Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

WLN's

FYI: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#February_Signpost_notice was declined after no response. Not sure if that was a special edition or if SP is going to have a new publication schedule? While we have a "standing" approval for WLN's for SP - it is under the ~monthly schedule right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Xaosflux The Signpost is currently back on a (roughly) fortnightly schedule. Andreas JN466 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466, @JPxG: Hmm, that's a lot of watchlist notices, especially since they are usually up for a week, having one up for almost 50% of the time seems a bit excessive to me. (No comment at all on how often SP want's to publish). Are the WLN's still wanted? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Up to JPxG of course, but I agree that having the Signpost WLN up 50% of the time seems like overkill. Maybe shortening it to three days is the way to go. Andreas JN466 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Sorry, I got the ping, but my electricity/internet have been a little intermittent lately 😰 I agree that having a watchlist notice up 50% of the time defeats the purpose... it both spams up watchlists and likely makes it less effective at getting people to click on it. If the previous interval was a week-long notice for each month, perhaps we can just split the difference on that? So that if there's 2 issues a month, each would have WLN 3.5 days (or three, or one is four and one is three, or whatever, who cares). jp×g 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We could, but that has the reverse problem, people may miss the notice completely (not every editor is on every day). I'm not sure what the best answer for the community is on this - was hoping to avoid getting a large discussion open - it could be that everyone is fine with it. The more frequent the call to action for the same thing is put out (In this case "read the signpost") the more people will start ignoring it in general. Do you have any idea how many people are getting to SP via WLN today? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would think if people aren't on Wikipedia for three or four days then they can probably also miss that one Signpost issue.

It's a bit like buses ... if there are more buses per hour, then it's not such a big deal if you miss one. Andreas JN466 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe have one notice up for a week at the start of the month, with the publication date for the mid-month issue also shown? isaacl (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps alternating weeks to have it would work? E.g. odd-numbered months would have it for the start of the month (for one week), with a note of the mid-month issue publication date, and vice-versa. EpicPupper (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still not sure what the "best" answer on this is :/ Just pushed the recent issue to WLN. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

email announcements of new issues

how is the text of the email announcement generated?

seems odd that nearly 8 years after we ditched HTTP (unencrypted connections) for WMF wikis there's URLs being shared with http protocol. and also odd that the link text and link target have different protocols.

--Jeremyb (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The manual publication steps are at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Manual off-wiki tasks. The error seems to be embedded in some rather complex templates, specifically one that looks like

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue|1}}|7}}

I suppose the automatic publishing script inherits the same problem. Maybe someone with more esoteric template knowledge can go farther than this. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Looked a little harder, the problem is probably at Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Cover-item where there is a hardcoded http: at the switch target for format 7 (the same magic 7 format code used in the snippet above, unsurprisingly). Is anyone else available to confirm before I go changing things? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Jonesey has fixed this. I do not see any issue so far, which I think means this is resolved. jp×g 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should Signpost Articles on Open ArbCom Cases be NPOV?

Please comment on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be NPOV, or whether one-sided opinion pieces are fine? The general question is sparked from the controversy around this Signpost article, much of which can be seen at its talk page. In particular, see the WP:ANI thread here, which was opened on the basis that the article "prejudges an active Arbitration case", suggested that the review prior to publication was "the most ever for any Signpost piece" and was left up roughly on the basis that "it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost".

So in an attempt to avoid similar chaos next time this happens, please provide your view on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be written in an NPOV manner, or whether a one-sided opinion piece is fine. Ideally without commenting on the specifics of this one current ArbCom case.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About The Signpost does not specifically maintain a commitment to neutrality in the same way that Wikipedia articles do, but the magazine is nonetheless known, and aims to serve, as a balanced and impartial news source. So no, one-sided opinion pieces are not at all fine. Anyone is (within reasonable limits as established elsewhere) entitled to express an opinion regarding upcoming ArbCom cases. Handing the Signpost megaphone to one individual is however entirely incompatible with 'balance' and 'impartiality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I saw but did not participate in all the hoopla on this and my own feeling, based only on general principles, was that Signpost shouldn't have involved itself at all because of the open Arbcom case. Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Signpost should be neutral, and avoid appearing to be wikilawyering. ArbCom cases are difficult for all involved, including the Arbitration Committee. Pick any case you've participated in, or just scanned through. Tempers flare, accusations are made, and it can evolve into something vindictive after the case is closed. We elected the ArbCom committee to handle that difficult process. Signpost should not be a venue for one or more individuals to go around ArcCom and plead the case. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think we might get a bad decision on the back of this case, which was rather extreme and rather poorly handled. I think we should condemn the situation we saw here, but requiring the Signpost to toe the party line on Arbcom seems like it could be a problem in future.

Also, @Volunteer Marek: and @Piotrus: should absolutely get a right-of-reply before any such standards are put in place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 15:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was unaware of this article and its controversy, but I fully agree with AndyTheGrump. From the point at which a case has been requested to the point at which it has concluded, i.e. the request has been declined, an accepted case has been closed or the complaint resolved by motion (with or without a case being opened), the Signpost must do its best to maintain impartiality regarding that case. There are no shortage of venues where involved editors can vent their opinions, The Signpost is not one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• I also believe strongly that, when commenting on such matters, Signpost must be neutral. When I first read the article in question I assumed it would have been intended to be neutral, given the sensitive nature of the topic. When I realized it was a one-sided POV piece I felt my trust in Signpost disappear. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps it will help to consider another, simpler example of the Signpost entering into commenting on an open Arbcom case. I happen to know about one because the Signpost reporting about the Arbcom case against me in 2013 was part of a long and excruciating personal experience in my own Wikipedia life. I am now looking at Signpost reporting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-14/Arbitration report. With perspective of 10 years(!), I will try to comment a bit now.
  • The comments from back then, which I think are perhaps the most relevant now, are in sequence in this diff:

"It is not particularly appealing to have the signpost judge (even a part of) an ArbCom case before it has even been heard. It is also questionable whether it should report some of the more hyperbolic statements cited by parties, third hand. Two layers of selection bias is quite enough. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

I have to agree with this comment - I don't know anything about the case myself here, but reporting it like this (with quotes from the people bringing the case and none from Doncram himself) seems like a bad idea. The Signpost should probably restrict itself to saying 'a new ArbCom case has been opened', and allow those who want to know more to click the link and read it, rather than producing a summary vulnerable to partisan bias. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the two above. The article left me with a bad taste in my mouth. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013"

• I recall experiencing the Signpost coverage as awful, as something like betrayal, in that the Signpost should have been objective and NPOV-like, or it should should have been sticking up for the underdog and victim in the case, which was me. You don't have to accept that exactly, but it was specifically unfair and awful in ways that I could now argue better, starting with its subjective naming as being a case about me (which I disputed back then but, if space allowed, could argue better now)....which several Arbcom members naively argued would not affect their views, ignorantly and incorrectly disregarding selection bias that would affect who would and did come to give their opinions in the case). Another way it was unfair was that it put me on trial without representation (there is not a Wikipedia-recognized right for such, but as a matter of human decency there should be)...I knew all along during the slow-motion Arbcom experience that I was not coming across great. I was totally unprepared and basically unable to participate constructively in my own defense... I knew that I needed representation...I decided back then that I was totally willing to pay $10,000 for legal/PR representation, but there was no way to secure any such. About the Signpost coverage, I perceive(d) there was newsworthiness, some reason for Signpost to observe this was going on, but the Signpost plunged wrong in taking up one side, unfairly. I did appreciate those comments which I quote. I may add a bit more, but reconsidering this is painful even now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• A week later there was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report, to which I responded. With 10 years of perspective, right now I actually view the Signpost report as likely being somewhat interesting and relevant to potential readers, and fairly objective/balanced. My responses there which objected to the coverage, though, seem to me to be also valid back then and relevant now, including how I started "I don't think this coverage is professional or useful. Probably no coverage is what I would prefer, for any ongoing mediation or arbitration case." In my response I mentioned having seen the previous "clearing" (which was discussion about the drafted, not-yet-live Signpost article) and perceiving that my comments in that were essentially ignored. Looking at that "clearing" now, I am pretty shocked. I see that I had not been notified in any way, and happened upon it (probably because I found my way there looking at recent contributions by the principal opponents to me in the Arbcom case). I see that the two principal opponents to me in the Arbcom had been busy tailoring the first Signpost coverage for their advantage and had achieved what they wanted, with two responses from the Signpost writer(s), and they thanked the writer(s) for having adopted their suggestions. What I said then can be seen in this diff. I asked: "Is this a live article? I was notified of this article-in-progress. When does the article go live? I haven't yet posted much in the case." I specifically objected to one thing "The Ellen-of-roads quote is presented as a condemnation, when phrasing before and after the quoted text is left out that changes the meaning significantly. It is misleading as presented." There was no response, except for one person chiding me (I don't know if they were Signpost staff or not) with "Please take this to the arbitration page, this isn't the place for this discussion. (X! · talk)  · @953  ·  21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) And then the "clearing" was blanked to make way for discussion of the published Signpost piece. Looking at this now, I am pretty horrified about the Signpost's unfair treatment. I am re-experiencing it as pretty awful betrayal. (I will now notify the four editors I have just quoted). Again, you don't have to agree with me that I was entirely a victim in the Arbcom case (but the upshot of it was that one of the two principal opponents was desyssoped and banned from interaction with me, and both basically lost interest in editing in the NRHP area once they did not have me to harrass. I returned to the NRHP area a few years later and have contributed mightily, while they disappeared.). But it looks to me that I was absolutely a victim in the Signpost coverage, and I dunno which emotion to go with right now... sadness, disappointment, outrage...shame (about the Signpost's role, which I feel I have supported and generally identify with, and/or that I have not myself done more in the 10 years to take action within/about the Signpost). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Double message delivery

I received the notification for the latest signpost twice. Is there a reason for this? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We should track it down, but this doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem. I didn't see a single other double-post in a dozen user talk pages that I spot checked. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I take what I said back, there are more than a few multiple transmissions, even one sent thrice to User talk:Newyorkadam. Others receiving two copies include User talk:Zarasophos, User talk:23emr, User talk:Slywriter. No idea why. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It may have consistently happened for everyone registered as User:Account as opposed to User talk:Account at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I asked at Village Pump: Technical and was told this is a Massmessage bug, T93049. Apparently it's happened randomly since 2015. Can I recommend trying this: unsubscribe and re-subscribe as User talk:Aaron Liu ... it might mitigate. Or it might not. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a possible cause here. At User talk:AshokChakra two Signposts were delivered (one and two). Both of them were sent from the global message delivery list. The first one has this editnote at the bottom: Message sent by User:JPxG@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786. The second one has this editnote at the top: Message sent by User:JPxG@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786. Not sure what could cause this. It may be restricted to global massmessage subscribers.

More at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Technical#Technical_issues. jp×g 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Signpost author trying to unpublish their own article

In response to an edit war over accessibility and my resulting messages, FormalDude has decided to try to move his own article to userspace. I have no special authority with the Signpost but this isn't exactly the done thing, is it? Graham87 07:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If the Signpost is uncomfortable redirecting its readers to a userspace article, I am fine with the redirect being deleted. For multiple reasons though, I do not wish to have this piece hosted on the Signpost. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not worth wasting the time of the few people who actually make the Signpost run, so I've moved it back. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If the formatting is causing issues with screenreaders, there needs to be an exceptional reason to keep it that way. Most of the accessibility issues on ENWP are made in ignorance due to the preference of the editor not taking into account how accessbility tools parse their content and are happily corrected when it is pointed out. On the few occasions when the editor-author chooses not to make the changes to make it more accessible, it is perfectly fine to make those changes yourself, unless (as previously said) there is an exceptional reason not to. Signpost does not get any ownership free pass here. The only reason this page is on my watchlist is because of a previous accessibility issue around ownership. "Its my ball and I am taking it home" didnt get a lot of traction there either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)