Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Ready to go

@Chris troutman and HaeB:. ready to publish.Everybody please refrain from editing The Signpost for a while. back in 10 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks good, we'll see what the readers say. Thanks to all contributors and copyeditors, with special thanks as always to @Chris troutman:, our publisher. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

MassMessage sent, Tweet out, list email out; Years ago we use to publish on Medium.com. Are we interested in getting back to that? The Signpost is also on LinkedIn. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at all against it. What are the rules (ours and theirs)? I know Medium cuts you off unless you subscribe after 5? articles. What would we post, and how to decide it? Maybe 2 each month. Maybe I pick one and Chris picks one - if we want to post the same day. Who has the password, if such a thing is needed? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback

• Special:RelatedChanges/User:Bri/Signpost 2020-08-02 talk

All: You can use the link above to monitor feedback on the August 2 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Pageviews

By issue

• February issue totals thru March 1, 2020, 2,134; March 3, 7,668; March 7, 13,254; March 14, 19,892; March 21, 32,508; March 28, 44,988.
• March issue totals thru March 31, 6,203; April 4, 26,276; April 11 42,591; April 18 50,059; April 25 57,878.
• April issue totals thru April 27, 5,033; May 2, 10,657 [1], [2]
• May issue - 15,181 4 weeks *Pageviews list 1, list 2 (remaining 7)
• June issue 7,485 1st week, 9,907 2nd week, 11,174 3rd week, 12,847 4th week, 13,950 5th week 10 6 .

August 2 issue

• [3] [4] 1st day 1981, 4th day (cumulative) 7,004; 1st week, 8,393, 2nd week 10,665, 3rd week 12,320

File:"Nebuď_služobníkom_žida"—Slovak_propaganda_poster.jpg and Featured content

This image appeared in featured content with the caption 'A Slovak propaganda poster exhorts readers not to "be a servant to the Jew"'

Look. I'm sure that this was merely meant to illustrate the featured article Holocaust in Slovakia. But Signpost layout means that the image and caption can be a very a long way from the description of the article, and this is... not exactly a picture we should be neutrally describing the original intent of, without a whole lot of context.

It's right for Wikipedia to cover a variety of difficult, challenging content. But our point when covering these sorts of things is to educate people about anti-Semitism, not to encourage anti-Semitism. Context and framing matter a LOT when using hateful imagery, and it was mishandled here. Literal Nazi propoganda is not something to use as a mere decoration.

Just... be careful in future. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 01:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Adam Cuerden, that was a major mistake on my part, something that isn’t excusable. I was just going through the featured articles and taking their lede images and captions verbatim without really thinking it over. I’ll certainly be more careful in the future. Again I’m painfully conscious about the gravity of the mistake, and I assure that my intention was to illustrate and educate, and certainly not as ‘mere decorations’. My sincerest apologies. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if it came off as presuming malice. This was clearly nothing more than a mistake, and it's easily fixed, but it's something to watch out for in future. There's a reason I'm talking about it here, not in the much more public article talk page: No-one needs called out; it's just something to watch for. We've gained an editor working very hard to improve our coverage of the Holocaust, and they're very good at it, so this it's not going to be the last featured article or list that could cause that sort of problem of things that are educational in context being taken out of that context. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fairly important

You've probably noticed that we've had a running series of articles from the project Wikipedia @ 20 since January. See https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/ . The project's aim is to publish a book of the same name, which is supposed to happen in mid-October. For our October issue we'll likely have an interview with the editors, another good article from the website, and I hope a large and detailed book review, which can be as big as we want it. I doubt more than 2,500 words, but there is a lot to cover. There are something like 20 articles in the book that we haven't published. I figure the ones we have published don't need to be reviewed for our readers, we can just link them. The are:

• Jan. issue Fernandez
• April issue Pete Forsyth
• May issue Marc Miquel-Ribé
• June issue Rachel Wexelbaum
• August 2 issue Mako Hill and Shaw
• for this forthcoming issue August 30, I'll likely contact Lydia Pintscher for permission to publish her Wikidata article.

Note that

• there's another Mako Hill and Shaw paper that we haven't published "The Most Important Laboratory for Social Scientific and Computing Research in History" I do want to have a review on that one, and
• there's another "Paid With Interest: COI Editing and its Discontents" by William Beutler that I think we should avoid - we already published (last August?) a very similar piece by him.
• Katherine Maher's "Capstone" article is more-or-less a complete review of the book, so I'm not sure I want to review the review (but comments welcome on this)

We've had an interesting non-arrangement with Wikipedia@20 that didn't always make sense to me. They've openly published the chapters on the https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/ site, under *both* CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC licenses. I felt free to contact the authors and ask if it was ok to publish their contribution here. I was in contact with the @20 editors, who knew of my intentions and didn't complain. As I said, an interesting non-arrangement. But this is coming to an end. The https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/ website may soon shut down, so CC-BY-SA license or not the chapters won't be free to review or publish, unless we have saved a copy. My computer is complaining about the load and threatening to shut down. There are about 20 chapters to save if we want to do a "complete" review.

If anybody wants to participate in the review, I'll suggest going to the site checking out a few papers - at least skimming them. Then select a paper or group of papers in an area you'd like to review and *save those papers*!!!

We're not going to do a paper-by-paper review, but having large group of papers with short reviews will be a great starting point, then we can integrate them. BTW, I'm claiming "The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia" by Joseph Reagle and "From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia’s First Two Decades" by Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison to review. No need to duplicate our efforts.

So @Bri, Megalibrarygirl, Sdkb, Indy beetle, and Eddie891: and others - if you want to join in this little project, please just decide which papers you want to cover, download and save the papers, and let us know here. Questions? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, are the essays captured by archive.org? That would be one way around complaining computers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very good idea Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was aleady done at https://web.archive.org/web/20200726225129/https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/ Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I think I'm going to pass on this one. But I can help edit. My bandwidth is very limited recently. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You can save individual articles from the WP20 site using this tool. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note these essays were published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 licence, but the licence version for English Wikipedia is version 3. Technically the essays can't be republished here unless the authors agree to licensing under version 3. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually they are published (for the book version) CC-BY-NC 4.0 (you're correct), but the submitted version on the website at the bottom are CC-BY SA (4.0?) and I don't think there is any problem publishing those. But actually I've always asked for permission to publish - it just seems like the polite thing to do if we are publishing somebody's work - at least to let them know if possible. I have no idea why the two licenses, but will note that the book versions will be slightly different. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Didn't check every single one but the ones I did said 4.0. Now some authors may be familiar enough with Wikipedia licensing to know what version of the licence it uses, but I think it would be a good idea to mention it specifically, given that it's different than the licence for the book. (*) The issue is not so much the initial publication in the Signpost, but the re-use licence which will be under different terms. As you may recall, Wikipedia's shift to dual licensing predates the 4.0 version.
    • (*) Technically the work will also be licensed under GFDL too, but I suppose given that the Creative Commons licence is more permissive, its terms will be the ones of concern to authors. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent essays

I've recently written three small essays, Wikipedia:Read before commenting, Wikipedia:Contributing to complicated discussions, and Wikipedia:Build content to endure. I'm not sure how useful they'd be for the Signpost, but if we're low on content this coming month or in any future months, feel free to use them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In The Media

Anti-ITM

this appears to be a stunt that GQ magazine did while recording the subject supposedly typing the entry [5]. I'd rather not cover it at ITM, but am bringing it up here in case of another opinion. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oddly, GQ presented this anon edit geolocating to Canada as having been made by Jimmy Kimmel, who has an account verified through OTRS the same day. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bri: for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I know what "Anti-ITM" means, but maybe I'll guess that I've put in a few similar stories in ITM, and you're suggesting that I not do it this time. There are two issues on that. I really like people who give us a quotable/linkable reaction to the articles about them on Wikipedia. Usually on these there is no question that it's the actual subject of the article. The example I usually give on this is the external video link at Ice-T (which I inserted). His reaction to the article, tells us volumes about him. But the usual ones available are about heavy-metal rockers and I do get tired of those. The second issue is about people shown on-screen editing the articles about themselves (like this one). Of course I object to that, but given the openess of it it's pretty easy to revert those. It also gives us an opportunity to let folks know that this isn't the proper way to change "your" article on Wikipedia. If I've missed something on this, please let me know.

The Jimmy Kimmel thing is certainly odd - maybe we can get an interview with him? Do you want to write any of this up off-ITM? Feedback from other Signposters requested. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest this is a non-ITM story when I initially brought it here, as we have decided not to glamorize routine vandalism. However with the second item, maybe it's not routine. I'll have a deeper look. Do you think it's likely they would reply to our inquiry? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd give it a 25% chance - but not for this issue. We'd have to wait while they write the jokes! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A week before deadline

It looks like we'll have another fairly thin issue this month. Deadline is in 7 days. If you have an article to submit please let me know. The traffic report is in (I doubt that the section ending August 29 will be ready in time to be published on the 30th). I've copyedited it and it looked perfect! though I'm still considering "Trump twote". Why does that sound perfect? Maybe somebody else should take a look - but it's very good copy as far as I can tell. @HaeB: looks like he's on top of things - same time next week! We'll likely have a good paid editing/opinion piece this month - but I'm still awaiting feedback. There's lots of news for ITM.

The thinness of the issue is pretty much my fault, I haven't been able to do everything I'd planned this month (@Chris troutman: - yes, that email is still coming!) I don't think it's just me though. I'm in a pretty deep funk, but somehow think everybody else is as well. General Wikipedia editing was down last month, if I've read the tea leaves correctly, this COVID thing is getting to folks. Maybe I'll write a "From the editor" piece and let it all hang out. I was looking for some music to pick me up and the best I found was here.

In any case, we'll publish on Sunday.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, the funk is relatable. Personally, I got quite burnt out trying to maintain COVID-19 pandemic and have largely switched to developing lower-profile pages where I don't have to spend a large portion of my energy fighting bad edits and arguing over consensus on the talk page.

Regarding things to write about, the Fox News decision seems like clearly a big deal, and ties in very closely with the cultural moment we're in with concerns about misinformation, etc. A potential theme for a piece could be that the pandemic has pushed us all into our own little silos, and Wikipedia has been one of the few remaining shared realms presenting a single version of reality to everyone rather than one personalized/filtered into a subculture.

My open offer of essays from above still stands, if that would help fill out the content. Let me know if there are modifications that'd need to be made to make them more Signpost-compatible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have an excuse, honest. While many people are spending hours at home they don't usually get, my work load has actually increased – I'm one of those essential workers. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I marked Arbitration report ready. But there may be a last minute addition; an inquiry to one of the arbs is pending a reply. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll get FC in shape starting tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• If you'd like, I'd be happy to write up either a section (In the Media? News & Notes?) or a dedicated article (Special Report 2?) on the recent Scots Wikipedia incident. It looks like Smallbones might be intending this to go in News & Notes, based on the title? Not 100% sure that's the right spot for it, seems a bit too long for that perhaps (previous News & Notes sections seem pretty short), but I'll defer to the regulars. SnowFire (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to brag too much

But I'm about to hit my 500th Featured picture on Sunday, which I think might be something. I mean, I'm not going to try and claim it's a perfect count, but all of the images are restorations (or one photograph) and so are definitely mine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 14:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As they say on the interwebs, "pics or it didn't happen" oh wait, nevermind, I see you've got that covered. Congrats and thank you for your continued service to this project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Heh. Well, thank ye! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 16:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:. Yes you do want to brag, but you deserve it. We could give you one line in News and notes, but somehow that reminds me of Bob Dylans line "20 years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift".

Alternatively, you could do a Gallery article pretty much all by yourself. Just go to the Newsroom page , click gallery, and start writing. Include 15-20 pictures (we can make them larger than usual for the Gallery). I assume that's needed to show the quality of the restorations. For the text I'll suggest 3-4 short paragraphs, one at the top just to say the minimum about who you are and what you do. One after about 5 photos saying the minimum about those photos. A third after another 5 or 10 photos. And end with another paragraph. Remember that this is our "Playboy article". Everyone is "reading" it for the pictures.

For the photos it's your choice, though really wide ones might cause some problems. Short captions please. You might group them thematically. e,g, "my early featured pix" "The middle years" "My latest favorites"

So if you can do this all in exactly 24 hours (from now!) it can go into Sunday's issue. I'll help with the formatting and copyediting. Otherwise we can wait until next month. Please let me know.

BTW, congrats!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably best we go for next month. My insomnia triggered last night, and there's little chance of me finishing something of quality in an hour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 15:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: there is the one line in News and notes now - I'll take it out if you prefer. In any case, I look forward to your submission for next month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling all copyeditors!

Please report for duty! Most of the articles could be profitably copyedited right now even if they haven't been officially marked "ready for copyediting". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexism, racism, and birtherism

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media I've used the words "Sexism, racism, and birtherism". Clearly, this type of statement should be reviewed. I'm comfortable with the usage here - but I wrote it - so somebody else should be reviewing it. I'm comfortable for two reasons 1) I'm identifying it as coming from The Atlantic, which is linked, or from Newsweek (linked) in one case. 2) I certainly believe that sexism, racism, and birtherism (close enough in this case) is going on here. @Bri, Chris troutman, and SnowFire: and anybody else welcomed to comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Atlantic uses the terms "explicit echo of birtherism" and "a sexist slur". Maybe we should just quote that. The part about racism they softened to racial identity. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Two things: I would lead off that sentence with "according to The Atlantic" so it's clear at the beginning who said what. Second, in the current version of the Newsweek piece, Newsweek denounces the op-ed they published, so I don't think you should condemn them. As to the legal argument, which you did a poor job communicating, is that Harris is a 14th Amendment anchor baby. I think good people can disagree on the intent of the 14th amendment. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest it should be clarified that Newsweek printed the opinion piece, and not that it made an argument in its own editorial voice. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the ""Sexism, racism, and birtherism" from the section heading. I think the new version fully satisfies Bri's and isaacl's comments, and the first of Chris's. Let me know how to satisfy the second. Thanks for the help - it's better to go thru this before publication rather than after. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest you remove the "everybody recognizes" sentence as it's beside the point, and sounds like editorializing about what the 14th amendment requires, which was the crux of the legal argument. Characterizing those questions as racism is also probably not needed. The point is that there was a kerfuffle which the next paragraph explains. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Going to politely disagree on this here, as well as your comments above. The "Everybody recognizes" part is the distinction between the Harris case and the Obama case - the argument against Obama is that he wasn't really born in the US. "Everybody", even Eastman, acknowledges Harris was born in California, an important distinction between the cases. Hence the argument against Harris is a little different.

As far as the 14th amendment - people can disagree on whether birthright citizenship is a good idea or not. I don't think people can disagree on either the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who specifically wanted to guarantee former slaves citizenship, which meant unambiguous, no excuses phrasing that "born on US soil is a citizen") or the later legal interpretations that extended this to children of immigrants. The pushback on Eastman's article in Newsweek was that it was wishful thinking of an offensive nature, because it implies Harris is somehow "breaking the rules" when she isn't. If Eastman wants to advocate for a constitutional amendment, that'd be one thing, of course, but he misrepresented the state of law in this area. (And Newsweek certainly should be condemned for publishing this at all, IMO, but that's probably outside the scope of the Signpost section.) SnowFire (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than "According to Newsweek's current position...", I suggest something like "Newsweek subsequently stated...", to avoid implying it has changed its editorial view. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Pyramids

The current version of the pyramids item is quite misleading, giving the impression that Musk seriously advocated the Ancient Astronauts theory, whereas the tweet was quite patently tongue-in-cheek. Some Egyptian ministers may not be fluent in internet slang that indicates irony ("obv"), or unfamiliar with Musk's habit of trolling on Twitter. But that is not a good excuse for the Signpost falling into the same trap, also considering that the linked USA Today article gently points this out too. Furthermore, the writeup makes it appear as if our article Great Pyramid of Giza contains statements supporting that Ancients Astronauts theory, whereas Musk simply quoted the fact that it "was the tallest structure made by humans for 3800 years," backing up his assertion that Ramses II (not some unknown alien) was cool, expressed using the "Smiling face with sunglasses" emoji. (The bigger problem is IMHO that Musk confused Ramses II with Khufu here, as pointed out by someone from Egypt here.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ready to publish in 2-3 hours

Earlier if @Chris troutman and HaeB: are ready.

That said, I just finished the Obit article. I always get nervous about those and the last entry needed some work. Editing and copyediting would be appreciated. After a break, I'll start my final ce round. CE from others would be appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'll be finishing errands but email me and I'll jump on it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and HaeB: Tilman says he's ready. Give me an hour to complete everything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

N&N

My thoughts

• "In an attempt to draw the heat off the user" Do we know that was MJL's reasoning behind the AMA? He says "I want to hold a discussion on how users here want to see Scots Wikipedia improved or at least brought to an acceptable status." as his reasoning
• "the other active admin of Scots Wikipedia" Is incorrect. There are several others.
• There are a lot of weasel words in the Scots article, like 'boldly' and 'understandably' -- do we want to keep them in?
• Should the user really not be named at all? It's understandable not to mention their username, but something like "The original contributor criticized by the Reddit post" gets a bit confusing with who is being referred to
• " and some proposals for other new bots" is incredibly vague-- does this add anything? can we be more specific?
• "himself a 2/5 or 3/5 at Scots proficiency" could we link anywhere, or clarify what this means somehow?
• "Gender and lingual diversity were also sought, the latter most likely driving a project diversity" what does this mean? of course them seeking diversity would lead to diversity
• "One particular requirement was part of a major theme: anonymity" clarify-- is the anonymity for the cases or for the members? From reading the rest of the article it seems like everything is anonymous?
• "giving retired members " retired board members or members of the CRC?

Pinging Smallbones-- could you look over my changes and see if they are satisfactory, check on my above points? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• re-ping @Nosebagbear and SnowFire: Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: are you finished with Featured articles? In particular, the lines "X featured articles were promoted this period" and similar lines. If I don't hear from you, I'll just count the number of entries below in the section and hope that works. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'll count those and give a bland title. Everything else should be done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: - I've clarified the latter two points. The point before them (on diversity) - the first part specifies gender and lingual diversity. You could have the latter just with en-wiki members, if you were really focused on multilingual editors, but will likely give a mix of projects (as the easiest place to find, say, French speakers, is on fr-wiki) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

great, thanks!

Smallbones I think FC should be gtg now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. On N&N - I'm on it,. I should say that I was so impressed with the 2 sections that I probably didn't CE as well as I should have. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the CE suggestions. I've gone over the Scots section implemented some, left others. Of course my changes near to be copy edited! I'll start work on the 2nd section. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ready to publish

Hands off the keyboards please - let's give Chris some room to go through the publishing process. @Chris troutman: - all ready to publish.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback

• Special:RelatedChanges/User:Bri/Signpost 2020-09-27 talk

All: You can use the link above to monitor feedback on the September 27 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Issue is published - thanks to all

Especially @Eddie891, Bri, HaeB, Gog the Mild, and Igordebraga: It is a bit thin this month - my fault - but it llooks pretty good to me. We'll see what the readers think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

...Did think I had more time... Well, next issue. Kind of want to do a bit of a how-to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 05:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Adam Cuerden: we'd love to have a Gallery article focusing on your work and a "How to" would likely be even better. With only 7 articles this month, I clearly have to start working on asking people to contribute and following up. I view my main job right now to increase the number of regular Signposters, as well as occasional contributors. This isn't my favorite thing to do around here - writing is - but better applying myself to the work should bring us back up to a full staff. If anybody knows people who would like to contribute, feel free to suggest that they write a submission or contact me. Sometimes people just need a little nudge or a friendly invitation.

Next month's issue should be a thicker. Wikipedia @ 20 will be publishing their book of 22 accessible academic essays on just about any topic you can think of related to Wikipedia. It marks a major milepost in Wikipedia history. There should be 3 articles related to Wikipedia @ 20: an interview with the editors, an earlier version of the lead essay, and a book review. Anybody who wants to contribute to the book review should contact me. I'll likely be emailing everybody to ask what type of stories you would be interested in writing, how much time you want to spend on The Signpost, and your suggestions for improvements.

BTW, I think this issue turned out pretty well. "Thicker" doesn't always mean better. It's nice to have more stories because that draws in different types of readers, who then see the other articles, and The Signpost becomes a place where the community congregates to get reliable information and well thought out commentary about Wikipedia. But we don't do anybody any favors, least of all ourselves, if we just publish stories for the sake of publishing stories. We'll figure out the balance between offering the community as much information as they want and staying within our ability to provide it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September issue published

September issue is published, thanks for everyone's contributions. I don't have permissions to do a few last things.

• Mass notifications via m:Global message delivery not sent But enwp subscribers have been notified, or will be soon
• Tweet not tweeted
• Facebook not updated
• Email sent from Signpost account to WikimediaAnnounce-L not sent

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for publishing! I'll take care of these other items now. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris would you mind following up on the mass message issue posted to my talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and Smallbones: I sent the global mass message. The email was sent and the tweet went out. I'm not sure how we reverse the massmessage to enwp having been sent out twice. Also, I still after all these years need to make a Facebook account so I can send the message there because we haven't been in a long time. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: in the future if you need I can send out the global mass message (just need to be added to the publishing script or however its done) or if you want to request global mass message sender rights at m:RFH I can grant them DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I've decided to take a long break from writing for The Signpost. Just feeling a bit burned out. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)