how many you "give away" in the first edition to make sure you have quality scripts to share down the line. However, if you think there is a sufficient supply of good scripts to feature for a while, then I am fine with it. Are you amenable to us publishing it this week as a subpoint in news and notes? Does that work for you, Jayen466? Thanks! Go Phightins! 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also favour having this as an item in the Technology Report, which we should revive, based on the reports in Meta that are still being published. Andreas JN466 08:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins! and Jayen466: I have created a split version [3] & [4] that could run over this issue and next issue. I am confident, based on the revision history of WP:US, that there would be at least 3–4 new scripts a month. Including it in either News and notes or Technology report is fine by me, whatever works better for you. - Evad37 [talk] 11:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC) (and thanks for the encouragement, by the way)[reply]
Thanks, Evad37. I have copied the content of the first part to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Technology_report, and have added an "In brief" section for the relevant items from Meta's current Tech News. The issue should be published in the next 24 hours. --Andreas JN466 08:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: I've copied part 2 to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Technology_report, please fix or let me know if there's any mistakes (with the setup/formatting etc). I added mentions on new gadgets and newly approved bot tasks to the "in brief" section, along with the latest tech news. - Evad37 [talk] 00:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evad37, this is an excellent report. Thank you! A small, but important detail: I think there is a bit of connective tissue between the idea of a "user script" and a "gadget" that would help it hang together -- a gadget is basically just a user script that's been wrapped up into a preference setting, right? Just a brief intro in the "gadget" section would help less technical readers understand how the ideas connect. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth:   Done, and thanks for the feedback (please copyedit if you think you improve anything) - Evad37 [talk] 00:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in reply to your comments at the suggestions page, I did take some of your language from N&N, and used the descriptions form Special:Preferences as the main identifiers (putting the script names in small text and parentheses afterwards, with a link to the script source) - Evad37 [talk] 00:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All looks great, thanks! I have made a few further tweaks; please take a look to make sure I didn't screw anything up. -Pete (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pete, I corrected a malformed section link but otherwise looks good. - Evad37 [talk] 03:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsroom submissions, 2017-03 to 2017-07

edit

Wikipedia has cancer

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test of backup server

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Cancelled

Wikipedia for Peace Berlin

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
Should be included as an "in brief" under News and Notes. (m:Wikipedia_for_Peace_Berlin_2017 has full info) Earlyspatz, if you could submit a 1-2 sentence summary for that purpose, it would be helpful. Thank you for the suggestion! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia for Peace: At the beginning of July 2017 volunteers from all over the world will come together to write articles on the topic of persecution and refuge in Berlin, Germany and also visit different projects in Berlin. If your interested please contact User:Earlypsatz.
I want to add: We already have 15 participants that we selected now. So there is no place open anymore unless someone cancels. But maybe if an experienced Wikipedian is interested in the project, we could add an extra person. {{ping]Peteforsyth}} We are also trying to organize a short event in Madrid for the world- pride in Madrid. Would be from 23rd - 27th of June. Would it be possible to write something about that in the signpost and until when would I have to submit the text?--EarlyspatzTalk 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


July 4 to July 18 2017: Wikipedia for Peace Berlin
 
Wikipedia fo Peace Logo
 
Braniborská brána

You are invited to join us for Wikipedia for Peace Berlin, a Wikipedia work-camp in which we will write articles on the topic of persecution and refuge and also experience Berlin. The goal is to teach newcomers how to edit Wikipedia and write as many articles as possible on the subject. We will also visit different refugee projects in Berlin and have workshops on the topic of persecution and refuge.

Wikipedia for Peace is a movement that has been active since 2015. We want to publish articles on issues related to peace and also help to create a more welcoming community.

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

 
  Done
 – Published as an "In brief" note in News and Notes - Evad37 [talk] 02:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative for Open Citations

edit
 
Status:
V ?
N/A
Moved here from the old Special desk - Evad37 [talk] 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will be covered in the upcoming issue's News and Notes - Evad37 [talk] 01:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Done: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-23/News and notes - Evad37 [talk] 02:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post

edit
 
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:Charles Matthews/Facto Post/Opinion piece
  • Submission type: Opinion
  • Author: Charles Matthews
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about Facto Post, a mass-message monthly Wikipedia newsletter, with a deliberately provocative brief, and why I am writing it. Its pilot issue of 14 June can be read here. One good reason for discussing it in the Signpost is my feeling that the current Wikimedia movement review is failing to be radical enough.Charles Matthews (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feedback Charles, I read your editorial completely and came away a bit confused. I'm not sure readers will follow, either. Recommend sharpening the ed. around (1) the common sourcing issue and the solution you see in Wikidata (2) the editorial position of Facto Post and how it intends to address the problem. Hook the reader earlier in the editorial and make them want to find out what you are proposing. Try to put some meat on the bones of "citation reform and integration" – is this the crux of the proposal? Also, it's your call, but I sensed a bit of Eurocentrism in the middle of the next-to-last section that left me a bit put off. Bri (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for the constructive feedback. Eurocentrism: yes, that is a crude name for something. "Make the European Web great again!" That sounds like, well, not what people want to read. But Berners-Lee is saying something that is in the same ballpark. So I'll work a bit on the piece. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The state of taskforces in 2017

edit

 
Status:
V ?
Published

Also it explains why Task Forces are struggling to remain active22mikpau (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@22mikpau: This might work better as an opinion piece looking at the state of taskforces (or subprojects of other projects) and issues they face in general in 2017, and using Rick Riordan Task Force and its edit-a-thon as an example. Perhaps we could even get editors from other projects/task forces to give their views and ideas, and publish a few different pieces on the same topic alongside each other. - Evad37 [talk] 02:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: That is a fantastic idea! I think we can keep most of what I've already written with a few tweaks here and there. I would be willing to find other editors you've mentioned above and see if they can give their two cents.22mikpau (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, 22mikpau; I've renamed this section accordingly. I'll also ask around, and we'll see what we both come up with. - Evad37 [talk] 02:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. good idea. I was contemplating opening a discussion on this very topic a few hours ago...which I might just now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, just dropping in in response to the note at WikiProject Military History. Can you just clarify, WRT this do you mean the project overall, or our internal taskforces? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Probably leaning more towards the general situation across the site... but using the internal MILHIST taskforces as examples of what could be done, or what has and hasn't worked, or something like that, would also be fine. - Evad37 [talk] 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in this. Two aspects I find very helpful are assessment grids (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Assessment#Statistics, which no-one has been able to tell me if we can do for task force alone) and User:HotArticlesBot - this bot can't handle large wikiprojects but is a great idea and if it could be adapted to task forces would be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the writing portion of the article is done unless someone has a major objection. I personally think it's good but it may still need grammar and spell checks. Let me know if you have any suggestions. By the way, since I was one of the only editors with one exception, I finished the story myself. Hope thats ok, I just thought that it was the best way to get it done by our next issue. BTW, if theirs anything you guys want help on just leave my something on my talk page, I would be more then happy to help where I can. Thanks for all the help and advice from everyone.22mikpau (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 22mikpau. @Bri or Sj: (or others), can you take a look/provide feedback? - Evad37 [talk] 03:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a first-pass cleanup and think it's publishable with some more work. Will do it again with fresh eyes in 10 hours or so and provide feedback. - Bri (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm bit behind my promised time of re-enlightenment or whatever. I think this is close to ready for publication. It would be good to have another pair of eyes on it. We definitely need some tweaking on the intro -- i.e. the fact that task forces and subgroups exist within a WikiProject (some of them) isn't explained anywhere. The Signpost article decoration templates have also been applied as best I know how. Completed and outstanding tasks:
  • First cleanup/copyedit   Done
  • Title   Done
  • Second copyedit (not done)
  • Blurb   Done
Rgds - Bri (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not clear, I think this is ready for today's issue. Would still like cped by another set of eyes, but not critical. Bri (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_1&oldid=1166787331"