Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Next week's poll is extremely subjective

Next week's poll is extremely subjective: all of the available answers (except "Other") rely on the assumption that lowest-priority bugs are worthless. I (and many other) strongly disagree. Lowest means in particular "Patches very welcome", and it is often a gathering point for motivated volunteers to write a patch and get an ACTUAL PROBLEM FIXED. Quite the contrary of "worthless". The wording also implies that all those who do not choose answer 1 are liars. Please cancel this poll, as its results will necessarily be flawed and mis-used. Also: You write "This week saw a discussion [...]", so the least you could do is provide a link to said discussion. Previous polls were usually of high quality, so I am surprised by how obviously unethical this one is. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you can provide a link so that the rest of us can figure out what you are talking about? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
2012-11-12/Technology report which links to next week's poll. Raised by the above editor on the 2012-11-12/Technology report talk page, which is a better place for this discussion to continue. — Richardguk (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Responding there. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

10 years of Creative Commons licenses

Hello, folks! On December 16 it will be the 10th anniversary of the first Creative Commons licenses. They will be parties around the world. Can you cover the celebration? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Brion Vibber posted

Hey guys, I did an interview with Brion Vibber for the December 31st edition. You can review it here. Let me know if anything needs to be changed or fixed. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

More stuff

I'm getting a little concerned we need a bit more raw content these days. The last few issues have barely been more than the bare-bones of no more than four or five basic reports. When our issues are full of meat and intriguing investigations, people want to read it, we get good viewing figures, hey,mother Signpost is popular! I remember earlier in this year we were in our prime, for instance the 'Is RfA broken?' report and the Teahouse interview and French cycling and whatnot. I don't like to say it, but even as a fellow (OK, part time) journalist for the Signpost, I think it's becoming a bit boring.

Now, it won't do to just sit here grumbling and saying "Someone do something!" like that; direct action needs to be taken. We've redesigned the front page (look, that was me again) and renamed some of the report titles, but then our little overhaul has sort of stumbled and stopped. As its one week till Christmas, I thought I could whip up something Xmas-WPy for next week, change the formatting for then to be a bit more festive with design changes and graphical modifications (don't worry, I'll hang the tinsel and do everything else). In fact, I believe we publish an issue on Christmas Eve/Day so we can really get our readers into a good mood with a good read. We can do well; let's do it. Lets have this rubbishy Signpost gone and may your New Years resolution be to inject some fun into the news stories of Wikipedia. Rcsprinter (articulate) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 00:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "News and notes", while one of the 'basic reports', has done several investigations, including into the FDC. We also had a widely praised op-ed and a "WikiProject Report" on a German WikiProject this week. Both of those don't count the reporting that is done for the "Technology report" and the interviews done at "Featured content." Last, and this is something you couldn't have known, we are currently preparing for an in-depth look at the Education Program.
Unfortunately, news isn't always 'fun' and is often 'boring'. The Signpost plays a central role in informing readers of WMF and chapter activities, entities English Wikipedians rarely pay attention to... but these activities are not always exciting. The ever-popular investigations typically require a lot of work and inside contacts to pull off, and we need to make sure we have enough of both before preparing for one. Such are the perils of a news organization. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. With regards to a Christmas edition, that would be a major affront to our non-Christian and/or non-Western readers. We will celebrate the New Year, and have a couple features planned that should tickle your fancy. :-) Incidentally, if you would be interested in working on the traditional "Year in review" of what the Signpost has covered... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
New Year is just as offensive to people who want to be offended. Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC).
I agree that the last couple issues have barely scraped together enough content, but that's a temporary issue. It's a busy time of year for many of our writers, so the free time and creativity level isn't quite where it was during the summer and fall. If it means anything to you, I purposely scheduled WikiProject New York City for the December 31 issue of the WikiProject Report so that we could use a picture of the Times Square festivities. ;) I did WikiProject Holidays back in 2010, but the viewership wasn't very impressive. It might be interesting to tweak the Signpost logo for each season, just to mix it up... i.e. snow for winter, flowers for spring, etc. The only problem you'd have is that folks in the southern hemisphere would be out of synch. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • From an FC perspective, I have been pressed for time recently so I haven't been able to interview anyone recently. Kaldari is looking into it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Re the "in-depth look at the Education Program" — I'm always happy to answer any questions you have or put you in touch with volunteers who can talk about their experiences. :) -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

New Writer

I'm interested in writing for the Signpost, but I'm not sure how. Is there an organized joining (or auditioning) mechanism, or is it a "free-for-all" like the rest of Wikipedia? I couldn't find any information about this on any of the main or talk pages of the Signpost. –Cup o' Java Dec 27, 2012 3:21 AM

Hi Cup o' Java. First of all, I've just, ahem, trimmed your signature a bit as it was making a right old mess of the page code while still looking the same. Latterly, your enquiry. There is no formal mechanism, audition, or selecting process for becoming a writer. Simply find something to write about relevant to one week (the week it'll be published, obviously) - and write it. There are templates on the newsroom for formatting it to be a proper piece for the signpost, with the header and everything. Be aware some reports are normally written by the same editors every week and do be prepared to have it edited a bit, just like a regular encyclopaedia article. If you have an idea for a specific report, you can post it on the newsroom and other regulars (and most importantly the EIC, Ed) will comment on your idea and develop it. Good on you for asking, though, and good luck! Rcsprinter (state) @ 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Typically we like to see more wikiexperience from our reporters, as they have to have a certain level of familiarity with what they are reporting about. Having said that, with more editing experience, I would be happy to try to find a regular role for you here. Thanks very much, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Signpost

Can I write to the Signpost? --Pratyya (Hello!) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The section at the top of this page explains where. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Top 25 Digest

  • Hey Signposters, would you be interested in an ongoing feature of the Top 25 most-viewed articles on Wikipedia? It would derived from WP:5000, please see User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages#Hi where we are discussing this. I am willing to head it up, I think this could be of interest to many including outside press.--Milowenthasspoken 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Presumably taking a format looking something like this (but fully developed). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Or maybe start it off as a top 10 and maybe later expand to 25? Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a feeling this could be quite similar to something we've already done. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 16:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC):
  • The September 2011 wikiroll (great site while it lasted) article is very friendly looking, if you prefer that over a table. Andrew has revised the WP:5000 report so that is now updates once every 7 days instead of 10, so we can have weekly stats.--Milowenthasspoken 04:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I started a draft at User:Milowent/Top25/Jan12-18, obviously it should be moved into the signpost space if we take it live. I am still working on the list, #1 (Bryan Cranston may be a weird anomaly that needs to be removed.--Milowenthasspoken 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this should be a weekly thing over and over again; readers will get bored of it. However, I would be supportive of the idea if it was to be published around once a month, and I, if you'll let me, would also be eager to transfer it to a report each time it gets published, along with a little analysis. Thoughts? Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 08:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm flexible, of course. I was thinking readers may be interested in having a weekly link to a chart (like the magazine Billboard has weekly charts for music), but a chart with written commentary each week would probably be too much. I guess I need to decide on a place (URL convention) to keep the manual Top 25 charts (without commentary), so you can easily create the Signpost report when desired? Also, note that the draft I linked above for Jan12-18 is not yet complete, it needs to be updated because it is actually for Jan 5-11, the data hadn't been updated yet when I created it (which I didn't realize). I will plan to revise that draft, look for it in about 15 hours when I should have some time to do it. Going forward, I do intend to include columns on the chart for "position last week" and "weeks on list" like the New York Times booklists. There will be great variability for short term popularity (Jodie Foster is going to be #1 on the Jan12-18 list when done I believe, but probably will drop off the following week), but over time we will see trends, e.g., Gangnam Style will eventually drop off, and with luck so will One Direction.--Milowenthasspoken 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • New report for January 13-19 is at Wikipedia:5000/Top25Report, it is available for use in a signpost entry as folks deem best fits.--Milowenthasspoken 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As I've discussed over at the WT:5000 talk page ... As an experienced Wikipedia researcher, I'd like to offer to write an editorial/article/whatever that discusses some of my broader findings on Wikipedia traffic, introduces the "top 5000" and Milowent's excellent editorial work in compiling a top-25 list, and explains why readers/editors should care about these traffic statistics. I'd like to think this could gain us a large quantity of watchlisters. Whether the Signpost wants to publish the top-25 list in full on a weekly basis is at its discretion, but I'm hopeful we could maybe get a wikilink in one of the recurring sub-sections. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi, I'm the Signpost's editor. Sorry for the delay in replying. A weekly chart is too much, I'm afraid, but I'd be very interested in an op-ed on Wikipedia hit counts. I have seen rejections of broad assessments of hit counts as unencyclopedic—that is, arguing that the high-traffic article on a pop icon is less important than the lower hit-count article on (for example) Charlemagne. Providing a solid counterargument could actually be a very interesting perspective to a lot of editors here. Please let me know if you write it, preferably by a Friday or Saturday (so we can provide suggestions for improvement and copyediting), and we can publish it. In addition, I'd be happy to put a few sentences on this in our "News and notes" section this week. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think West.andrew.g can address importance (to the project) from the side of his ph.d. research, I could assist him with that.--Milowenthasspoken 13:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, Ed, yes please also let's get something in "News and notes" for this week's issue. Something like (and this is just a stab at it): "The Top 25 of the Week: A weekly chart of the Top 25 most viewed articles on Wikipedia is now being published at Wikipedia:5000/Top25Report. The report is derived from the automated WP:5000 report of the 5,000 most popular pages created by West.andrew.g. For this past week (January 13-19, 2013), the most popular articles include Jodie Foster (#1), Aaron Swartz (#3), and Frank Zamboni (#5) (who was the subject of a recent Google Doodle)." I do think this report will have broader media appeal once it gets noticed, and as trends develop for recurring entries.--Milowenthasspoken 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We will be drafting the article at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages/Signpost. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The article draft at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages/Signpost has come far along, I would be interested in getting some input from anyone interested?--Milowenthasspoken 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep we are quite happy with where it stands. It probably needs some careful passes by Signpost editors before it is ready for publication, though. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I take it you guys had a full slate the issue that came out today, hopefully we can be considered for the next issue?--Milowenthasspoken 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Stronger footing

Is it just me, or does the Signpost appear to be on stronger footing these days? In my two terms of active editing we were always struggling to get out the base content; now, as an outside observer, the paper seems comparatively flush. ResMar 22:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, given that the exact opposite opinion was given a little more than a month ago. ;-) The answer is yes and no. The regular reports are on solid footing, with Mabeenot doing an excellent job on the WPP report, Crisco on FC, J36 with the bi-weekly discussion report, James on the revived arb report, and Jarry's tech report has been smooth with the exception of the last two weeks. NAN is relatively fine, with some combination of me, Jan, and Tony (though those two have been and will be focusing on RL for the moment). The 'no' part comes from specials, which we don't have the manpower to do right now (cf. Jan and Tony's busyness), but those are currently being filled with Jayen's in the media (last week) and popular page statistics (this coming week), along with Crisco's series of interviews with the FC processes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm...interesting. I've had a few ideas brewing in the back of my head for a while; perhaps I will bring them to fruition sometime in the future, given that I now have more time on my hands, at least theoretically. ResMar 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos. In regards to specials, the WP Report has two coming up in the next couple months: one on measuring a WikiProject's workload and one that tries to answer our readers' questions about WikiProjects. I'm also looking for active WikiProjects from any Asian or African language Wikipedias to interview. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

More pitchers

(More) Pictures would be good. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree most heartily! One can never have too many pitchers ;) ResMar 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Up and coming op eds

I would like to call attention to our opinion desk. I've started to draft an article on Wikipedian hoaxes, and on visiting the page was surprised to find two submissions that seem to be near completion, but not publication...? See also my own submission. Thanks, ResMar 05:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about Jayen466's undisclosed conflict of interest and inappropriate authorship of a Signpost story

User:Jayen466 has written a lengthy story in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-11/In the media about the recently published governance review of Wikimedia UK. As I have said here, he is absolutely the wrong person to be writing this. He is (I believe) a Wikimedia UK member himself though he is, frankly, widely regarded as being there to troll and has been strongly criticised by other WMUK members.[1][2] He has a massive undeclared conflict of interest in that he has effectively led a campaign against WMUK and specifically against Gibraltarpedia, which he mentions in his piece. He has been one of the loudest voices campaigning on- and off-wiki on this issue (especially through Wikipediocracy), and he has actively prolonged the controversy by leaking information to the media, for which he was reprimanded by Jimbo (who later banned him from his user talk page [3]). Jayen466 does not disclose anywhere in his story that he personally is right in the middle of it. It's completely inappropriate for a partisan in a controversy to pose as a neutral reporter to write what amounts to an unlabelled op-ed, without even disclosing his own heavy involvement.

This story needs to be spiked or at the very least, the current draft needs to be junked and someone else needs to write it. If the Signpost wishes to have any credibility whatsoever, it should steer clear of having someone up to his neck in a controversy trying to write a news report relating to it. Such a report has no chance whatsoever of being seen as unbiased, especially given the author's lack of disclosure. Prioryman (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, the main problem with that story is that it manages to be boring. Clearly there were a lot of strong feelings there, which should normally make for an exciting story. But not in this case, as it doesn't get clear what the excitement was all about. Hans Adler 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. What on earth, Signpost? "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story" is not normally regarded as journalistic best practice. Could someone please explain the process by which the person who pushed the story to the UK papers in the first place was allowed to use the Signpost as an attack platform as well? - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
This really points to a failure in COI management on the Signpost. Any responsible journalistic outlet has very strict standards of ethics, requiring disclosure of COIs, recusal from situations where a COI exists, etc. What are the rules governing the ethics of Signpost contributors? I've had a look but I haven't found anything. What mechanisms if any are in place to prevent partisans using the Signpost as a platform? Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
[ec] Perhaps the Foundation should commission an independent review of the handling of apparent CoI in The Signpost..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the story, the main issue I have with it is that it has a long quote and singles out van Haeften for a link to an offsite story that "that crowd" made a huge deal out of in the past - yet the report itself has absolutely nothing to say about that, except presenting it in their basic historical background, and focuses nearly entirely on the Bamkin COI and the Compass Partnership's general recommendations for how a board ought to be run. To me that smells like leftovers from a very old dinner being warmed up and served to unsuspecting guests. There is much more to be said about the procedural recommendations, which are easily extensible to any Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization and which really deserve to be highlighted for readers involved in them. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed article (and the reaction to it) appears in furtherance of WMUK political related agendas. We actually need less (no) WMUK political agenda issues on the En:Wikipedia. It's a different organization and most of us are not members or have anything to do with it. (see, WP:Battleground -- do not import off-site political issues with other editors onto the Pedia.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've advised the Signpost Editor, who has ultimate responsibility for Signpost content, of this conversation, and I'm sure he'll do what's right. Publication is still a couple days away. As for the underlying concern, every journalist is bound to have an opinion on the topic they are writing about; good journalism means that you put that aside, and I have—the piece is simply a summary of what the sources say, including the Wikimedia Foundation blog. I would never insert my opinion into an In the media piece, and I haven't—every word is traceable to the sources

and the piece is a fair summary of them. As to whether the Signpost should cover this story at all, of course it should: this is notable coverage, by two leading UK publications in the charity sector, and it is part of how Wikipedia is perceived in the wider world. That is the very essence of what the Signpost's In the Media slot is for. Andreas JN466 22:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's my point neither of those articles discuss EN:Wikipedia, except in a most tangential manner. So, the amount of coverage it deserves, if any, would in reason look nothing like the focus and length of the proposed article. Also, the "perception" your comment speaks of is not documented by the articles, as they don't discuss the perception of EN:Wikipedia, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
QRpedia, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia were and are very visible Wikipedia projects, and that is what the governance review was about. I don't think you can divorce that from Wikipedia—those projects are a part of this site, and they and their implications were widely discussed here. Andreas JN466 22:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No they were not "very visible." How small a site is this? Certainly, it is not as small as Monmouth or Gibraltar. The perception your article brings to it is skewed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
They were "widely discussed here", Andreas, because you personally were starting thread after thread about them in multiple places across Wikipedia - WP:DYK, Talk:Jimbo Wales and elsewhere. The fact is that you largely created this controversy and you fuelled it by feeding information to the media, including leaking Jimbo's own private emails. Jimbo strongly criticised you for it and commented: "I wrote to Jayen466 privately to point out that if he was responsible for that news story appearing, it is not helpful for him to do that sort of thing. His view appears to be that getting negative press about the Gibraltarpedia situation is essential in forcing positive change." (emphasis added) [[4]. By writing this story, you're giving the impression that you're (ab)using the Signpost to generate yet more "negative press ... to force change", as Jimbo put it. That's an enormous conflict of interest on your part and it looks very bad indeed. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to have followed developments on the Wikimedia Foundation side. If you think that the Wikimedia Foundation and WMUK commissioned the governance review merely because I made a fuss, and not because there was an important issue, you are deluded. As for the visibility of these projects, there've been literally hundreds of press reports worldwide about these projects, and they've been covered many times before in The Signpost [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Andreas JN466 23:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has commented on this on his talk page - I'm going to copy the comment here, as it deserves to be highlighted: "For his own benefit, I think that Jayen466 should have steered clear of the issue. Beyond that, I trust that the Signpost editors will review everything and make a solid decision about the story, based primarily on the content." [12] Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I must say, your championing Jimbo in this, after complaining about his "idiocity" and irrelevance on this issue, is the height of shamelessness. Apart from that, Jimbo's comment seems perfectly fine to me. Andreas JN466 23:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I've made no secret of the fact that I think Jimbo's position on this has been and still is ludicrous (he still seems to be insisting on calling it a "scandal", which is absurd), but when he posts good advice I think it's worth highlighting. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Not about to read any of what's going on here but Prioryman that sounds like cherry-picking. ResMar 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. If someone occasionally says foolish things, that's not a reason to discard everything they say. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, this seems to have spiraled a bit out of control. So, hello everyone. I'm the Signpost's editor-in-chief. Anyone is encouraged to submit articles to us for possible publication, as long as they relate in some way to a Wikimedia project. Based on those submissions, I decide what will go in each published edition. Saying that "This really points to a failure in COI management [by] the Signpost" is inaccurate, because the next week's edition has not been published. This is why we have a template on top of next week's pages stating "This is a draft Signpost article, a work in progress that should not be interpreted as a finished piece".
Moving on, our coverage of the UK governance review will be done in "News and notes" this week, not "In the media", because its impact on the Wikimedia movement is beyond just what third parties have said about it. My apologies go out to everyone for not making this clear sooner. If there are any further questions, please note that I will not be available for the next several hours. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Ed. As to the assertion by Hans Adler that "To me, the main problem with that story is that it manages to be boring", I heartily agree. Hell, I'd rather have a Signpost article covering this ludicrous talk page discussion. I have not been following the UK Wikimedia troubles, and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I will say that I now know a lot more about it thanks to you guys bringing your fight to us. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Ed. Could you please clarify who will be producing your coverage of the governance review? Prioryman (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to venture a guess by looking at the byline that it's going to be The ed17, who also wrote the last three editions' News and notes sections. Or it could be Mono, Tony1, or Jan eissfeldt, who have all also contributed to that section in the last two months. In fact, the last time anyone other than one of those four was a credited writer of that section is the November 12, 2012 edition. But you're not actually asking "who will be writing it", you're asking "will Jayen466 be writing it". If Jayen466 has ever written that section, it hasn't been in the last six months. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sven is correct in all respects. Jan and Tony are currently not writing NAN due to real life pressures. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some project tweaks

I was reviewing our various desks and would like the suggest some adjustments. First, the Education desk, which produced a grand total of two articles back in March 2012, should be folded into the Special desk. Second, we really need to update our desk archives—I took the liberty of doing so for the Special and Interview desks—and for the future, please keep on top of keeping them up-to-date. Third: the review desk has been lying dormant for over two years now; I feel as though now would be a good time to make a editor's note to the tune of "read a book about or related to Wikipedia lately? contribute a review to the Signpost today!". ResMar 03:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The education desk can remain for archival purposes, I think. It's been removed from the newsroom. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

template:SIGNPOST-SUBSCRIPTION

at the bottom of signpost articles, there is a note in all caps: "GET THE LATEST HEADLINES ON YOUR USER PAGE - JUST ADD {{SIGNPOST-SUBSCRIPTION}}". the problem is that template:SIGNPOST-SUBSCRIPTION does not exist. i suggest either a redirect from the all caps title, or changing that text to reflect the template's actual title. it may also be a good idea to protect the redirect, and also to change the phrase "user page" to "user talk page". 174.141.213.15 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I've created a redirect from that to Template:Signpost-subscription. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
you're quite welcome Ed. it's a minor detail but should be addressed nonetheless, so thanks. :) 174.141.213.8 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility fix

Thank you for the Infobox article. I've reformatted it, per WP:LIST, which improves its accessibility, while making only minor visual changes (the questions are after, rather than before, the infobox examples). The main change is to use semi-colons for questions, and remove the white space between answers. Please adopt this format for future editions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of this accessibility issue. Thanks for your help. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage victory

Settlement of litigation between Internet Brands and the Wikimedia Foundation Andreas JN466 01:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen, this was at the top of my emails when I logged on, and it will be our main story this week in NAN. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WMF looking for new board member

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-February/123987.html Andreas JN466 01:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions - ResMar 20:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I submit a survey?

Can I submit a survey through Signpost? For a clue the survey is about vandalism and it's anti-vandal tools.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking for. Are you attempting to conduct a survey through the Signpost? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking that can I submit my survey report as an article at the next or any issue of the signpost?--Pratyya (Hello!) 07:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You may, but it must be reviewed and approved by me before being added to an issue. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Then I think I can start my work?--Pratyya (Hello!) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I can't guarantee that it will be published. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me a direction about writing style in signpost?--Pratyya (Hello!) 07:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that you look through recent articles that we've published; that will give you a much better idea than anything I could type here. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Top25Report

This should be covered by/included into the Signpost. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Combining efforts to monitor and report noteworthy tech changes

Hi. I've started a discussion at m:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#Noteworthy changes where I mentioned you, and it would greatly benefit from your participation. I'd appreciate if you could take a few minutes to share your thoughts there :) guillom 17:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the Signpost?

It's one thing for me to try to access it on the date shown on the main page and each article. But three days late? That's too much. Why not skip a week and have the next one be on the actual date.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews

Just a thought - why isn't The Signpost part of Wikinews? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the Wikinews goal. Like Wikipedia, Wikinews articles require citations to publications. The Signpost covers Wikipedia-related news which wouldn't have the required sources to prove itself "notable" enough for Wikinews. James086Talk 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Forget that, Andy. They're more-biased than The Daily Mail, we don't want them. It should be shut down as a partisan little yellow rag. They fawned over the launch of a Wikinews fork, never once asking a single Wikinewsie for comment. They comiserated with the child that launched said fork when it did the Dead Parrot sketch, again never talking to a single Wikinewsie.
The Signpost owes Wikinews an apology under the terms of the Leveson enquiry, to whit: One with as much prominence and visibility as their assists in attempted fratricide. --Brian McNeil /talk 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh? The original OpenGlobe leader – which I don't agree was "fawning" – contained two quotes from Wikinewsies, or, to put it another way, quotes from approximately 12% of the entire population of (English) Wikinewsies at that time. The coverage of OpenGlobe's demise was not written in the tone I would have written it in, nor, as you rightly point out, did it include quotes from Wikinews (Wikinews being a different project) but neither would I say it was nearly as appalling as you seem to think Brian. I realise you felt that OG was not on the same side as WN, but I'm not sure everyone shares your view on that.
The Signpost also has also covered all manner of Wikinews projects over the past and also linked to its articles, if only sporadically (like much of sister-projects and indeed all-projects coverage). Wikinews editors have to push: Signpost editors have no real time to "pull" except for the N&N leaders. That's a sorry but very natural state of affairs for a volunteer community newspaper, something I'm sure deep down you must understand. I just can't understand the term "fratricide" being used here, it just doesn't make any sense to me. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion report

Is the Discussion Report a discontinued feature. It has been at least 5 or 6 weeks since the last one. I suggested a discussion on the suggestions page several weeks ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. You may note, though, that your suggested post has appeared in "News and notes" this week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Has arbitration report been cancelled? or is there simply nothing new to report from that week? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there was just nothing of significance last week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Really? Last week's report didn't mention that a case was voting even though it was dated four days after the voting started. There is no report this week. Signpost readers will have the case go from workshop to closed without a report pointing out it has made it to voting. Isn't vase voting on interaction, topic, and possible site bans of significance? What about the motion for a one-year-minimum ban for an editor that was gaining support at the publication date? EdChem (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately we are occasionally hamstrung in that there is a full article to write, and I prefer that we have multiple new items per report per week, not just one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
@EdChem, I take it you are talking about the Sexology case, since there has not been a proposed decision posted yet in either of the other two open cases. As of last week, they were still voting on the "findings of fact", but had not even posted their usual chart of vote tallies. There was some discussion on the talk pages as to why there were no findings of fact about one of the participants to match the proposed remedies, so perhaps there is more to come. I will probably write something about it this week, as some of the proposed remedies seem to have enough votes to have passed, as long as some of the arbs don't change their votes, as sometimes happens, but it's a judgment call. It isn't my goal to write every detail and ping-pong of every discussion, but just to point to the larger decisions, and let anyone with more interest read more. The report is also meant to be neutral, but if someone wants to express an opinion in the comments, that would certainly be welcome. —Neotarf (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not cover the Will Beback ban appeal? See User:Jmh649/Will_Beback and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee#User:Will_Beback_appeal_voting_results. I don't think this one is finished yet. II | (t - c) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In the past, the arb report covered only the cases. When I started writing the report, I started including the other requests and the noticeboard as well, mostly because I find them interesting, especially the ones that bring out larger issues besides just the personalities involved, but I have found out that it is a lot of work. At this point I'm not willing to cover the subcommittees as well, but if there is something that someone thinks should have a wider readership, they are certainly welcome to point it out in the comments. —Neotarf (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ting Chen has applied for Sue Gardner's job

Published by German tech website Heise just a couple of hours ago: [13] Andreas JN466 23:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, he also announced his intention to apply on the Wikimedia-L mailing list earlier today. Risker (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunate. He's been around for a while but seems rather behind the scenes; Wikipedia needs a fresh perspective. II | (t - c) 03:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Report

I noticed there was no Discussion Report for a while. Should I step up to the plate and begin to draft one? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 23:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, any help is always welcome. D you want this responsibility regularly, or can someone else start doing it from next week onwards? Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 10:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm in email contact with Revolution right now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No tech report?

Especially this week, with the changes to edit section links, deployment of Echo, global SUL finalization plans announced? Legoktm (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-29/Technology report quickly, and copied two of the briefs that Jarry wrote from the News and notes. Can someone who knows what they're doing publish it please? Legoktm (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Sort of done It's been added to this issue's list of articles and on to the Signpost front page, but we can't get it sent out to all the user talkpages again.(note:ruled out that because it has automatically transcluded from the template) I also added a title, which you forgot to do. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
We added the most important news to NAN when Jarry was unavailable to write it, but thank you, Legoktm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks Rcsprinter. Ed: No problem! Legoktm (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to think of ways to increase readership

The list of people subscribing to the Signpost has a thousand and three people on it. Only a third of these read what is delivered to their talkpages every week. I know this because I did a little study to see how many people read it. I went though each article in this week's edition, took the statistic from the day they had the most views, and worked out an average; (732+540+185+161+100+174+430) over 7. This tells me 332 (rounded to the nearest integer) people read this issue. Divide that by 1003 gives 33%. If only that many people read it, there is little point in producing it for only 330 readers. We need to think of a novel way to get noticed and read again. As the community's reporter, it is essential that those who want to know about such things are aware the signpost is there to tell them. Contributors, ideas please. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In defence of (hopefully many) people who do not subscribe but do get around to reading Signpost when they have time, please continue :-) From the pageviews of previous weeks you can see something of a tail of ~100 per day for the next week and ~25 the next. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I too read every issue cover to cover, as soon as it shows in my watchlist or in user talk pages that I'm stalking, hence have no need for personal delivery. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Since I discovered Signpost I've read just about every issue cover to cover. I spend enough time just reading Wikipedia though, that I just periodically check to see if there is a new issue of Signpost. I don't actually subscribe to it as it isn't really out of the way for me. Zell Faze (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The ideal solution, it seems to me, is a prominent link to the current issue on the main page. The trick, of course, is getting community approval to do that. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I would support a link on the main page. I feel there remains a disconnect between the people who use Wikipedia as a reference and the people who spend significant time writing and exploring the encyclopedia. More of the encyclopedia's readers should be exposed to the work that goes on behind the scenes. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The mainpage is for readers, signpost is designed for active editors. There may be room for an entry level magazine with articles on how to categorise or why we like references, but it would be a very different magazine to the signpost. If you want to increase the readership amongst active editors then ask active editors to read it. Howabout a bot congratulating people on their thousandth edit and suggesting that they might like to subscribe to the Signpost? ϢereSpielChequers 06:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's actually a good idea, do a bit of advertising in awards. We'd probably have to get it through an RfC first or people (admins) will be getting upset and asking what we're doing. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 08:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, in some ways. I'm sure we could find someone to write a weekly 'how-to' section, but it would be relatively useless without pointing new editors to it... which would be most easily done through talk page messages to every new editor (probably not going to happen) or a link on the main page or toolbar (pretty much definitely not happening). The bot idea is a good one. Wasn't the Teahouse(?) going around and congratulating people based on edit counts? Could we latch on to that? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I scan the headlines most weeks and click on the articles that sound interesting to me or might be relevant. I suspect there are others like me and that the total readership of the magazine is therefore greater than that of any one page. ϢereSpielChequers 06:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I read it through RSS. Almost never click through. II | (t - c) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • NAN and special reports typically get between 1000 and 2000 hits over the publication week and subsequent week or two. There are just over 1000 subscribers on en.WP, and importantly nearly another 160 on other projects (a valuable functionality that Tilman initiated when editor in chief). There's not a hope in hell of getting agreement for a main-page link. The most obvious way to increase our prominence is to include a thumbnail pic on talk-page notices. I've had two goes at trying to get this happening, but neither has seen the light. Tony (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While the goal of "increasing readership" is usually thought of in terms of selling advertising, a problem that WP does not have, it is certainly a valid concern that "those who want to know about such things are aware the signpost is there to tell them".

How do users find out about the Signpost? I found out by seeing it on Tony's talk page. Could it be included in some of the welcome templates? And for those of us who never received a welcome template (the first message on my talk page was from a banned sock), it would be useful to have a link on our watchlist page, maybe in the "interaction" section, right under "about Wikipedia". I bet someone could even figure out how to reproduce the font. —Neotarf (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an intriguing question. How do most of our readers first discover the Signpost? Just like you, I first learned about the Signpost by seeing it posted on someone else's talk page. It's not really obvious to new users that this weekly publication exists unless they happen to interact with the right people. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it on the Community portal page and usually access it from there when new issues come out. Zell Faze (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that today, for the first time, I saw a watchlist notice from LivingBot announcing the new issue. I think I did sign up for such notifications some while ago, but if they've arrived before I didn't notice them. (Wish there were a way to selectively highlight certain watchlist items. Or is there?) In any event, I've never felt the need to subscribe because I always see when each issue is delivered to umpteen users' talk pages on my watchlist. From there, it's just two or three clicks to the single-page edition, which is how I always read it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Notifications "mention" as a form of delivery

Do you think we should make a new method of Signpost delivery that uses Notifications' mention system? We could make a subpage called Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Mention that has a list of users, and we could paste the list of usernames in a new section every time we deliver the Signpost. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it make a difference as to whether they are notified through a new mention or through a new talk page message? Both are notifications. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be more efficient because it would only take one edit instead of hundreds. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you and I understood your question very differently. I think that readers would rather browse the section titles on their talk page, and our page views would go down from people deciding to not click through from :Signpost/Mentions to :Signpost. I can always ask in the next "from the editor", though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you do have a good point. I was just thinking the Signpost could somehow take advantage of the new Notifications system. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing the publication schedule in the newsroom

Hey All, when I talked to Ed17 at the GLAM-Wiki Bootcamp, he said that you all had changed to a different publication schedule with deadlines around Weds. Could someone who knows the workflow update the work schedule on the Newsroom Page, so that other members of the community have a better sense of when things are happening, Sadads (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I know it was discussed, but I don't think we ever officially changed the publication schedule. I'm still hoping that we'll eventually get back to Mondays. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that Wednesday is more realistic. --Pine 06:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If the target is Wednesday does that mean it will come out on Friday? RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the real issue with changing the publication date. If we push the deadline back, we'll just end up pushing back how late our publication finally rolls out. This week, Wednesday has come and gone and we still haven't published. –Mabeenot (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this week was really late. I think making a harder deadline of Wednesday and moving the date to then would be most appropriate. I've emailed Jarry as to whether I should be asking him or Pretzels about changing the automatically generated date. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Either way, I think we need to do a better job of making it clear when the deadline for submissions is, and when that means it will be published and people read it. If we are now being published on Wednesday, does that mean the deadline is Monday to allow for adequate time for copyediting. Ed, do you want myself or Jayen to copy-paste over from the Google Doc to the draft page at a certain time, or do you want to handle that? I just think we need a little more organization. No big deal, just a thought. Go Phightins! 21:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll work this week on updating the newsroom schedule, which has been out of date for some time now. I'll paste it over; I'll be publishing soon, and me doing it during publishing means that the content is new to anyone watching the page. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia's 1 millionth article

Hi, folks! You may have read that the Spanish-language Wikipedia has reached the one-millionth article. Well, it was a big surprise for us, because two days ago we were 20,000 articles down.

It seems that the number annexes has been either updated after a long delay, or suddenly included in the article count. You can start the research here. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To celebrate this milestone, would it be feasible for Wikizine to do a special on Spanish Wikipedia's history, growth, needs, etc? Maybe an interview with some admins over there would be nifty. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This might actually be the NAN lead story, depending on the return emails I get. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

m:Tech/News

Greetings. As a follow-up to my proposal a couple months ago about combining forces to monitor software and other technical changes, I've started a weekly tech summary at m:Tech/News. As Signpost contributors, you may be particularly interested in this, since our goal is to avoid duplicating resources.

At a minimum, you can now use the weekly summary to write the Signpost, and I also encourage you to participate in the process and contribute to the monitoring of tech changes as you've been doing.

If you notice recent or upcoming tech changes, please consider leaving a note or a link on the next tech summary (in addition to the Signpost) so that all subscribers of tech news across projects benefit from your vigilance.

Thank you. guillom 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Q to SignPost Is Tech News (or a summary of it) going to be added as a regular addition to the SignPost? 64.40.54.118 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
We have our technology report, which I assume will be reporting much of the same news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I spoke with User:Jarry1250 this weekend and he said he'll aim to use the weekly Tech News as at least a jumping-off point for the weekly Signpost tech page. Basically, the weekly tech summary on meta will provide already-researched links, and he will sometimes use those as a starting point and add prose detail in his Signpost reporting. Thanks, Signpost! Glad to be helping out. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed & Sumana. I appreciate your efforts. Best. 64.40.54.208 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Page views of the Signpost

I decided to check page views of the various forms of the Signpost. I used this tool:

It looks to me like many people click on the article that interests them. More than the number of people who look at the single-page issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. I am guessing that there are many people who are not subscribers (see talk section higher up) who happen to see the Signpost template, or talk page message, in many user pages, and then click on articles of interest. 1691 pages link to Template:Signpost-subscription according to Jarry1250's Toolserver Tools - Template transclusion count.

Here are some page-view counts:

  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single has been viewed 4567 times in the last 90 days. Let us say there were around 12 issues of the Signpost during those 90 days. That comes to around 380 page views each for the single-page issues of the Signpost.

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2013.

May 6, 2013 issue of the Signpost:

There were 33,243 active editors in March 2013 according to English Wikipedia at a glance.

Here is a good summary chart below. It says the maximum number of active editors (5 or more article edits in the last month) was 51,370 in March 2007. See also: commons:Category:English Wikipedia active editor statistics for more stats and charts. Active editors on English Wikipedia over time.png

Hey, feel free to use any or all of this as part of an article in the Signpost. A small credit to me for my part in compiling some of the info is sufficient attribution. I don't want to do a full article myself. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting analysis. While I can't really put it in the Signpost as-is—it would be a tad gradiose to make us the story of the week!—I may refer to it in a "From the editor" I'm planning soon. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Subscribe

Many, if not most, people who see the signpost template on a user page or elsewhere, have no idea how to subscribe to it, or how to put the template on their own user page. Template usage is not common knowledge. Neither are subscriptions.

The Signpost
20 August 2014

I suggest putting a link in the bottom row of links. This link:

This follows the rule of GUI K.I.S.S. (lol) - Keep It Simple, Stupid. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, TS. I'd also love to see a thumbnail pic, but no one seems to be keen. Why not? And I'd love to make the top-level titles a bit sexier (News, not News and notes; Technology, not Technology report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 26 May 2013‎
I have subscriptions to various newsletters showing up regularly on my talk page. The other newsletters all have some kind of graphic. So I agree about having some kind of pic. See my talk page. Your talk page has the Signpost showing up, and so people can see how it looks there as a newsletter that shows up regularly in the talk stream. I have the Signpost template at the top of my user pages. A logo helps distinguish each newsletter from each other, and from all the other text on talk pages.
Note that nearly all the other newsletters on my talk page have links for signing up and subscribing. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We're experimenting right now with different ideas to improve it. Thanks, Timeshifter. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Great! --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added a subscribe link and increase the size of the logo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Good job! --Timeshifter (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Deliveries

With Signpost getting later and later (e.g. today for last Monday's edition), may I suggest the drastic idea of skipping a week so that publishing may get back to being on time? You could fit more in the next edition that way. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 16:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You have posted at the right time; we have changed the official publishing date to Wednesdays and will be aiming to publish by then or early Thursday each week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

New official publishing date

Hello everyone, I've changed the official publishing date to Wednesday to match our current practice and have cleared any bot issues with Harry (we hope!) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think most people are happy there is a Signpost at all! I suggest just using the date it is published. No day of week needed. This comes from a confirmed WP:WikiSloth slacker with a zillion edits on many wikis, and not just Wikimedia wikis. It's not like there are people lining up for your unpaid job. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Series links

FYI, the buttons automatically generated at the bottom of articles to link ongoing series were broken by the change to Wednesday publishing. I manually updated last week's WikiProject Report to repair the link. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the note, I've fixed this in the remaining articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's still missing from the front page. Powers T 20:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Migrate RSS & App backend to Tools Labs

Hello! I'm wondering if I should migrate the RSS feed and the API / Push backend for the Signpost from my own server to Wikimedia Tools Labs, and setup a redirect. Thoughts? Any offers of help? :D YuviPanda (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If that would be less maintenance overall for you, I think that'd be great... however, I can't help, because I'd be completely lost. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

If I want to use two Wikipedia:Signpost/Sidebar templates in a single article, how do I accomplish this without one appearing beside the other? –Mabeenot (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mabeenot! You can use {{clear}} immediately before the second template, if I understand your question correctly. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that would clear the text too. Mabeenot, I think you will have to manually place the second one at the beginning of the third question—I don't think there is another way around it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RSS?

Seems that http://signpost.yuvi.in/feed is not updated for more than a month. We need to fix that (or update Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe...). --Nk (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've pinged User:Yuvipanda, who runs that feed. Thank you for the note. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Has been updated now. The script that Jarry wrote to publish the Signpost also used to update the site (it performed a POST to a particular URL). That doesn't seem to be happening anymore. Thoughts on why? YuviPanda (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a clue; that's 100% Jarry's domain, and I wouldn't understand it even if he explained it to me. ;-) I'll ping him into this conversation as well. Thanks, Yuvi. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The code at my end hasn't changed in ages. Probably a problem at yours, have you checked the logs? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
In any case, it's rather unfortunate the earlier blog/feed at http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog/ was removed last year because the script failed to update it, thus losing a RSS subscriber base built over the course of more than three years and also dropping the Signpost out of Planet Wikimedia. With all due respect to Yuvi, who is awesome, I think that a generic domain/URL (which can be handed over between team members) is more suitable for this kind of thing than one person's personal website. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I hope this can happen. II | (t - c) 00:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, no one noticed (or at least said anything) that the feed had gone down until months after it stopped, so I suspect you are overstating the amount of people who use[d] it (no offense intended). I'd also be interested in seeing how many people actually follow and read Planet Wikimedia, but that's more for curiosity's sake, and I have no objections to reviving the web page ... but who even owns that site? A whois tells me that it expires in June of this year? That's probably something good to work out before we think about restarting it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, I do recall people pinging me about it being down, and a quick search through the archives finds e.g. this and this complaint. In any case, subscribing to an RSS feed is most useful precisely for those people who would otherwise forget to check back about the Signpost ;)
Unfortunately we don't currently have pageview numbers for the planet (I've nudged the WMF Analytics team about it though), but for example in our recent little survey among readers of blog.wikimedia.org, 43% selected "RSS feed (e.g. on Planet Wikimedia)" in response to the question "How do you find our blog posts?".
AFAIK, wikipediasignpost.com is still registered to editor emeritus Ral315, who renewed it in 2011 (after my reminder) and might be willing to do so again. I don't know how the WMF legal team would classify the domain in terms of trademarks, but it's safe to assume that they would prefer not to see it falling into the hands of a domain grabber. In any case, you should have received the login credentials for wikipediasignpost.com/blog from your predecessor.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I do have the blog login details; basically the blog updating (despite my best efforts) didn't survive the transition to an automated publication process. I have had conversations about this before, however, and the feeling was that no-one was relying on the RSS Feed from the blog any more. But of course, consensus can change and I could spend time getting the blog back into the publication process. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 09:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, HaeB, and I became editor in May 2012, so the first time I would have seen it being down (again) would have been in September. ;-) I'm not still not convinced that planet.wikimedia is well-read, but there's no reason I can think of for not restoring the site's old functionality if it isn't too much trouble for you, Jarry (I have no idea how much work it would entail). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems we got a bit sidetracked in this thread, which may be partly my fault. Of course, the question of whether a personal or a generic domain name is used for the Signpost's official RSS URL, or how quickly subscription to a feed builds up or wanes, is separate from the question of how large the interest for such an RSS feed is in absolute terms, in the year 2013. And your earlier point that the wikipediasignpost.com feed's disappearance was not noticed "until months after it stopped" (if that was the case) could also be applied to Nk's note that started this thread "more than a month" after the yuvi.in feed stopped. In any case, thanks are due to Yuvi for fixing the present issue, and I hope the Signpost will regain a presence on Planet Wikimedia again soon. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ack, sorry, I missed your reply. Jarry, how much trouble would it be to restore the blog? If it's more than just a trifle, I can always write a "from the editor" asking readers if they would use it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I restarted my servers last time and it seemed to have worked. The Feed was updated promptly this time and the Android app also got a prompt notification. Should work in the future too. Sorry about the downtime. YuviPanda (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cannot people just use MediaWiki's feed generation? I use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Issue?action=history&feed=atom and I've always used that. Of course, it doesn't contain a proper summary, but it's fine for me, because I prefer to read feed content directly on the web page anyway. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that tracks every edit, and as you can see, we've had to make several corrections in the last several weeks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsubscribing problems?

Hi, I hope this is the correct place for this. I have attempted to unsubscribe from the Signpost by removing my name from the list. However, I seem to be still receiving messages on my talkpage. Did I do something wrong? Thanks, AFisch99 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's odd -- no, it doesn't look like you did. I'll purge the page, and can you please let me know if it happens again next week? Thank you, and apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I also am having problems with this. On May 28th I unsubscribed, and I've still been receiving them. AlexB531 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I still received the Signpost this week. Hmm. AFisch99 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RecentChangesCamp

In the current issue of The Signpost the caption for the puppets image has a red link. An article does exist for RecentChangesCamp. Just FYI, in case this can be updated. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Both are now fixed, thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Ed. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Signpost staff

The Signpost has really been at the top of its game recently. Lots of great articles and features and doing very well at keeping the community informed. So I just wanted to take a moment and say thanks for the dedication, the long hours and the helpful effort that the Signpost staff puts in to each issue. It's a great benefit to the community to have such dedicated editors helping us each and every week and the efforts of everybody involved are very much appreciated. Thanks. 64.40.54.119 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 64! We have some excellent editors here who are doing great work—better than me!—and I hope they've seen this post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Flow to force all users to use VisualEditor for communication

Seriously.

  1. . Flow is replacing talk pages
  2. . The only editor for talk pages will be Flow

There's a stir about it at Village pump (policy), Village pump (technical), Wikipedia talk:Flow, and Wikipedia:Visualeditor/RFC.

The users need to know about this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will write a Technology Report about it for this week. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 06:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes, Ian, and for the offer, Rcsprinter123, but I'd prefer to not cover this right now. Flow is replacing talk pages, yes; that's been known for quite some time. As for the VE being the only editor, nothing's set in stone yet, and it's just being prototyped now. I'd like to wait until things are hashed out further (edit: e.g. something like this). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you link to my name so I'd get a notification? Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 15:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, to be sure you saw it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I watch this page anyway. ;) But what's all this new technology they give us if we don't use it? Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 15:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with the topic itself—it's the timing. I'd rather we wait until we know more, rather than basing our story off of conjecture. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing problems - Washington Post versus Wall Street Journal

What happened here - [14] ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Truth the first casualty as South wins Canberra conflict

Readers of The Canberra Times read on Wednesday about the Wikipedia article on North Canberra reporting about a fictional conflict between North and South Canberra. The hoax, posted on 12 August, remained for over a week before being reverted on 20 August.[15]

The good news is that the OP used the Visual Editor. Face-grin.svg

"if naive Wikipedia will publish anything it is told about anywhere," asked the Canberra Times, "what a can of worms is opened! Each of us might write for Wikipedia a fictitious but fun entry about our town... how the sunlight gleams on the gilt onion domes of Gunghalin's 16th cathedral, built there by Ivan the Terrible... which Wikipedia's gullible readers will think is gospel truth."

We can only hope!

("Truth the first casualty as South wins Canberra conflict", The Canberra Times, 21 August 2013, p. 10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we skipping a week?

There's only three days left before the 28th. Is the plan to skip a week? Because if so I can replace the Traffic report with a more updated version. Serendipodous 11:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, too, whether you were skipping a week because it's summertime. I look forward to reading it. Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ed has a note on his talk page saying that he's busy IRL. He said in the newsroom yesterday that he was planning to publish around 7 hours from his post at 15:50. I don't know why that didn't happen. We can only hope that the Signpost publishes today. --Pine 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Very busy, I'm living the American dream of three jobs plus the Signpost. ;-) We're publishing now and then will publish again on Thursday. Apologies all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

News and Notes for Aug 28th edition

I have drawn up a brief articles about FemTechNet and their Storming Wikipedia project, slated for the fall. It is not long enough to be the primary article for the next edition, but it is possible to fluff it out more by expanding the content with bits from the Wikimania conference, and general information about gender bias on the wiki. Hopefully this is the type of content that is acceptable for the Post. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It could definitely be expanded, but this is why wikis are awesome. Would any editors familiar with the gender gap like to pitch in to push our coverage beyond that of FemTechNet? (aka start with Storming Wikipedia and spin it into the larger topic of the gender gap problem) User:Keilana and User:SarahStierch, feel free to ping others. We'll probably publish on Friday UTC, so if you all can get something together by then... :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@Nick and Ed, I'd be happy to help, just drop me an email or a talk page message. We were also writing a bit for ITM, would that be redundant now? Keilana|Parlez ici 14:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah probably, but we can always move the whole thing to ITM; we'll also have a WLM story for NAN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish, anyone?

I'd like to interview the Spanish Wikipedia's WikiProject Football (Soccer) for the WikiProject Report. While I do know a little Spanish, I'd still like to partner with someone who's more familiar with the language to conduct the interview. As with previous articles in the "Babel" series, you'll get your name in the byline and have a say in what questions we ask. Anyone interested? –Mabeenot (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Harold? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I can help :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Hi, folks! Did you know that Wikipedia is "the purported poster child of neoliberalism"? It can "teach us about the ways in which neoliberalism has come to insinuate itself into much of the Western culture". Enjoy the essay! ;) --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Class fonts

Wouldn't it be helpful to add a distinct class for that code and the respective templates within the page

<div class="Signpost" style="clear:both; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; text-align:center; font-size:100%; line-height:120%; margin-bottom:-42px; margin-top:30px;">

It would enable us to override your mandated fonts. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is a question for User:Jarry1250 when he's online next. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well you'd struggle with that anyway (because you need !important). Who is "us" in this context? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
We do have a special dyslexic-friendly font on Wikipedia. We should make sure that users of that font can overrule us. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Cover photos

I suggest that Signpost cover photos should be attractive and interesting to readers, unlike what was used last week. --Pine 06:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, there were a couple positive comments on the image, but I'm not planning on using images like that often. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
What was the purpose of using that image this time? There were many possible images so why that one? --Pine 05:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was the most interesting image in the "Traffic report", and evidently I didn't think it was as nasty as what others thought. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Publication deadline

I think we should set an absolute deadline for when we will publish, preferably by late Wednesday and definitely by late Thursday. Pick a time and stick to it. Anything not done by then can be held for the next week. I think we are more useful to our readers and get better readership statistics if we publish earlier in the week especially before the weekend starts. --Pine 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do think that I could set a harder deadline, yes, but I'd also rather not exclude relevant news. This week we waited on the Arbitration report, something necessitated by Neotarf (talk · contribs)'s laptop breaking coupled with the significant developments in that realm. Also, as I'll be noting below, this month is just a horrible one in terms of real life pressure for the "News and notes" team. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Move to bi-weekly, monthly, or quarterly?

I think the Signpost is great. I've thought about different op-eds I might write. I've never contributed, though. Given that it seems volunteer labor isn't as high as it should ideally be, might it be wise to just give those who do volunteer a break and re-calibrate? What if the publication was monthly or quarterly, with only "special issues" issued in-between? Anyhow, it just seems that the call for volunteers I saw recently was an implicit acknowledgement that the current status quo is unsustainable. I'm all for shifting the status quo to make the willing volunteers happy. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think what the Signpost at least partially aims to inspire (or should inspire), is a responsiveness of the Wikipedia community to the outside world. Perhaps this role can be played out at a public relations noticeboard. I might boldly create it. My other bold new noticeboard wasn't as well thought out and was deleted but I think this one would stick. Out of that, I recently created WP:Wikimedia Foundation to help people know what is going on with the organization. Maybe the Signpost could evolve/adapt its mission given the existing WP:WMF page and the possible introduction of a new noticeboard? Just my 2 cents. Biosthmors (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple responses I'd like to make:
  1. The Signpost has gone through rough patches many times in the seven years it's been around, and we've weathered all of those storms. Nerfing the paper into a biweekly or monthly publication wouldn't make the newspaper any more timely or reliable. We tried changing the publication date from Mondays to Wednesdays in the hopes that we'd be able to put each issue out on time. Instead, we've just moved from missing one deadline to missing a different deadline, which means we're now publishing even later than before. The problem isn't when or how often we publish. The problem is motivating people to submit material, copyediting that material, and initiating the publishing procedures on time. All of these responsibilities currently rest on the shoulders of one man, who often has to write sections like News and Notes before he can copyedit and release the rest of the newspaper. That's a lot of work for an unpaid volunteer who also has real life to worry about. Our other writers, myself included, tend to keep to our own corners of the Signpost or perform WikiGnome edits in their spare time. What we need are more people willing to step up and finish each edition of the Signpost if the editor-in-chief is unavailable. The instructions are clearly posted in the newsroom, but most of us are too chicken to actually do it. Ideally, we would have assistant or associate editors who can fill in for the editor-in-chief to push the paper out on time.
  2. The Signpost and the WMF have a very curious relationship. Several editors fervently guard the independence of the Signpost and spurn any involvement by the WMF. On the other hand, two of our former editors-in-chief became WMF employees, the monthly Recent Research column is essentially a WMF production, and the WMF occasionally highlights our content on their blog. While I would like to see collaborations with the WMF, changing the mission of the Signpost to adapt your WMF noticeboard would certainly ruffle all sorts of feathers.
Ultimately, the best thing you can do right now is to write for the paper. We have plenty of beat reporters (Traffic Report, WikiProject Report, Tech Report, Featured Content, etc.) but we need more news-gatherers for News and Notes and In the Media. We also need more copyeditors who are willing to wade through sections of the paper that they're not normally interested in reading. Finally, we could use folks who can be trained by The ed17 to take over in his absence. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The core of my best idea was suggesting that if there is a noticeboard to discuss press mentions (I actually did create a WMF noticeboard that was deleted), then that could reduce the burden on the Signpost to do an "in the Media" section. I already ruffled feathers once today; hopefully it's not twice! I imagine that if someone is particularly impassioned about press coverage that is discussed at my planned new "public relations noticeboard" then they could write an op-ed. I'm just brainstorming out out. Thanks for the tips about where to get involved. Biosthmors (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries, you're not ruffling feathers—it's always good to get a fresh take on things. We do have a suggestions page, but the "In the media" team do a pretty good job with the resources they have, particularly (an) automated feed(s) on external websites. They also have three to four rotating writers. The problems right now are coming in "News and notes", as Tony is in Europe and I temporarily have three jobs, and the "Arbitration report", though those should be over. We're also still looking for contributors to "Featured content" so Pine can devote his time to the "Discussion report" and Harold doesn't have as great of a load, given his other duties in the movement.
As for the rest, Mabeenot (talk · contribs) is (as usual) correct in all respects. "News and notes" is a weird section to find writers for, as it requires having a good amount of knowledge about the wider movement, among other things. However, most people with that knowledge are involved in many of the topics they would have to write about, and our intended audience (Wikipedians) aren't really known to be forgiving when it comes to COI issues, both real or perceived.
Essentially, it boils down to something similar to Mabeenot's second bullet point: the Signpost has a "curious" relationship with the WMF and the Wikimedia movement. We have a role, maybe even a large role, in the movement. At the same time, we're reporting on that movement. To write about it requires avoiding significant mistakes, because it could have relatively harsh consequences—especially when reporting on individual editors—while upholding a critical eye and analyzing costs and effects. Tony does this far better than me, in my opinion. For instance, his excellent analysis of the WMF's annual plan was widely read around the movement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • So, Ed, what signing bonuses can I get? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You get a restoration of the original images from Puck of Pook's Hill! But you were already working on that. Shut up, me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco, you would get my everlasting love. Is that enough? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, I might be able to help out a bit with finishing up, but the tech report is a fairly labour-intensive one to do right, so I can't guarantee it. Might get less so over time, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries, we'll tempt someone into helping sooner or later. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, folks! Here in my country a university newspaper is called "Aperiodical". That's because they never know when the next issue will be published. When they feel like doing one, they do it and publish it.
Having a weekly Signpost perhaps puts too much stress on writers. If it gets too tough, just take a few more days to finish an edition. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Single page version also for older editions?

Thanks for all your hard work! I have one request: could you make available single page versions of older Signposts, just like the single page version of the current one? I'm trying to read the Signposts offline, and downloading a series of small pages is painful, as is reading the one-page PDF book version on a mobile device. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia switch to HTTPS on Techdirt

Hi! YOu may be interested in this article. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Some tech developments

First: Quim Gil is looking for suggestions for the next round of GSoC projects (and other similar mentored/supported programs); this could potentially involve tools useful for editors as well as reader-facing features or infrastructure work.

Second: reorganisation of the Editor Engagements team at WMF, including giving it a somewhat clearer mission - one group focusing on "core features" and existing users, one on "growth" and new users. Hopefully the output will be equally clear ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

possible story idea

Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothiness (talkcontribs) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Spoken version

Could one of you please record a spoken word version of each edition as it goes to press and add the file to the masthead? (Or send it by bot to my talk page?) I'm mildly dyslexic and only read what I feel I must. The Signpost is a bit of a luxury, so I often miss out reading it. It doesn't have to be fancy. Thanks! (By the way, I'd like to do that to a few articles I've written. Does anyone know if there's a simple "how-to" page somewhere? Cheers! Found it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia#How to create a spoken article) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia featured on Discovery News

Here's the video. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Traffic Report?

Where is it this week? I always enjoy seeing what articles the public is interested in seeing each week. Yes, some articles (Deaths, Facebook, Google, etc.) are popular each week but there are always unexpected articles that for some reason, pique people's interest. If the information is getting to you late, I hope you can add it into this week's issue. I'll come back and look for it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New week up?

The Newsroom is still only showing last week's edition. Kinda need the new one up so I can edit it. Serendipodous 15:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. It's reset now! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Is there any way to make these WikiProject talk page notices less obtrusive? (diff) Since the project talk pages are used so often, it would make sense to pare it down to an unobtrusive single line, or completely hide it with a [show] option, no? czar  15:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How many of these are used? I've only seen it once or twice, unless they've been added to places I'm not looking. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
As an alternative proposal: a page that lists WikiProject mentions. I don't see why it needs a talk page box, especially where we go through great lengths to reduce clutter. czar  13:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
There's this page if that's what you mean. Rcsprinter (confer) @ 16:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes—thanks czar  20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It's currently on the talk pages of over 100 projects [16]. Here's an example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. I personally don't mind it, but modelling it along the lines of Template:Commons category-inline might help make it less obtrusive and less likely to be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This template is an optional badge that projects can use to highlight their interview in the Signpost. We do not add the template to pages nor do we expect that any particular project uses it. Feel free to remove the template or create your own. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I checked back and see that the banners were added to all the projects in September by an editor who is neither on the staff of The Signpost nor a member of the projects to which it was added. I think s/he was just trying to be helpful. Like I said, I don't mind, and we'll be keeping it on the Opera Project. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@Czar: I am the editor who added the template to something like 130 Wiki-Project talk pages. I have completed adding them to Wiki-Projects that were featured on the Signpost in 2008, 2009, 2010 and am still working on adding the rest at a rate of about one a day.
I know a few wiki-projects removed the template from their talk-pages, but thankfully most have kept them. As someone who likes to drop into wiki-projects here and there, I believe that projects that have been featured on the Signpost are less of a black-box for prospective participants. Also, with the new notification system I find it is possible to pick up old discussions on the talk-page of these articles. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it can be useful, but I'm not sure a talk page banner is the right venue, especially in the more active projects (especially since it's more up to the Project consensus what banners to keep and whatnot). Anyway, it's documented in that list, so the information should be easy to find for those interested. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
@Czar: I agree that the template used to create Signpost-talk-page-banners can be improved. For example there are a fair number of WikiProjects that have been featured more than once on the Signpost which would benefit from a condensed version instead of two almost identical banners on their talkpage (see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies). I wonder if there is some kind of Notice Board where one could request a new template? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Greg Hunt taps Wikipedia for bushfire backing

"Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt says Wikipedia, the online answer to everything, provides evidence that the unseasonal bushfires plaguing NSW are not linked to climate change." The Age October 25, 2013 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

...and [17] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Publication date

Why don't you change the publication date to Friday or Saturday so the Signpost doesn't always appear to be published late? I look for a new edition on Wednesdays but it never seems to be published on the publication date. Just a suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 14:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the publication date was recently changed from Mondays to Wednesdays. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-05/From the editor. I'll just add that I don't mind the Signpost being late. The amount of work that goes in to each edition is staggering and it's probably the fastest process we have on Wikipedia. While many/most other projects on Wikipedia have gone dormant and been marked historical, the Signpost is still here and I'm very thankful for that. Reading the Signpost is something I look forward to every week. Keep up the good work everybody. 64.40.54.76 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to be critical, I just thought a more realistic deadline would mean that it wouldn't always appear that the Signpost is publishing late. I'm a big fan and I don't care what day it is published! Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Single page edition gone?

There used to be a link to the single page view at the bottom of the template in the community portal. That went, but then there was still a link in the archive view. Now that's gone too? Was there a problem with making the single page edition? I find it much more convenient to read - you can just scroll or use the arrow keys to read/skim the whole thing, rather than having to click lots of places. Stevage 00:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The link is missing from the template but is still there on the Signpost page, Stevage. It goes to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. Liz Read! Talk! 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't control what goes onto or comes off the community portal. :-) You can find the single-page link on our front page. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@The ed17: /me points at [18] and hums a little hum. –Quiddity (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, I misread Stevage's original post. I thought that having a link to the front page and an option to subscribe would be far more helpful than the single-page version. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsubscription

The unsubscription section is somewhat buried and not prominent enough, in my opinion. The process one then has to go through could be made easier for the less initiated. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious timing: did your fellow clerk (well, trainee clerk) Rschen put you up to this? It is easier to unsubscribe than to subscribe. There doesn't appear to be a problem. Tony (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where your problem is, Alexandr. Is it on the front page or on the talk page deliveries? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you should get a few facts straight, Tony. Firstly no one put me up to anything: I wished to unsubscribe because I no longer want to receive the Signpost on my talkpage. I get it as a Wikimedia-l subscriber, and I don't need it twice. Secondly, I have had no interaction with Rschen in a very long time, and I resigned as a clerk before he was brought on as a trainee.
My comment regarded the fact that to remove myself from the list, I was required to find a transcluded page. That's not the easiest of things to find, even when you've been around for a while like me. I was putting myself in the place of someone less experienced - I used the term less initiated - for whom the process of subscribing to talkpage notifications from EdwardsBot has been very nicely automated. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it, Alexandr. Thank you. Tony (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on other projects

I think we need to be careful when we publish comments or cover stories about other projects even in op-ed. Discussing controversies across projects may be more disruptive than beneficial if not handled carefully. We should assume that other projects are generally working in good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. --Pine 08:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Gratuitous advice rejected. Tony (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I'd call it "gratuitous." Pine has a point that we ought treat the sister projects with respect, even when we're reporting on their controversies. However, we will report on those controversies, no question about that... –Mabeenot (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
What part of the WV article was disrespectful, please? It was almost entirely factual. Tony (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring to any article in particular (I haven't been keeping up with this week's drama). I'm just saying that the Signpost can provide in-depth reports while still respecting the unique situations surrounding other projects. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
What exactly does that mean, and why are you making this comment right now? Tony (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note on non-free images

This week's Signpost had two non-free images, which I removed (as non-free images aren't allowed outside of the mainspace). If you take the first two lines at User:Sven Manguard/vector.js and put them in your custom .js page, it will display a red box around non-free images (as well as change the link color for any page that is currently up for deletion from blue to orange, although if you want only the red box, you can create your own custom styling sheet with just that). It's a great tool for seeing non-free images and preventing this kind of thing from happening. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Staff list?

I remember once coming across a list of Signpost contributors and I can no longer find it. It would be very useful to include that information on a separate page or on the About page in case an Editor wants to get in touch with a writer who focuses on a specific area. I realize that it's likely that several contributors are responsible for different pages of Signpost but it would still be interesting to me to know who your writers are, without having to go, page by page, back through your Archives. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I was looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Admin series and the last column in the series was in January 2013. I understand that there is no specific proposal for RfA reform at the moment but there is still a lively conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about stalled state of RfAs and the declining number of Admins as more and more inactive Admins get desyop'd every month. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Regular_responsibilities. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. And I also think it's a good time for another Admin series article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope to have time in January to update some of the stats I've maintained and do an RFA in 2013 article. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to reading it WereSpielChequers. The ed17 is anyone planning on writing a similar end of year summary for featured content? --Pine 07:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at present, but we're also dealing with editors who are just settling into the role. I'll see if Crisco is interested in contributing some help. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Over a week overdue

They changed the date to Wednesday so it wouldn't be late as often, but unless they planned to take last week off, it's overdue by another week.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Last week was skipped, unfortunately. It was a holiday week in the United States and the Signpost has been short on contributing editors. --Pine 06:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't finished this week's yet but is this detail mentioned anywhere?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see it. The ed17 want to add this for history's sake to N&N? --Pine 07:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsubscribing long-term blocked users

I was trying to unsubscribe users who have been inactive for a long-time (over a year) because they are blocked and their user talk pages are just a string of Signpost notices but I haven't found a way to do this.
For example, User:RafikiSykes does not have a Signpost template on their talk page and can't be found on your spamlist. Is there another list of subscribers that can be edited? I understand that this is not a high priority task but when you visit the talk page of a blocked user and it contains over a dozen Signpost notices, it seems like the editor should be unsubscribed. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a list on Meta too... that's the only other one I'm aware of? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Monolingual and multilingual editors

Hi, folks! Today the MIT published this article on a paper on Wikipedia editors. It describes how some editors write in a single language, whereas others edit in multiple languages. It's very interesting. It says that multilingual editors often write on articles that monolingual editors don't modify, and often edit the same article in multiple languages.

I didn't read the paper yet, but the article makes me believe that the analysis has some errors. It concludes that multilingual editors prevent self-focus bias. That may be true, but apparently ignores the other side of the coin: many monolingual editors only write in the only language they know. If we didn't have them, that information would be missing.

If multilingual editors spread those articles into other languages, it would be a perfect system. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think the study is somewhat limited. I have translated hundreds of Wikipedia articles into English, but I seldom edit any foreign language Wikipedias. So I would be classified by the study as a monolingual editor, even though I am doing precisely what the article about the study suggests should be done, namely spreading knowledge across language boundaries. Bahnfrend (talk)
Looking at usage of Template:Translated page might give some idea of how many articles are new and how many are translations. Currently there are 19,532 pages transcluded from this template.[19]
While I have added to a number of articles in other languages, mostly to link them to the English article or to add sources--if you have a link to their Facebook page or their official website open, you might as well add it to both articles, yes?--English has always been the target language. —Neotarf (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Worldly Opinion section

Hi there!

I have an idea for a new section of the signpost: Worldly Opinion section. This would be the same idea as the Opinion Desk, except that it doesn't have to relate to Wikipedia-- it can be about anything! Thoughts? I'd be glad to write the first article :D

Newyorkadam (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I've responded on my talk page! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

When may we expect this week's Signpost?

Or will there be one this week?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it'll be coming shortly. We've got five sections ready to go. News, Media, and Traffic are still out. We should ping Ed, who's probably still recovering from the holidays. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
And Mabeenot, as per usual, is/was correct. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I see it's here now. Unfortunately, I'm very busy on Saturday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report?

What happened to this week's traffic report? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I got a lot of grief in the comments section the last two weeks. I've suspended the traffic report until I can decide how to redraft it to suit everyone. Serendipodous 17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)rybody.
I don't know that you have to suit everybody as much as explain what you did, and why. The box part seems like a lot of care is taken with it, but one thing I have found is that some people look at boxes, and some people don't. (I like boxes.) So your first paragraph might be a description of what is in the boxes, for the people who don't look. Then it seems that some people like to hear your opinion and like to engage with you over it, so if you like that kind of back and forth, maybe you want to put in your opinion. Then, they want to know about the stuff that was left out and why, maybe it's the same every week, but if they didn't see the explanation last week, they will need at least a footnote about that. All you have to do after that, is just remember what you learned in English 101 about paragraphs and topic sentences, :) and you have the thing finished. Piece of cake. But of course Ed might tell you something different. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Signpost wikiproject report archives 2013

Category:Wikipedia Signpost wikiproject report archives 2013 and 6 other similar categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The entries of this same category all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the deletion nomination entry. Thank you.XOttawahitech (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's a permanent link to the above-mentioned discussion. Graham87 05:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Injunction to a Spanish article was denied in Argentina

Hi, folks! An Argentine court denied an injunction to remove a Spanish-language Wikipedia article on a journalist. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And faster than you can say "Streisand effect", a new Eduardo Feinmann article sprang up, in English. ¡Viva la libertad de expresión! Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Title of the Discussion report

I think "and more" should be included to indicate that more than the headlined discussions are happening. Tony1 thinks otherwise. The ed17 and others what do you think think and why? --Pine 23:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

First, why don't we add "and more" to just about every level-2 title, then? NAN could have it every week. Second, it has a commercial smell about it—it's a cliche that has largely been dropped in titles because it's pretty tired. Third, it weakens the impact of a title, which is best short and neat. Fourth, there's no doubt that readers will see the "more" you refer to when they go to the page; if your primary story/headline isn't enough to attract them, a rethink is needed. Tony (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So what else is happening besides RFC's? —Neotarf (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Tony's reasoning is pretty close to mine. Realistically we could add "and more" to every title in the SP, so I think readers have come to expect that there will be more than just the title's topic(s), which are there to 'hook' them in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
OK, The ed17 and Tony1. Neotarf what else would you like to see in the DR? --Pine 05:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Just saying the title should summarize the contents. I was sort of trying to get you to tell me what was in it yourself, as a way of thinking about what possible new titles might look like. And if the contents are so different from the title, is there enough information to split the content into more than one piece? As an alternative, you could write a small summarizing statement at the beginning, to clue people in, so they don't miss whatever is at the bottom of the page. —Neotarf (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing comments section

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-01/Featured content is missing a place to leave comments. I assume this isn't a deliberate decision? the wub "?!" 16:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@The wub: Not at all! It should be fixed now, thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New Year Edition

What happened to the January 1, 2014 edition? It never came out. Was there none because of the holiday? StudiesWorld (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Ed. ;) –Mabeenot (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: It's published now, sorry. It's not a trivial task to write a year in review edition! Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
Thanks Ed and User:Mabeenot. Sorry if I seemed impatient.StudiesWorld (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This edition is great, from top to bottom. Much kudos to the editors for this one in particular, but also for another year of informative, interesting, and regular news. –Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

RSS not updating?

The RSS feed does not seem to update and the last issue was 20 November...after that I didn't receive any of the later issues. Is something wrong with it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. @Yuvipanda:? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the script that updates the signpost needs updating. I've run the update script manually for now. @The ed17: YuviPanda (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Yuvi! Will you be able to update it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I need to know where the script is :D Do you know? YuviPanda (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)