Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Newsroom
Latest comment: 1 year ago by JPxG in topic Snapshot

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Snapshot

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Volume 14, Issue 5 – April 27, 2018


Note that this was inexplicably at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive. jp×g 04:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Next issue (May)

Latest comment: 6 years ago78 comments8 people in discussion
Writing: 23 May (-2377 days ago; -8489%)
Publishing: 25 May (-2375 days ago; -7916%)
Discussion here is archived after the publication of each issue

I've archived the "Table of contents" that was used last issue. While it did its job, it really was unnecessarily duplicating the table below. We can just use the status part of the table to indicate if a section is going to be in the next issue (green/"Done") or not (anything else). Changing the order of sections might be slightly more effort, but it is possible - just need to change the numbers used in the parameters. Or maybe decide the order just using the section names, rather than duplicating links, titles, and statuses? - Evad37 [talk] 04:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC) But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to add it back. - Evad37 [talk] 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi all, sorry that I haven't been very active in this issue. I've been very busy, both in other areas of Wikipedia, and real life. I will try to be more active, but will be off-wiki for 5 weeks from the end of June, essentially making me 'absent' for the July issue(s).Eddie891 Talk Work 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Submissions

Submissions for the next issue should be reviewed in a timely fashion especially when contributed by new writers. There are now two marked "unreviewed", and one has asked me for feedback. Is reviewing a task for the E in C, or can anybody in Newsroom list the submissions as reviewed? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing Submissions should be a task for the Editors, so currently Barbara and me. I reviewed the piece by a new writer and marked it as "in Development" for now. I would propose putting it into the main Newroom ToC right now for easier overview; and would also say the same for pieces by regular writers, i.e. starting them directly in the main Newsroom to avoid the whole "why are there two pages for discussions of the same articles" issue. Zarasophos (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report

Pythoncoder Might wanna keep an eye out for this Zarasophos (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure you want this written in first person? I write in first person so no one else gets blamed for what I do, but this is a 'report' and may be more appropriate in a tone similiar to other reports. I'm not going to mess with what exists now unless there is some agreement to change to the third person. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes these things write themselves. I didn't realize I had been doing that until now. Fixed. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I marked this ready to publish, but there is one more thing you could clarify. In the report you said Jimbo weighed in, but I don't see him as a contrubutor at Village Pump link given. If you are referring to the discussion on his own talkpage, then that could be clarified. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The Discussion report looks completely ready to publish now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we should probably report on the Foundation discussion on last issue's AN/I report, but it doesn't really seem like there's anything noteworthy going on there... Shame to see the reporting go to waste. We should probably keep it in mind for a follow-up, though. Zarasophos (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Nevermind, just saw you already put it into the Discussion Report. We should definitely still do a follow-up once the discussion wraps up, though. Zarasophos (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed :) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Blog

Can someone teach me how to import the Wikimedia blog? I've tried using the import tool and can't get it to work. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can help. Which blog item do you want to as a demo, but can do whichever you identify. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I can do the formatting now, if you would like to move on to other tasks. What is my problem with importing, do you know? Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm ... Did you give the tool the right URL, i.e. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/03/why-i-women-wikipedia/, then click the button? Did you copy-paste into the blog column shell? The rest of copyediting and formatting is all yours! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I certainly did not enter the correct URL. Now I know why it did not work. I can do the import for the Signpost on a consistent basis until someone else who wants to take over. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

From the editor

See User:Kudpung/sandbox#Recurring themes for text of issue 6 "From the editors" (aka section zero). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is now at User:Kudpung/From the editor May 2018.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this correction, "editor" or "editors" makes no difference to me, but it used to be "editors": Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/From the editors ☆ Bri (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the tradition says. I see that some E-in-C put their name at the bottom. Does this have to be done? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
In this 2015 issue it was "editor". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
On the content guidance, it says generally titled "From the editors", but then again the section heading is "From the editor(s)", suggesting either is fine. - Evad37 [talk] 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Irregular feature page moves

Irregular features really ought to be in subpages of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue – i.e Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Special report for a special report. As well as being a necessary part of the publication process (assuming the publishing script is to be used), it would make the article status templates in the section below work properly. I would do it myself, but

  • (a) I don't want to step on anyone's toes, since Kudpung's and Chris troutman are the EIC and publication manager;
  • (b) It's not clear whether the submissions have been approved – i.e. planned to be published in an upcoming issue, subject to checklist completion / final EIC sign-off (like all the other sections);
  • (c) The section names to be used, like "Special report", "Op-ed", etc., are usually chosen by the EIC, and while I think the ones in the table are what Kudpung wants, I'm not 100% clear. - Evad37 [talk] 01:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Evad37 I still don't fully understand how the coloured table is supposed to work. Any help appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: The article status table basically tracks the status of everything that's definitely going into the next issue. Sort of like a Trello board (or other task management system), but instead having different columns for different stages (not started, in-progress, completed), it uses differing background colors (red, yellow, green). There are also spaces for notes about tasks to be completed (e.g. "needs copyedit", "Could use an image", etc) and/or discussion about the article. Thus the table gives an overview of what's planned for the next issue, whats been completed, and what's still left to be done.
For irregular articles – op-eds, special reports, other outside submissions – they should get proposed at the Submissions page first for approval by the EIC – i.e. that it is suitable for the Signpost, per the guidelines. Once approved, a section name should be chosen by the EIC (like "Op-ed", "Opinion", "Community view", etc), the draft should be moved from userspace (or wherever) to that section name as a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/ (e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-ed), and a row for the article should be added to the article status table.
In the template that generates the table, each article has a set of parameters |task#=, |link#= |status#= |notes#=, where # is a unique number for each article.
  • task is the article section (e.g. "News and notes", "Special report")
  • link is the article page (which should always be a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue)
  • status is one of "Not started", "In progress", "Done", "Postponed" (or a couple of other values in rarer cases)
  • notes is for notes in the right-hand column.
As the publishing deadline approaches, sections should be marked as "Done"/green if it should be published, or "Postponed"/grey if it isn't ready for publication (or remain in red if not started). Thus the publication manager knows to publish only those sections that are meant to be published, and not any unfinished work.
Does that help? - Evad37 [talk] 08:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've been bold and done the page moves [1][2] Evad37 [talk] 09:23, 16 May 2018

Style question for titles and blurbs

Regarding the title and blurb recorded in the draft header template: should either one of these have a terminal full stop? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Titles: no, since titles and headings generally (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) do not. Blurbs: yes, since they are a sentence describing the article. Plus the publishing script stitches them together as {title}: {blurb} for the RSS feed description. - Evad37 [talk] 01:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Evad. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Report

The Portals Wikiproject is a good idea for the article. I'm sure The Transhumanist would be willing to say a few words on it (heck, they've already written an article on it with their RfC comments). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, who's doing the article? Because the person previously listed as the writer now says they're retired. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing it, waiting for answers now Zarasophos (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Close to deadline, is this going to run in issue 6 or ...? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Waiting for The Transhumanist, but good to run otherwise Zarasophos (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Facebook information button

Is anyone able to find or make a picture of Facebook's new "information" or "More About" or whatever it's called button that links to Wikipedia? I don't seem to be able to find any (looking for News and Notes) and don't use Facebook myself. Zarasophos (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zarasophos: I do not FB either, but see second paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/In the media ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is attribution, all of those pictures are probably copyrighted... Zarasophos (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we are OK, they are using a generic button. The image published in last issue was created in 2007 and is CC BY-SA. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There is also a PD icon   ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were referring to the illustrations in the articles. I wanted to use one of those mock-ups of what the button will be showing for the sidebar, not sure if a 300px button really shows that much... :P Zarasophos (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Both are vector graphics and scale nicely       /       ☆ Bri (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Bri, you are always so good with the graphics. Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll accept credit for finding them, but really talented people other than me created them. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration report

to the case for 'BLP reverts by blocked editors: Case rejected 3 May'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"BLP reverts by blocked editors" is covered briefly in Arbitration report. Is there more you'd like to see? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I found a bad wikilink in that report and a missing case request. Standing by if there's more you see needs my attention. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

News and notes

I think a different ordering might represent reader interest. The two items of higher interest IMO include the attempted account break-ins, which led to multiple extensive discussions. Also perhaps but not necessarily the Facebook tie-in resulting in 500,000 additional Wikipedia views a day. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please reduce the size of that photo by at least half. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 Y Zarasophos (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the attempted break-in is by now a month old, and the Facebook thing has been exhaustively reported on before and is just getting rolled out today. Zarasophos (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 Y Zarasophos (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • One more thing I'm struggling with neutrality on involving Brave:Edit which we covered in ITM. Maybe Z can do better. See my short synopsis of the on-wiki discussion here. I'm not even sure if this belongs alongside the ITM item or elsewhere such as News and Notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I just read into the thing a little and I gotta say, I'm terribly confused. The event was held in a coordination between the Foundation and that one local organizer, going completely over the heads of everyone here at the Wiki? And then she is confused when people ask her why she did this? This is really strange. However, I'm really not to sure if/how we should include this on-wiki debate in our coverage. I mean, the thing happened and apparently created articles - though I guess the New Pages patrol now has problems with them; the only angle I could see this as an interesting story is if we talk to both sides and the patrollers and then make it about how you shouldn't go above the heads of on-wiki people. However, I think that would be a bit disproportionate for what little has apparently happened (it's what, 16 new articles?) and would also need much more time.
What I'm trying to say: In its current fashion, your ITM coverage seems all we can do without stirring up a hornet's nest that would need much more effort to be made into an interesting story. Zarasophos (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Technology report

I asked for a screenshot to use in the TR feature. Pending answer. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Got the screenshot, added to TR. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I knew the bullets were intentional, it's just that I don't think section headers should have bullet points next to them Zarasophos (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(I think you mean me) But they are subsections of tech news. Having them at the same same level is semantically wrong. If you don't like bullets, indentation (:) could be used - Evad37 [talk] 10:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Consider this merely a proposal ... Evad37 owns the layout as far as I'm concerned. It got a little wonky with fifth-level deep section headers. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Evad37: Yeah, sorry. Bris proposal looks good, though! Zarasophos (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

Style question for the team: do we want each review to mention the title and author of the thing being reviewed? I think this is standard for published book reviews, for example. In the current issue's prepared item, some reviews don't even mention the title of the research report they are reviewing. Although it is in a footnote, which may be good enough. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ready to go?

Are we inked up and ready to roll? Is Chris troutman ready? RSS feeds and Social Media sorted? Can I have a UTC time/date when the machine is intended to be turned on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm standing by for the word to publish. I was actually about to go to sleep. I'll be back in ten hours. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, sounds good Chris. Just waiting on Bri for a final update. I believe there is a preview feature - I'd like to see that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Is the article order in the status table okay? "From the editor" has to be first to get the proper formatting (in certain places like the single-page edition), but the other sections could go in any order. - Evad37 [talk] 03:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Evad37 I think this should be it for this issue. En.Wiki relevant articles come first.
  1. From the Editor
  2. Op-Ed
  3. Opinion
  4. Wikiproject report
  5. Discussion report
  6. Featured content
  7. Arbitration report
  8. News and notes
  9. In the media
  10. Traffic report
  11. Technology report
  12. Blog
  13. Recent research
  14. Humour
  15. Gallery
  16. From the archives

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the publishing preview is really only visible when you run the script. I can post a screen shot if you want it. Otherwise I'm good to go. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The script logs a bunch of stuff to the browser console, which can be previewed with Special:ExpandTemplates. The main thing that's worth previewing in this way is the main page, in case the column balance is too uneven - Evad37 [talk] 03:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here it is with the above order:
Extended content
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|{{Str left|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|2}}|9}}|{{date|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|dmy}}|{{Str right|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|2}}|10}}}}
<!-- Main area -->
{{Signpost-main-page-body-begin}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|From the editor|Another issue meets the deadline|A busy office with minimal staff.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Op-ed|Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?|Kudpung has some thoughts on the reasons for becalmed forums and the reluctance of candidates to (wo)man the rigging.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Opinion|Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia|Thoughts on how looking for the truth on Wikipedia brings out unexpected things in the real world.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|WikiProject report|WikiProject Portals|After a recent Village Pump discussion, the Signpost looks at WikiProject Portals.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Discussion report|Discussion Report|User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Featured content|Featured Content|Science, sportspeople, video games, and history feature heavily in the community's picks this month.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Arbitration report|Managing difficult topics|Has an attempt to prevent historical revisionism become a content battleground?}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|News and notes|Lots of Wikimedia|De-recognition of Brazil user groups; brute-force attack on Wikipedia; Wikimedia Conference 2018; and assorted other silly things.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|In the media|Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work|And the burning question of the day, is the the monkey selfie going to space with the rest of Wikipedia?}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Traffic report|We love our superheros|No surprises here as the summer movie season begins.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Technology report|A trove of contributor and developer goodies|Improved mobile app, searching, citations, inline maps, voting, and more.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Blog|Why I write about women on Wikipedia|Editor SusunW delves into reasons why she has created hundreds of article about women.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Recent research|Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues|Too many women still don't know that Wikipedia is editable.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Humour|Play with your food|Down the rabbit hole into the realm of third-grade mind.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Gallery|Wine not?|May 25 is National Wine Day in the United States.}}
 
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|From the archives|''The Signpost'' scoops ''The Signpost''|The dark and twisted world of Wikipedia's most powerful media institution: ''The Signpost''.}}
 
</div>
<div style="clear:both; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; text-align:center; font-size:100%; line-height:120%; margin-top:30px;">
'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Single-page edition]]{{#ifexist: Book:Wikipedia Signpost/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}} |  {{·}} [[Book:Wikipedia Signpost/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|Book edition]] |  }}'''</div>
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-footer|{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|3}}|}}
 
<noinclude>{{italic title|string=Signpost}}[[Category:Wikipedia Signpost]]</noinclude>
OK, Bri, please do a final check on format, image sizes and placement, column widths etc. and that there are no extraneous formatting comments or default images left appearing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 
Main page mockup

We have a title mismatch on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content ... checking more ... no weird placeholders and every individual page looks OK at a glance. Checking main page as Evad suggested, next. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to figure out exactly how Evad got that main-page code generated, but it looked fine to me, and he also filled in a missing blurb. I think it's 100% ready to launch. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: make sure to de-select Special report on the first dialog page when you publish ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Also make sure to select the checkbox for 'Use announcement ("from the editors") formatting for first item' - Evad37 [talk] 04:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Chris, about that: it's a little finicky. You have to check that box after moving the sections around to the right order on the second dialog, or it will deselect itself. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the script could do with a few improvements, like remembering the previous state of things unless the page is reloaded - Evad37 [talk] 05:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I figured out the "dry run" code gen. Issue 6 main page mockup appears good as shown. I trust the date and issue number will get corrected when the script is run for real. And the redlinks definitely exist because it didn't actually publish the pages, so don't worry about that. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Last issue (May)

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

May issue publication

I can confirm that the May issue was published. The en-wiki subscribers have received their issue and we tweeted out a link to our new issue. I sent an email to WikimediaAnnounce-L but I see no indication it was received. I sent out the global mass message but no one has yet received it, although the interface told me it was sent and there are zero messages in the global queue. I'm going to take a second run at each, pending any input from you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Users seem to have got duplicated messages. The script sends out mass messages for you; did you also send them out through the Special:MassMessage interface? - Evad37 [talk] 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Also messages sent to WikimediaAnnounce-L need to be approved by list moderators, so there is usually some delay before they appear. - Evad37 [talk] 15:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I used Special:MassMessage for the en-wiki subscribers and the meta-wiki interface for the global list. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: Continued at WT:POST#Duplicated MMS delivery today - Evad37 [talk] 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I can confirm duplucates, for example Amortias got them at 15:17, 24 May 2018‎ and 14:25, 24 May 2018‎ ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I've submitted this task to Phabricator to figure out what went wrong on the global distro. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It will be the same issue, messages being sent from both the script and the interface (sorry about not cleaning up the instructions before now) - Evad37 [talk] 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it seems they were sent to Meta[3], but not other sites? - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Mobile view

Great job everyone on issue 6!

I scrolled through this issue on mobile (link). Generally, it looks great – especially the graphics included with articles. In fact I'd encourage us to use more, for instance, there is nothing accompanying the Research report. Oh, and the {{cot}} and {{cob}} seem to be basically ignored, which makes the Tech report very different than desktop view. Also the GA list in Featured content becomes a bit overwhelming. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Another oddity – small font code is ignored, which we use sometimes to offset author attribution, and I used heavily in Gallery to separate original quotations from my own commentary. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reader feedback on issue 6

You can check all the reader feedback at once with this link utilizing the magic "Related changes" ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a lively conversation going on concerning the Admin Ship op-ed ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Reader feedback on the AdminShip op-ed is now about twice as big as the original piece. Might be worth at least a summary for issue 7. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential vandalism on the Signpost Opinion template

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One of you guys might want to check out Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost Opinion1. Some brand new account has added a poorly wordred rant of some sort there. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Already dealt with by TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's the title you get by clicking "Create opinion proposal" button at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Quick Start. At least people are finding the button. Maybe we'll get a legit one soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential vandalism on the Signpost Opinion template

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One of you guys might want to check out Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost Opinion1. Some brand new account has added a poorly wordred rant of some sort there. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Already dealt with by TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's the title you get by clicking "Create opinion proposal" button at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Quick Start. At least people are finding the button. Maybe we'll get a legit one soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue 7 (June)

Latest comment: 6 years ago108 comments9 people in discussion

There are some amazing photos that were submitted during the Wiki Loves Africa competition. It might make a great 'Gallery' section in the next issue. See here. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I don't need to monopolize Gallery, which I have put together two issues in a row. Would you like to take a turn? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I will. Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't get the tick mark to appear in the table below. Will someone help me? See the problem with the Gallery article. Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Essays

Since we seem to be moving more towards the concept of a news magazine rather than a newspaper, another idea for an additional regular filler could be Wikipedia essays - this month's pick. We have thousands of essays, and they are far from all being boring explanations of policies, guidelines, or dry advice pages (like mine). Some are a really good read. The idea arose when I just stumbled on this one by Drmies, for example. Thoughts?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes please! Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Could be interesting! We should probably think about at least providing commentary, though. Zarasophos (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Essays are essays and therefore speak for themselves - or even for their authors if they are of the opinion type. More interesting wouldbe to see what reader comments they get - if any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Illustration

 

Now that the article is finished: we have this image for an illustration of the Liar paradox, if we should choose to use it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Something to include

If folks need more context, see WP:AN#How deep could COI run here? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, there's at least one media report on the issue now. I'll start logging at "In the media" for the editor of that section to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Organisation & Essays

  • Publication date Friday 29 June UTC (That could fall on 28 June for some US time zones and 30 June for Australia), or a day or two earlier if everything is ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia essays - this month's pick selected by he editorial team: This month's essay will be drawn from Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays. I will shortly be providing a short list from which the regular editorial team can vote for the one they prefer. I'll write a very short introduction for the one chosen to be published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Ignore all essays
  • Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
  • User:Fluffernutter/Three quits and you're out
  • Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
For me it's this one (mainly 'cause it actually made me chuckle) Zarasophos (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Somebody "Notme" Else

Please decide which one to use. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ummm...I covered humorous essays in the last Signpost. Are you sure you want to cover that again? Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, not wishing to tread on your toes, Barbara] how about Wikipedia:Ignore all essays? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel any pain in my feet and it will be hard to insult me. I would love to run some of these humorous essays in place of the humour article periodically. They are very, very funny. I think the essay you are suggesting is perfect. Perhaps we could have an 'Guest Essay' section in the Signpost? I know readers can access the essays themselves, but the quality does vary and the ones we publish can be hand-picked by us, the Signpost editors! Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope that we will be selecting all kinds of essays, not just funny ones. The emphasis should be on locating ones that are nevertheless unusual but impactful, but which are perhaps not quite so well known as, for example the oft cited 'Beans'. Your approach to humour is very special and is an indispensable regular feature whatever else is going on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue theme

It might be fun to do a themed issue, and it might tie together disparate sections. I thought about this for last issue's food theme for Humour and Gallery and a proposed topic for this issue's Essays involving beans (missed opp'ty to do them together, obvs). It could be silly and trivial like that, or deeper and more thought provoking. Is there a big News and notes item on the horizon that could help? Maybe this concept could help us choose a good essay for the upcoming issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Beans are pretty funny, I think. It would be interest to find research articles about Wikipedia+beans. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the idea of a themed issue is excellent. It need not hinge around a potentially humourous aspect such as beans, but it would need some careful planning and beans could certainly be used as a placeholder default if not used itself. More importantly I envisage themed issues around national and international events such as maybe Christmas, thanksgiving, the FA cup final, the Olympic games, practically anything that would provide enough source material from Wikipedia articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to talk to someone about what the GDPR will mean for Wikipedia. Ideally, I would already have wanted to do an analysis of the changes in Wiki privacy policy for last issue, but that didn't pan out. So, anybody have any contacts? Otherwise, I'll just have a look at ArbCom, since apparently some members there are certified legal experts.

Just leaving https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Ud7xbwbzxcgyfgzm here as a reminder for myself. We should also see if the topic is even still relevant in a month, otherwise this topic could be a wonderful case of cold news.

(We should really have a database for contacts. Maybe put it on the Resources page?) Zarasophos (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We could try contacting the WMF, they have legal experts - Evad37 [talk] 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A staff lawyer will never say anything against the interests of their client and employer, although I'd bet they will be happy to articulate the foundation's official policy. Probably not the best choice for actual journalism. How about contacting Georgetown Center on Privacy & Security [4]? They just tweeted on GDPR, in fact. I'll ask a local (Pacific Northwest) digital journalism academic I know if he has other ideas, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Eric Goldman is another legal scholar who has written a very cogent essay on the Wikipedia community. His email and phone are provided here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I found this thread "GDPR vs. Open Data" at okfn.org. If their analysis is right, there could very well be big issues for Wikidata. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In the Media

Conspiracy theories are entertaining, interesting even, but should we report on them? Zero Hedge has a story titled "Is Wikipedia An Establishment Psyop?" ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't report on them as if they were credible news. I'd say, if any other media outlet picks up on this story we can report on it as a conspiracy theory, but just including it in In the Media would give an air of credibility that's undeserved. Zarasophos (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should explore the possibility of having a "Fake stuff in the media" or "Fringe in the media". Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thing is, I've started collating the mainstream media stories on this, so the decision is not whether or not to report the story at all, but whether or not to report specifically what Zero Hedge said. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If you have already decided that you'll include coverage of the conspiracy theory in the media, then that conspiracy theory will already be covered that way; I don't think we need to provide a link to it if that's already included in other reports Zarasophos (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something (or just tired) but I don't see the connection with Wilipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this has been so hard for me to explain. Let me try again.

A) Facts in evidence
  • There is a certain Wikipedia editor (or account) called "Philip Cross"
  • Philip Cross has been reported to have edited every single day for five years on mostly political biographies. A spot check seems to back up this claim. He has opted out of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits but would be ranked very high there; higher than me for instance.
B) Press coverage, more-or-less reliable
  • Philip Cross's editing has been discussed in mainstream media based in Israel and Russia. MSM have their own opinions on the editor and the investigation around their true identity.
  • The same has also been discussed by Craig Murray, a political blogger and ex-UK ambassador. The blogger may have broken the story. Just to summarize his position, he thinks Wikipedia should Do Something.
C) Official responses to press coverage
  • WMUK and Jimmy Wales have responded to the blogger on Twitter.[5][6]
D) Possibly unreliable press coverage
  • Now the whole story is being discussed by yet another blog, Zero Hedge, which I'll call "fringey". I'm comfortable including the discussion from the entities or individuals up until Zero Hedge, but I'm not so sure about that one. The Zero Hedge claims go beyond Murray's claims and say it is actually some kind of social engineering hack or long-term deliberate exploitation of Wikipedia, perhaps state-sponsored: hence their headline "Establishment Psyop". And there's a whole constellation of fringey blogs and outlets, some in the German language, also covering this story, which I haven't mentioned yet and don't intend to ever include in The Signpost.
  • Oh, one more thing: a Russian news outlet says George Galloway has offered a significant cash prize for anyone who can positively identify the operator of the Philip Cross account. This item has been removed from another on-wiki press index.

I have included B and C in the in-progress In the media (issue 7). I'm not sure what to do with D. For that matter, not sure what to do with A or even to wikilink their account name or provide any of my own interpretation of the facts. Hopefully, this summary form helps ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is the Philip Cross story, then yes, that should 100% be included in as exhaustive a fashion as possible. In fact, we should see if it warrants its own article (which would need a bit if actual original research from our side). I'd say the deciding measure would be the ratio of good source/fringe source; if we have a story consisting of several media outlets reporting and then add a fringe theory with the clear disclaimer that it's a fringe theory, that's fine. Since that is exactly what you seem to be planning here, I'm totally fine. But again, this is a very big matter, and we should definitely have a look at whether we can set someone on doing our own article. I first want to finish News and notes and the Google story (which, now that I think of it, should probably be an Op-Ed), but if/when I get that done, I would be more than willing to give this one a look (though that won't be in the ten days). Zarasophos (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And in the oh-by-the-way vein, this is about to become an Arbcom case and Philip Cross received a tban on May 27 [7]. This will be a doozie to report. News and notes, Arbcom report and In the media trifecta? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it'll be too big for that. A special report will be the way to go. As I said, once I'm done with News and notes and the Op-Ed I'll see what I can do, but I don't think I'll have the time. Zarasophos (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless we come up with consensus not to, I'm going to pull the Philip Cross item from In the Media. I don't think it has consensus to include at this time and in no way do I want to appear to be a cowboy editor "exposing" anybody. Zarasophos, do you want to collaborate on a writeup? Maybe in the next issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I pulled it then reversed myself. There's a minimal item in "In brief" now that it's got BBC coverage as well. Did not mention any editor by name. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I heard of that video series before, there was a sock vandalizing MacKeeper that also seemed to be promoting that series. His MacKeeper edits are the reason for my only post ever on the drama board. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bri: I think this topic should definitely get its own article in this issue. However, I really really doubt I'll have the time to contribute - I'll see what I can do in the next few days, but as you can tell, I haven't even finished News and notes or the Opinion piece yet. But again, this is a very large topic and should definitely be the center of attention in the next issue. Zarasophos (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bri and Zarasophos: I have already spent a precious hour looking into this already and I'm not finished yet. That said, I'm leaning towards deferring on an article until next month's issue (July). Anything other than a very brief mention in 'In the news at this stage is probalby the max we should do in this month's issue - if at all. It could turn out to be a rare instance of an editor who really has edited every day for years and we don't want to cast aspersions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is that we don't really have a choice in this matter. This is definitely the biggest Wiki-related thing going on in the public consciousness right now, and arguably since the beginning of the year. If we don't report on this at all, we may lose our claim to being Wikipedia's newspaper - but in one and a half months, the affair won't only not be News anymore, but ancient history. We need as much coverage of this as possible, and I would even go so far and say that this issue should not go out without it. Zarasophos (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Are we all OK with what's currently in the ITM brief note?
Also reported by Haaretz, the editor Philip Cross has drawn ire from a cohort of Russian-backed media (RT, Sputnik), Wikileaks (which tweeted a Craig Morris blog post), and former UK Labour Party politician George Galloway, who all accuse him of making biased, politically-targeted edits. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, was even asked to weigh in on the dispute. Haaretz concludes that "Though Cross does have a clear political bent, it is not necessarily one that undermines the entire project that openly strives to reflect mainstream bias." The BBC discussed the issue and called it "a huge debate on the internet encyclopaedia - one of the world's most popular websites" (their words) – the same editing fracas that is subject of a case covered in this month's Arbitration report. The BBC story mentions the current Arbcom case.
The current copy shown above, markup simplified for readability. And as a by-the-way, BBC reported that P.C. is an individual but that is not his real name. I agree with Kudpung that we really want to avoid taking an editorial stance on him or his editing at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we have to exercise caution here. Let's not forget that although we are a newspaper (or a news magazine), we are not independent of the Wikimedia movement, nor do we need to ape the journalism of the BBC or any other popular media. Let's keep it as it is currently in the ITM brief note, and depending on what transpires over the next four weeks we may well be able to do a full article in next month's issue. It may be very slightly 'old news' by then, but if well written it could be compelling reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London organises an editathon

Is this the best we can do, especially on a big action to close the gender gap? If it were the mayor of NY someone would write a whole article about it. BTW, guys, London is also a big important world city (so is Bangkok).

ITM also needs another proof read. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
We can add more media reactions to Mayor of London's editathon and make it one of the main ITM items. Here are a few. Washington Times; and Washington Free Beacon covered the initiative generally; The Bookseller focused on a particular new article, Perminder Mann, resulting from the Mayor's event. Some negative reactions wrt to prioritizing this over other domestic safety issues too: Twitchy, The Sun etc. – not sure these belong in the piece, though, partly becuase they are wobbly sources but also because of inherent POV we probably don't want to parrot. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Without feedback I'm leery of adding another top-level ITM story but I'll add the sources I noted above to the brief note that's there. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

Don't we have a draft page for this? Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, but I just noticed this was all added to issue 6 almost a week after publication w/o any editorial oversight. Suggest we pull it and put it in issue 7. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and put the item in issue 7 draft ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

More on the research section - I am not the expert on WP research topics but can do a fair job of providing descriptions of research projects for the Signpost. I think this section of the Signpost is ready to go but more eyes would be appreciated. One contributor to this section of the Signpost was a brand new editor who apparently signed on to highlight their own research. They did not provide a url to their research so I hid it. What does anyone else think of this? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 09:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on research topics either, but just as in Wikipedia articles, we don't want people to exploit our free newspaper to promote themselves. Thanks for catching it Barbara. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Uncategorized

Not sure where this goes -- maybe In the Media. The reporter who wrote "Wikipedia vs. Banc De Binary: A 3-year battle against binary options 'fake news'" for The Times of Israel exactly a year ago, which itself covered the Signpost February 2017 Special report by Smallbones, has won a journalism award. See today's The Times of Israel: Times of Israel’s Weinglass wins reporting honor for binary options exposé . ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the award was for much more than one article, the series on binary options was 20-30 articles. Anybody who has edited anything related to binary options knows her contributions well. She took an organized crime topic where most newspapers fear to tread, if only to avoid libel suits, and opened it up so that the whole world could see and smell the whole thing - the big picture and the smallest details. Her work moved the Israeli government to ban binary options, and just when it looked like political maneuvers would gut the bill, she took on some of the most powerful people in the Knesset and won that fight too. Remarkable journalism. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Do you mind if I use your text above as introduction for the story? With credit, of course. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I though I better count her binary options articles and got roughy 85. Rewrite:

Simona Weinglass, a reporter for the Times of Israel, who wrote over 80 articles on binary options has received an honorable mention at the TRACE Prize for Investigative Reporting. Anybody who has edited anything related to binary options knows her contributions well. She took an organized crime topic where most newspapers fear to tread, if only to avoid libel suits, and opened it up so that the whole world could see it and smell it - the big picture and the smallest details. Her work moved the Israeli government to ban binary options, and just when it looked like political maneuvers would gut the bill, she took on some of the most powerful people in the Knesset and won that fight too. Remarkable journalism. Thanks Simona.

(edit as you wish) . Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report blurb

I can’t think of a good blurb for this month’s Discussion Report. Ideas? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I try to make blurbs "newsy", that is, of broad interest and impact. And catchy if possible, with some alliteration or another device. You haven't summarized the mail list threads once, but one proposes paid admins. If that goes in to the DR, it would make a good part of the blurb. The other is maybe the main-page redo. Though honestly, I looked at it and didn't see what had changed. If you ping me when the report is more complete, I can try to provide something fitting. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I provided a blurb ☆ Bri (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Some editor-in-chief duties delegated

Just wanted the team to know E-in-C Kudpung has given me latitude to make some more decisions than I did last month as his designated assistant; he is really busy outside of The Signpost. Please ping me if there's stuff I can do instead of him. We think he will at least be able to write the "from the editor" note and approve publication, but beyond that we should try to handle things amongst us regular contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am unexpectedly busy with commitments in RL and this month has been my lowest participation on Wikipedi for several years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Article status table

Bri, can you add to the coloured table:

  • Wikipedia essays - this month's pick.

and

  • From the archives

Then there's my next article in the adminship series, but I don't know if it's a special report or an op-ed - naturally I'll try to make it a good read in my style rather than a boring re;port-style blather. I'll provide the content if I can find the Signpost article template... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The new tracking templates are there in the table now. Ready for you to click the "create" buttons. I'll create a placeholder for the admin-ship piece, too; we can rename it later. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

News and Notes

Kudpung: Was this removal of the June Wiki Loves Pride/Women in Red project inadvertent? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally inavertent, Bri. My bad. Please restore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Deadline for new material

Great job so far for Issue 7! The writing deadline is approaching in a few hours. If you have anything new, please do it soon so we stay on track for the copyediting and publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's 01 AM here. I'll finish my article tomorrow and select something for 'From thde archives' and do my 'From the editor' piece. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously we are now into the final hours before publication. Again, great job, this looks like a fascinating issue – our biggest problem in several sections was prioritizing and rearranging because we had so much great stuff to handle. @Chris troutman: can you confirm that you're ready to push the publish buttons perhaps as early as tonight (West Coast time)? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Please be sure I see a proof before the press rolls. Remember my time is SF +14. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I will press the buttons when I get the word, but I am not hanging out on wiki constantly. If it's ready to go by early Friday morning (eastern US) then it'll be published; otherwise it'll be Friday night. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just waiting on a prepress proof. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Do you rrmember how we generated the mockup main page last month, by turning on the Javascript debugger? I can dig up instructions... ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Two things

First, should In the Media make a whole paragraph out of Katherine Maher's Wired Op-ed? It's already heavily featured in Opinion and forms the conclusion of the whole argument there. Not saying it doesn't make sense in In the Media too, just saying that it should maybe reduced to something like "Katherine Maher, who is important, recently wrote an Op-Ed in Wired on this topic (See this issue's Opinion for more)."

And second, sorry for the sorry state of News and Notes. I've got the main person in the Wikimania Scholarship story to do an interview with me, and he handed me links to a few more very interesting mail threads, but I'll need some more time to include all the info in there. I'll do that tomorrow. If we're very lucky, I might even be able to make the story into its own Special Report, but seeing as it basically consists of E-Mail exchanges I doubt that. Zarasophos (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

About your first thing: Fair enough, I trimmed Maher's long quotes and made a single sentence out of that part of the coverage.
About the other: I've had my eye on the interview, and think it will be a good story -- the kind of thing that Signpost is uniquely positioned to handle. If you get the essence of the interview distilled, I can help round off the rough edges of the text. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If you dig deep enough into those Wikimania Scholarship email threads you'll come across some caustic comments by me about the way the scholarships and the conference are handled and managed - I was on the scholarships committee myself for two years running, so be careful! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I've looked into the matter in a bit more detail now. I think the problem is that while the story of this one specific persons complaints would probably make for an interesting special report, "single man yells at wikimania" does not an entry into News & Notes make. Making it into a Special Report would probably also need some more voices; I would like to interview the two permanent Wikimedia scholars from this persons wiki as well as this years organizer for Wikimedia scholarships. I also think we need to tread a fine line here since it's a very delicate matter involving real-life acquaintances, WMF money, and general accusations against large numbers of involved people. I'll therefore see what I can do, but we should probably keep it to a note for now and do a larger report in the next issue. Zarasophos (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I would keep it very brief for now. It has become fairly clear in those email threads which I follow rigorously, that the scholarships committee's work is only treated as a 'recommendation' by the WMF, who have the final pick and choose over who gets funded. There is a lot of negative comment building up over the past two years or so about the way the conference is managed, and having not only served on the scholarships committee myself a couple of times, I attended serveral Wikimanis too and I fully understand what the people are complaining about. We need to tread very carefully as we don't want to compromise future schollarships or even the conference itself on which there are rumours that it will be ended in favour of more, more localised events. After this Wikimania is over there will be plenty to report. 06:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

This could be big

Cory Doctrow says of the proposed EU Copyright Directive Article 13 "not only does it create opportunities for unscrupulous or incompetent people to block the sharing of Wikipedia's content beyond its bounds, it could also require Wikipedia to filter submissions to the encyclopedia and its surrounding projects, like Wikimedia Commons". And worse, and attempted carve-out to protect Wikipedia was flawed because apparently they didn't allow for license scheme which allows commercial use, i.e. CC-BY-SA.

For the Newsroom: is this to be an In the media item for now or do we perhaps have an opportunity for something bigger? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: that was written June 7. Since then, the directive apparently passed. Lots of media are picking up on it with lighthearted headlines like "the end of memes" (NBC) but perhaps Gizmodo captures the issue for us: "Memes, news, Wikipedia, art, privacy, and the creative side of fandom are all at risk of being destroyed or kneecapped." ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Without more consensus on this I'm probably just adding the Gizmodo quote as a brief ITM bullet. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the EFF article you linked is much more interesting, really. It's also Cory Doctorow speaking directly to Wikipedia. It's your choice, obviously, but I would prioritise some juicy quotes from the EFF piece. Zarasophos (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I've also a found an article on the German site netzpolitik.org that has some juicy quotes from a talk held by John Weitzmann, the head of politics and law at Wikimedia Deutschland:
- "That not enough take part in the dividends from a market is a chronic problem of markets with stakeholders that are too strong. That is nothing new. And normally it is the task of cartel and competition law to correct this. Instead of that, they are now through copyright law [...], because intellectual property is such a wonderful lever, establishing a total filtration of all net platforms, where basic laws like freedom of speech are delegated to complaint mechanisms and there is a societal collateral damage of epic proportions. All of that just to do something that should in any way be done through a completely different area of law."
- The online traffic of all platforms could from now on be "permanently and so completely supervised, that ex-Stasi staff [...] get a melancholic shine in their eyes or that all privacy activists collectively throw their hands in the air."
- "A large part of journalism and of politics are simply looking in the completely wrong direction. The question 'What will artificial intelligence be able to do in 5 or 10 years?' obstructs the view onto the really decisive question [...]: Do we want that artificial intelligence will be allowed to do what it will be able to do in 5 or 10 years?"
- "Overblocking is pre-programmed."
- "And the supporters of upload filters seriously point to complaint mechanisms, which would then be enforced by law as compensation [...] 'Whoever does things according to law won't be filtered', that in no way says anything about why such a fundamental change should be justified." Zarasophos (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zarasophos: Feel free to expand this to a new level-one story. I'm thinking of demoting Star Wars to a brief note to compensate; it's humorous but not really pithy. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bri:I changed around Solo and the article 13 story, but I think I overdid it on the quotes... Have a look to see if it's too long for you. Zarasophos (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The rearrangement looks fine. Yes, the Weitzmann quote is a bit wordy as it stands. I'll take a try at trimming it back. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia Closure Discussion

@Bri: @Pythoncoder: isn't that more of a topic for the discussion report? Zarasophos (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Deadline is close and I'm sort of busy IRL right now but I'll write as much as I can. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I feel like I missed something. Did this get added somewhere for issue 7 already? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I had added it to News & Notes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
And expanded it to a higher priority on the page. Please copy edit and re-edit anything that may sound inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll move this to Discussion report ... hope that's OK with E in C. Looks like a discussion to me. I didn't add per-item bylines because it looked kinda excessive but Kudpung and Pythoncoder, if you want them, go for it. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm still not sure. I realise it's not a en.Wiki-specific issue, but I think it's big enough and of more interest that just a discussion report. I'll go with the edtorial team's consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

technology report

This still has all the stages red-crossed. Could someone please nudge Evad37 or finish for him if he's not available. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Doing it now... - Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh we are both working on it ... go ahead, I'll back off. I labeled "ORES" as "AI" because that's a more commonly understood term for "machine learning". ☆ Bri (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: Thanks. I'm done now, you can get back to copyediting it. - Evad37 [talk] 05:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Admin Ship

I was working on Signpost stuff until 3AM last night but there have been several last minute responses to my investigation in the night which I saw when I got up this morning. These will take a while to process and my article to round off, but even if at the last minute, I'm confident I will meet the actual publication deadline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: another four hours work on it today. I think I've resolved the formatting errors. It can now be proofread by someone then it's good to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

From the editor

This page does not appear to be listed in the coloured Status table. I need to start it now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue preview

 
Mockup of issue 7 main page. Expand hidden box in this section to see interactive version.

Here's a proof (preview) of issue 7 main page as generated by the publishing script. Expand hidden box in this section to see interactive version. I've just fixed up the date links to point back to the "next issue" space, because it hasn't actually been published yet.

One minor mistake discovered in the proof: some blurbs did not have terminal punctuation. That's been fixed. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Typos in News and notes blurb fixed as well ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Admin Ship should now read as per this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Volume 14
Issue 7
29 June 2018

A Wiki not so Simple, a mayor motivating an editathon, a Marshall Plan, and a Wikimania under a cloud of criticism (continued→)

Further developments on New Page Review and Articles for Creation work sharing (continued→)

Admins volunteer to be abused – or so it seems (continued→)

So it shouldn't get credit for our work, either. (continued→)

Major grants announced, a new milestone for Afrikaans Wikipedia, a nWMF technical engagement team , an effort to start up a new library, two new admins - or maybe three fewer depending on your math. (continued→)

Several online battles are juxtaposed with stories about cooperation and good deeds, Arbcom hovering over it all; notwithstanding, a good action movie script is not necessarily found here. (continued→)

Community discussions include style updates to project-wide icons and the main page, procedural questions on royal names and jettisoning unsuitable drafts, and deeper questions of compliance with European privacy laws and the perennial issue of shrinking admin corps. (continued→)

Featured content
New promotions

Enjoy the superb content (continued→)

British politics case enters workshop phase and German war effort closes workshop, goes to Arbcom for proposals. (continued→)

Traffic report
Endgame

Two celebrities hang themselves, and the FIFA World Cup is underway (continued→)

An AI assistant comes to watchlists; better mobile compatibility; new bots, tools and scripts; and more (continued→)

Colorful and moving. (continued→)

WMF appeals to Turkish Minister of Transport, Maritime, and Communications Ahmet Arslan to lift the block of all language versions of Wikipedia for over a year. (continued→)

Recent research
WMF Research

Studying ourselves: 'driven by a sense of mission' according to researchers. (continued→)

In our next episode... (continued→)

Some essays are funny, some are serious; some are just, well what exactly? (continued→)

Revisiting an editor's warning to count our kidneys and keep the wolves at bay (continued→)

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter.

Style question re footnotes

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

First, full disclosure: I put footnotes in a piece that were reformatted by another editor as inline links, and it looks fine now. But I thought I'd ask this question to avoid hurt feelings or extra effort in the future: do we have a problem with footnotes in Signpost articles? I've seen them before, usually in Recent Research but also elsewhere. Is it something we want to allow, discourage, or prohibit? Or just leave up to individual section contributors? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, hi, that was me. Sorry for the rather brusque edit summary, but I really just can not stand footnotes in journalistic texts. For me, they're the epitome of making Signpost articles look like Wikipedia articles when they aren't. In my view, the only exception to this general rule should be Recent Research because there the footnotes are in an academic context, aka where they belong. I've edited the Manual of Style to reflect this view, but please feel free to change that if you're of a differing opinion. Again, sorry for the brusqueness. Zarasophos (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, I left your name out because I don't think one edit is all that important (and I'm not butt-hurt). Just wondering if we should have an editorial policy going forward. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur entirely with Zarasophos. I have used footnotes occasionally in my Signpost articles becausze I wasn't sure what the form was, but I always found it a bit odd in a newspaper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Traffic on May issue's articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I did some analysis of pageviews on the items comprising Issue 6. I found sections grouped into roughly three categories of interest:

  • High interest - 1600+ views: News and Notes, Blog, Arbitration report, In the Media, Discussion Report
  • Medium-high interest - Between 1400 and 1600 views; 130+ on day one: Technology report, Traffic report
  • Medium-low interest - Between 1400 and 1600 views but fewer than 130 on day one: From the Archives, Op-ed, Featured content
  • Low interest - Gallery

The two sections with both high pageviews and high first-day views, far and away above the rest with 180+ views on day one, are both opinion/analysis: Arbitration report and Discussion report. Interesting. There are hints in the graphs too that some readers may be coming to items they see mentioned elsewhere, perhaps Humour is one of these.

Takeaways?

  • First: This analysis was partly to investigate Kudpung's hunch that we're evolving into a news magazine vice newspaper. The results surprised me a bit as it seems our core audience is actually more interested in the newsy stuff.
  • Second: Maybe this can help us to triage the important content if we get into a crunch with a future issue. Or to try to recruit more people now to improve quality on the core sections?
  • Third: Maybe this can help us either expand our audience or focus content more accuately for the existing audience.
  • Fourth: We need lots more analytics to understand our audience.

Your thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's early days yet to draw any conclusions. It would be an idea to do this check every month and plot some curves to see if there are any clear trends. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I sure didn't mean for this to be the final word! Yes, we should keep collecting info and being aware of what material our readers are engaging with, as an ongoing activity. We actually have enough, I think, to do versioned editions and perform statistically significant A-B tests, if we had the motivation to do so. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue 7 (June)

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
 
Keep calm and read The Signpost!

After much toil, tears and sweat, Issue 7 is published. Issue 7 notes have been archived. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that this June issue went out via mass message locally and globally. Our tweet went out and I sent the email to the Wikimedia-L announcement but neither has posted, yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a small problem with the main page

Is the main page showing the last issue under the new title for anyone else? Zarasophos (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Chris is scrambling to address the publication issues. We have been conversing at User talk:Evad37/SPS ☆ Bri (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it was sorted, just moments ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think subscription or watchlist notices have gone out... Zarasophos (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I took care of the watchlist notifications ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I also noticed that one of the blurbs did not appear to transfer properly, so I manually fixed it. I hope nobody minds, but I might as well report this here. I have no idea if this is because of a script error (or it being interrupted), but that is my guess given the edit history. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

fullpagewidth on June's traffic report

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2018-06-29#Traffic report page. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical issues with the script, and suggestions for the future path of the publication

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Bri, I'm reproducing a comment from Chris troutman's tp here as this is a more appropriate venue until we can get the mailing list working properly:

Thank you again for putting the press in motion. Let's hope the script can be sorted out making it less arduous for you on future issues which may have even more pages to move.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC).

@Kudpung: While we could submit a Phabricator ticket to increase the limit by one, we could see about limiting content to 16 items. To that end, as I'm responsible for publishing, might The Signpost return to publishing every two weeks, so content can be more recent while not overloading each issue? Don't get me wrong, I like the monthly magazine. Because this is a technical limit, one wonders if we could do a half issue mid-month to run the traffic report and a couple other items so the monthly book can stay under 16. We're also re-publishing content (like the blog) from elsewhere, so perhaps that could be cut if it takes us over the limit. I love the script. I'm not a fan of the manual process. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to understand the reasons why The Signpost dwindled from weekly, then fortnightly, then monthly, to nothing at all until Bri and I somehow roped it together again. There is a lack of motivation in every corner of Wikipedia right now (and that's enough for an article itself), and people have left the editorial team for many reasons, some legitimate, some from disinterest. Two months ago I never saw myself in the role of E-in-C – I just missed the paper very much–and if anyone had suggested it to me it would have been the last thing I would have thought of doing. I just jumped into the breach. It is time consuming, the worst part being the repeated copy editing and proof reading, and there is a certain responsibility (not to be confused with 'competence') which I am not entirely happy about having to shoulder; my own participation is very fragile, and it would only take a minor dispute for me to resign from the magazine. Nevertheless, having been a teacher of creative writing and a free lance reporter during the 1980s for a certain popular Berlin-based daily newspaper (which partly explains my journalistic style), I like writing.
Most importantly however, The Signbpost frees us, and the Wikipedia community from the strictures associated with the composition of Wikipedia articles, while neverthless avoiding sedition against what we all work for, but making a broader audience–including the world's established media–aware of the things that Wikipedia is not and what is required from it's corporate owners to do something about it; more reasons for adopting a more magazine-style.
There have been a lot of very positive comments about The Signpost since we got it back on the rails. The watchlist notification idea has generated probably far more new readers than those who mentiond it, and there were several suggestions that it should take the shape of a monthly news magazine. A monthly issue is going to be fatter. It will have accumulated everything that would previously have been dished out as hotter weekly news, and it must have an interest level beyond being simply a dry report on what's going on. There is one page in it that could be dropped which would bring it back down to 16 pages, but my natural inclination would be to replace it with yet again something new and innovative. On a side note, It might also be the time to consider a more modern logo for its masthead (BE), and to include an impressum section - something which Zarasophos is acutely aware of.
Is there a limit to page size? I think maybe that shorter articles could be on one page, or that we could, newspaper/magazin style, put some shorter articles side-by-side in columns similar to the Kurier while retaining our multi-page aspect. Would that help? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about the technical page-move limit, it is easy enough to get around since it is 16 per minute – the script can just pause for a minute before doing further page moves. - Evad37 [talk] 01:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
If we are talking about technical limitations, from my point of view the obvious consequence would be dropping some of the less-liked features. If we take a look at the data Bri compiled for the last issue, we can see what that would be: The Gallery. Personally, I would then also drop the Traffic Report and Featured Content because I never read those, but I also guess they don't actually take up that much work. However, consolidating should very much something to keep in mind. Instead of stretching ourselves thin to keep regular features afloat, we should concentrate on special, and original, reports wherever possible and appropriate; make the news instead of reacting to them. This is what I will try to do with the Wikimania story this issue and I think it'll be the right path for the Signpost as well.
On another note - Kudpung (talk · contribs) I didn't know you worked for taz! That's an incredibly prestigious paper! Nice to see our EiC have that much experience. Zarasophos (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I will seek writers at Wikimania

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just a heads up - I will be pitching people at Wikimania in July to write for The Signpost.

At meta:Grants:Wikimania_scholars#Reporting there is a description of how scholarship recipients at Wikimania are supposed to document their experience. Previously I advocated that publishing in The Signpost should meet that requirement.

I cannot say how successful I will be but if anyone shows up then please be aware of how they came here.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bluerasberry. I'd like to suggest that writers create the write-up for The Signpost as a user page, go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions and use the Make a suggestion button. They can link their userpage from the suggestion, and we can take on formatting and collation of multiple reports. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: That is a better idea - instead of sending people here to ask questions I will tell them to come here with a link to an article draft. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for going above and beyond, Blueraspberry. What a kind offer. Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Reader comments

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Bri, depending where you arrive at a Signpost article from, the comments section does not load all comments. It looks to me as if the comments section is a transclude from somewhere that doesn't update as it should. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Weird transclusion issues often resolve to a page cache out of sync. Can you try a WP:Purge and see if it appears to sync up? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In this issue

The 'In this issue' sidebar thing is appearing on the wrong place. Instead at the side of an artic le, it's down after the reader comments section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New version of publishing script

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

@Bri and Chris troutman: I am working on a new version of the script that will have a button to push to show a preview, and will remember the selected articles and their order (while the page is open and not reloaded). It won't be ready for this month's issue, but should make it easier next time. - Evad37 [talk] 15:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Evad. I was afraid to ask for that, but am thrilled that you have offered. It will make the final sprint to publishing so much less stressful. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bri and Chris troutman:   Done. Also, I've completely redone the interface, including making it possible to adjusting the order of articles just dragging them into the correct position (rather than clicking arrows multiple times for each article). - Evad37 [talk] 06:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that I know I shouldn't be afraid to ask, it would be cool if it were possible to get a PDF document out of the preview feature for a "snapshot" that could be put on a shared medium. We might even want to use this post-publication; I'm having a devil of a time getting a decent RSS rendition of The Signpost, and there may be a use case for something offline-readable. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Making a PDF is more complicated. I'm not sure if there's any way to do it other than maybe saving to some sort of temporary page like Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Preview, and then using the built-in toolbox function to export that page to a PDF. - Evad37 [talk] 06:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I gave the publishing script a test run, and it worked very well. Thanks for developing this. One little thing: is it possible to view/save the wiki code that the main page preview generates? It is a little difficult because of the way it's displayed in a JavaScript popup. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bri:   Done, the popup now has a button to toggle between the preview and the wikitext - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Reader comments

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Bri, are we allowed to remove inappropriate and/or totally incomprehensible reader comments? Esp. gobbeldygook from non En speakers? Is this an E-in-C prerogative? I also object to people using the comments sections for political or abusive rants that are only obliquely related to the story - if at all. Just how much are we bound by Wikipedia guidelines? Newspapers certainly select which readers' letters they will publish, and most blog comments are subject to acceptance by a moderator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not hat rants if they're obviously intrusive? Certainly something the EIC might be appreciate your help on. Tony (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Just how much are we bound by Wikipedia guidelines? The relevant guideline is WP:TPG, which already allows for the removal of gibberish or harmful posts, and for collapsing off-topic posts/discussions. - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we are alalowed to follow TPG for true gibberish. For other unwanted comments, perhaps we should initiate an RfC to make sure no foul is committed in editing our own "letters to the editor". Maybe a conservative approach is best until this is clarified. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me I didn't make myself clear - I often don't these days. I am not talking about editing or redacting user comments but simply being selective in what we publish, just in the same way that newspapers and blogs are, but allowing a balanced choice of opinions. Unless they have an objective comment to offer, people who use the section simply for blatant ranting and admin bashing for example should stay off the Signpost and go to one of the Wikipedia hate sites (if they are not there already). Hatting doesn't help - the comments can still be read and others will scream "CENSORSHIP", which of course it's nothing of the kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take, in case I wasn't clear myself. I back the E in C having absolute editorial control over what appears under The Signpost's masthead. Given that this (Wikipedia writ large) is literally a publication anyone can edit, and can create essays in their own userspace, the only function of The Signpost is to selectively choose what appears here under its brand and what does not. So the only question is this: are reader comments part of The Signpost or not? The way we transclude comments into the article makes it sort of neither and both. This is why I think an RfC with clear alternatives would be a Good Thing. Making the case that reader comments are part of The Signpost and subject to editorial control looks like a no-brainer to me, but I'd prefer an RfC to sidestep any accusations of improper actions. We already have seen some stuff bubble up e.g. about improperly linking to off-wiki discussions that newsroom staff have been involved in, I don't like seeing that, and would prefer not to go there. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be seen as being pedantic but I am averse to people using the user comments section to simply spit venom at people or groups of people. If they want to behave like that and make themselves look very silly - which of course that's all they end up doing - they should take themselves to one of the Wikipedia hate sites. Call me old fashioned, but I believe The Signpost as Wikipedia's organ, should at least broadly follow Wikipedia concepts and philosophy and not be used for sedition and bad faith. Why do we need an RfC to have a consensus that the sky is blue? Of course, as a radical solution, we could always do away with the comments section altogether... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, you're over-reacting. And what if someone came along and said that your comment should be removed from the thread you refer to above? If the Signpost starts to indulge in controlling reader comments so that only those that don't offend your political line should remain, the outlet will lose any authority it still has. Rather quickly. Tony (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting comment Tony1 - which thread precisely? I don't recall mentioning one... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
What exactly is "sedition" in this context? How can one be seditious to Wikipedia? Is that even a bad thing? I am reminded of Wikipedia:Dissent is not disloyalty, though I personally would not object to disloyalty either. By the way, if any of my comments have been "inappropriate" (or "seditious"), please let me know. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I advise against outright reversion of comments on Signpost articles unless they fall into the territory of revdel-eligible comments, but I think that hatting and collapsing off-topic discussions are OK on occasion. People who want discuss off-topic subjects can be directed to take those discussions to somewhere that is more appropriate, whether that be a village pump page, a user talk page, or a noticeboard or noticeboard talk page. --Pine✉ 03:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Following Pine's advice, I hatted an off-topic discussion. "Don't tease the bear". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe that was Pine's advice at all. You've effectively started censoring reasonable comment about the Signpost on its own talkpages. Disgraceful. I will now work against the reputation of this outlet. Tony (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Next issue

Latest comment: 6 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

Kickoff

The next issue will be Issue 8 (July). June's targets of the 27th and 28th of the month were retained as placeholders.

Inviting creative ideas for the essays and gallery in particular. Maybe this could be our first "themed" issue involving Canada Day and U.S. Independence Day? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A global-English-speaking-independence day theme might be nice. I started the July humour article but can push it to August. There are some very funny 4th of July photos on commons. Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In addition to Canada and the U.S., the following countries have English as at least one official language and an independence day in July: Bahamas (from UK), Solomon Islands (from UK), and Vanuatu (from France and UK). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
"We americans like to celebrate Independence Day by parades, singing off our eyebrows, charring steak and chicken, and sitting in the emergency room until midnight with junior and his sparklar burns...The Canadians on the other hand..."
  •  
    Canada Day, eh?
  •  
    Fourth of July: boisterous, noisy and centered on a Chinese invention
  •  
    Independence Day in Vanuatu

Searching for Independence day

If you type: "Independence of" in the WP search box, you will a lot of hits. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My computer hates me

My computer's display is broken and so it's really inconvenient (though not impossible) for me to edit WP. I will probably take it in to the Apple store this weekend, but if extended repair is needed I’ll just start writing the next Discussion Report on my phone. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I do a lot of editing from a tablet and some from a phone bordering on phablet size. It's not that bad. I do miss a keyboard for careful writing and extensive cut-paste. But modern voice recognition is quite good, and sometimes long passages don't even need copyediting. Which is a long way of saying, using a mobile device may not be as bad as you think. I think Cullen has a writeup on this somewhere... ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh my how frustrating. When my computer died, I went to the library. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the writeup I was thinking of: User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The point is moot. My computer is fixed. (This comment posted from a Macbook Pro) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I do edit from my phone a lot though and will probably do so more in the future — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs)

Interview and WMF blog

The WMF blog IS an interview and so we don't have to come up with our own. It's also very long and I will be editing for brevity. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia blackouts & 200 days in the air

Bri, please see Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Italian_and_Spanish_Wikipedia_shutdowns. Plus: do we have, or can we obtain an itemised itinery for Maher's business travel and what it cost the movement? 200 days is practically every working day of the year. Does she actually spend any time at all in the office? Does she actually make any executive decisions? Perhaps an article on the work of Wikimedia Executive Officers and other top level staff and their salaries and travel would be appropriate. These are questions I know our en.Wiki readers would very much like to see answered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the travel and conference expenses listed in the annual plan is a hint. However, the $2.7 million total planned for 2018 (table #1) is spread out over various program and non-program line items, without one dollar figure pinned to a particular executive function. In other words we are going to have to ask WMF questions if we want to know the answers. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In the media

Non news

This edit from an Australian IP was reported as a page-three newspaper item in a South African daily. Didn't seem worth including, but if someone else wants it, it's yours. "Haters' hack agriculture minister's Wikipedia page", Daily News 11 Jul 2018 author:MPHATHI NXUMALO. You can email me if you want the full text. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, that word "hacked" was in the print edition but was changed to "distorted" in the (current) online edition here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably not worth mentioning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion?

I'm thinking I might have gotten hooked by a site that looks like online news but is possibly non-independent. Could we get a second opinion on this? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report

I see that a Signpost op-ed, "It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project" was referenced at VPP, in a proposal to prohibit linking Wikinews. The proposal has unanimous support at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Preview

Created this Preview of issue 8 for everybody. Evad's improved script makes this really easy! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Refreshed for near-complete issue 8 contents. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report

I marked the DR as ready. Are there any glaring omissions I should add? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

I'd like to wrap Cullen328's pro wrestling editorial with the same markup that Kudpung used, and move it to Signpost space. Caall it pedantic but it seems better to have the authorship preserved in history. If no objection, I'll do this later today (US time). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The gallery has morphed from an English-speaking-only list, which is fine as I couldn't find usable images for either the Bahamas or the Solomon Islands. Pity. But anyhow we have a question from Nøkkenbuer: "should the countries be wikilinked? Although some are well-known, some are not, and the American Colonization Society is even more obscure, something that many US citizens probably have never heard of; wikilinking only some may seem to imply obscurity, though, which might not be taken well by some." My knee-jerk answer is "no linking", this doesn't have to resemble a well crafted Wikipedia article. But am willing to discuss. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For anyone curious, the quote is from the edit summary of this diff. I do not have any opinion either way, especially since I understand why doing so may not be worth it and may appear as overlinking. I only mentioned it because some of the countries named are ones that people don't see in headlines, to say the least, and I do not recall the last time I came across any mention of the American Colonization Society.
If I were to ask everyone I know, including everyone from the United States, I suspect that 100% of them would either have no clue what it was (even with hints and context) or—if any did—only know it as some group they recall was mentioned in a school textbook. I frankly don't expect much better with some of the countries listed. Anyone curious could simply search for the Wikipedia article, of course, but facilitating that is the point of wikilinking. Regardless, I doubt many readers would care either way; it's no great gain or loss. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody who understands European culture better than I do, check the use of "overseas territories" in Gallery wrt France? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
départements et territoires d'outre-mer. I lived there for 12 years.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought there was some hang-up on territory vs Overseas department, "territory" implying an inferior status as with U.S. territory? But I am not a subject matter expert. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Bri, France is divided up into départements. The nearest nearest equivalent would be an English county, a German Land (state), or a Swiss canton. i.e. it's the top level of local government. Many of France's far flung islands are 'DOM' - Overseas Departments. Then there are the 'TOM' - Territories Overseas which are a bit like Britain's BOT (British Oversease Terrirtorries) like Gibraltar and Am erica's Puerto Rico, which are self-governing autonomnous regions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, FWIW, by the same token nobody outside the US understands, or is interested, in the relationship between the US and its Puerto Rico. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Publishing

The issue is complete. See #Good to go

Deadline

Latest comment: 6 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion

is in 8 days and this month's issue is looking rather thin. Barbara (WVS), Pythoncoder, Evad37, Pine, Cullen328, Eddie891, Zarasophos, Tilman Bayer, Bri, Barbara Page, Maik Stührenberg, Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, Selsharbaty (WMF). I have prepared my stuff but not yet populated the Signpost template pages with it yet: From the Editor, Essay, From the Archives, and the last in my series on the Admin Ship. We also desperately need to recruit more contributors - the time is running out for me thinking up and writing features and I'm sure Bri is feeling some stress by now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I was getting ready to send out a similar message. Could I ask people to chime in if they do intend to contribute to this issue? I'm guessing we have a few people away on summer holidays (Evad37 is our only Southern Hemisphere person, I think?). ☆ Bri (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Disappointing to see Signpost contribs decreasing again. I'll do additional Discussion Report work this weekend. Are there any sections which have not been started and are desperately needed? Because I could do them in a pinch. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I intend to submit a piece on professional wrestling as previously discussed. Thank you for the reminder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, I will follow your lead and do the humour article that I proposed about the new fictional Wikiproject that has resulted from a merge of wrestling and ANI. I will have more time to work on other articles on Sunday. I don't like to keep other editors hanging and I haven't been able to contribute as much as I would like. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Barbara it sounds like a good humor topic. Im a little confused because there is already other content at Next issue/Humour. Is it being replaced? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I am going to put what I have as the current humour article into my draft space to be pubished in Aug. Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ping me for any general copyedits and photo searching for articles. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Who's doing featured content? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I started it, but I don't plan to fill it all out. It's really quite a lot of work. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

This is always late. I haven't a clue how it's supposed to work, but it looks as if it's far to great a burden on our editorial team. Perhaps we'll drop it in the future - as an average clued up Wikipedian of many years I personally have never found it it particularly interesting, least of all any academic research that is obviously research for the sake of research (looking for a a subject for a thesis/dissertation/need to get one's self published in a journal, etc), or not absolutely directly concerned with en'Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put a note on this issue's feature asking for someone to take it over, otherwise bye-bye. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been able to help add content to this article but don't have the expertise to generate a complete article. I will do what I can and contact our 'guy' at the WMF. Isn't he getting paid to generate this report.... Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
At one stage there was talk of it being published independently at meta:Research:Newsletter, rather than as a Signpost section that gets republished there. Maybe that idea should be revisited. Pinging @Tbayer (WMF):. - Evad37 [talk] 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the solution. Recent Research is not exactly the most read Signpost column and it is only of interest to a niche readership. They should publish their newsletter and we can just pick and choose from anything that tickles our fancy. After all, as Barbara says, they get paid for what they do. In any case, all the WMF staff are in South Africa this week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
They DO have their own newsletter but have just been pasting the Signpost article into meta. Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's kind of what I meant. For years unpaid volunteers have been doing a lot the work the WMF is paid for. I don't expect we'll hear from Tilman for a while, at least not before he returns from his annual trip to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm back just to say that I'll be gone again. Sadly, I really just don't have the time to contribute at the moment and probably not in the foreseeable future. If anyone wants to take a shot at doing my planned Wikimania article, here's what I've got so far. It was very nice working on the last three issues with everyone here. Thank you! Zarasophos (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm back from four weeks of being disconnected, and have to say, first of all, sorry for not being around, and I'm about to hop off the grid tomorrow for another week. Sorry that summer holidays are leaving me out of it, and off of Wikipedia. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

News and Notes

So Zarasophos has left the Signpost. (Thank you for your service.) Unfortunately, last I checked, news and notes is nowhere near finished. What's more, there are 3 days left. I'll see what I can do over the next 3 days, but it seems we are having a writer shortage again. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks as if we have a problem this month, not only with getting the content ready (and enough of it), but also one or two other issues. I think we'll have to put the publication date on hold for a couple of days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a tough decision to make, but it's probably for the best. Until then, what can we do to get this issue of the 'Post ready? (Probably mostly News and Notes) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder and Bri: I'm going to delay publication until the 31st. There is a new feature coming from Cullen328 which we're working on now, which will boost the content. I have to finish and add my Admin Ship article - that won't take long. There is nothing I can do with Zarasophos's data for the Wikimania article he promised, and in any c ase I don't want to be involved in that, although htere have been some disturbing incidents at the conference (including theft from a booth). Everything else, even if it's shorter than usual is mainly a question of copyediting/proof reading if someone can do that. - perhaps Barbara (WVS) if she's around, and maybe Bri, although he is busy in RL, can check that titles, blurbs, and bylines are all OK and remove any extraneous default images and markup. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Chiming in here - I'll do what I can, but for some reason I am also having trouble pulling together the time I need to polish things up...I'm not giving up, but trying to give as much as I can. I thoroughly enjoy writing for the Signpost. I concur with delaying for a few days and thank you to all who have helped in the past and all helping out now. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good to go

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Vroom – issue 8 off the line

Who ever is doing the publishing can ink up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave the PM (Chris) go-ahead for issue 8.
Nøkkenbuer has formatted the op-ed, and the Christmas tree is 100% green. I think everything is ready. Let's release the clutch. Well done, drivers! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_1&oldid=1179082277"