Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 145: Line 145:
== Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia ==
== Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia ==


{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Status|Unreviewed}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Status|declined}}
*'''Submission''': [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia]]<!--Or link to where you intend to write it-->
*'''Submission''': [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia]]<!--Or link to where you intend to write it-->
*'''Column''': TDB <!--If you know in what column your piece should be published, replace this by whatever is appropriate -->
*'''Column''': TDB <!--If you know in what column your piece should be published, replace this by whatever is appropriate -->

Revision as of 07:00, 6 June 2024

"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/SUBMIT
Submission Desk


The Signpost
The Signpost
(talk  · chat)
Recent changes:
main · talk
Submissions archives
Settings:
Sections are archived by ClueBot III when marked with {{completed}} or {{close}})


Submission desk

Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers; take note, especially, of the statement of purpose section. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Submission

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.

Submission

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: OpenSexism
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword 2

Status:
V ?
In development
@Cremastra: This looks good, probably do with being a bit bigger. If you wanna do that, epic, otherwise I will try and throw something together. jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll expand it over the coming days. Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report with a focus on active Wiki Fixup Projects

Status:
V ?
Needs clarification
@Kazamzam I'd be curious about what kind of events these projects work on, e.g. drives, and why do individuals affiliate with the projects, when many people engage in these activities uncoordinated? I like your focus/question on bots for example. Choosing multiple projects to profile is atypical, so clarity why you choose the projects you did, would make sense, for example why not copyrighters guild, NPP, AfC (other than fact they're active?) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam also check out the archive for past inspiration, specifically Article rescue squadron. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on the plan: How the Wikimedia Foundation has advanced on its Annual Plan goals

Status:
V ?
Needs update
Hey JPxG first-time submission, just checking whether there's anything else I need to do in order for this piece to be considered for the next issue. Thanks so much! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ELappen (WMF): Sorry about the delay -- I am happy to run this in the next issue if it is up-to-date, or can be made so (I would be glad to help in this if possible). Is this still extant? jp×g🗯️ 03:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Thanks for this. I'm thinking about how to best update this content. I'll either update this draft directly or propose something a bit different. Will let you know here soon. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I've used a more recent update to go with a list rather than a long-form post. The new draft is here. Let me know what you think about this approach. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

Status:
V ?
In development
@Novem Linguae and Samwalton9 (WMF): Sorry about the delay -- I've moved this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report, should go out on the 31st. Thank you for submitting this; if you want to go over and make sure everything is still up to date I would appreciate it. jp×g🗯️ 02:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JPxG! Will do. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

Status:
V ?
Approved
  • Submission: User:ELappen_(WMF)/Signpost draft
  • Column: News from the WMF
  • Author: ELappen (WMF) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation
  • Discussion: This short piece covers the highlights of the Foundation's fiscal year 2022-2023 Form 990 and directs the reader on where to learn more.

ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is at News and notes for the next issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia

Status:
V ?
Declined
@Novem Linguae, @JPxG I reworked the submission per discussion with @Bluerasberry in the Signpost Discord so now it focuses on WP:ARBSEX, the discussions of modern issues would be in part 2. I'm hoping it can go under Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, while the article (version I read) is largely focused on Cantor's wrongdoing and the view that it was not addressed enough in the 2013 Sexology arb case, it very much also gives the impression that Jokestress was treated unjustly (e.g. the Arbitration Committee let him get away with it...and more heavily sanctioned editors who tried to stop him.). Before the Signpost seems to go to bat for Jokestress, however, it is worth reviewing the evidence presented in that case, especially by those who are not Cantor or Jokestress. Aside from behavioral issues mentioned in the case, which I won't comment further on here, she seemed to have a POV on certain sexology matters that was itself WP:FRINGE, often in the opposite direction of Cantor's. The concept of paraphilias in general is completely mainstream in psychology and psychiatry, especially when it comes to those that motivate harm to others, but Jokestress' view is that "paraphilia" is an arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept, and she edited accordingly. [1] And yes, this does extend to paraphilias that motivate harm, as laid out here here and here, with copious links to diffs and discussions. Please dig into it; what she said about certain of these paraphilias really is problematic. It extends far, far beyond skepticism of Cantor's and fellow-travelers' ideas about gender identity, which is totally okay and well within the mainstream to criticize. I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban this user was, or might have been, wrong.
On a different note, it also states (bolding mine), Some I've spoken to have suggested it belies a shift in what is WP:FRINGE: his views, while deeply offensive, were in vogue in 2008, or even 2013 during the sexology case. But reliable sources were clear, even then, that the majority of the LGBT community found those views offensive. Perhaps in 2008, his views were slightly more notable, but he was editing until 2021, when his work was considered FRINGE for a decade. These parts are absolutely crucial to the argument that Cantor should have been sanctioned far sooner than he was, but they are completely unsupported. I recognize that this is just a draft, though, so there might already have been intention to support it down the road. Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) struck and replaced mistaken link Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input, to start with I do want to clarify that James is only ~1/4 of the story by design, she's an important figure but not the main focus. With regards to treating her unjustly, I cannot help but draw the conclusion her editing had issues, but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this, and when ArbCom publicly ignored Cantor while giving her a TBAN on everything queer that could have easily been a proportionate "paraphilias and CAMH" TBAN they dropped the ball.
Regarding your point on it being FRINGE back then, when TMWBQ was published in 2004, the response from the LGBT community was overwhelmingly negative. The basic premise (there are 2 kinds of trans women: fetishists and really feminine gay guys) is kinda obviously fucking stupid/offensive. Academic critiques of Blanchard's typology abounded, a quick sample of 2008 to 2012 found this in 2008, some in 2010, 2011, and 2012 - almost every academic piece supporting it was from Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, or Cantor.
Regarding the examples you gave for James' behavior:
  • In the first link, she provided sources to that effect - noting that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia does seem relevant to the article. The current definition of paraphilia, AFAICT, does not require harm to others, or even oneself. What is sexually normal and abnormal is obviously in no small part a socio-political / sociological question.[2]
  • Since you only linked to Flyers evidence, I'll go over hers first. AFAICT James' argument weren't fringe, it was that the pedophilia article should reflect both the psychiatric definition and the history of the term and practice, and she was being WP:POINTY about it reflecting only the former and Cantor's role in that. Flyer refers to the discussion above and some other pointy ones.
  • MrADHD seems to refer to her arguments for acknowledging sociology/history as fringe
  • MVBW does not mention of James' edits. He tries to frame James' concerns about pathologization as FRINGE, and refers to transgendermap.com as an attack site for having lists of 1) Bailey's loudest public supporters and 2) those who publicly advocate pathologizing views of trans people. 1) this site was archived by the library of congress as important to LGBT history [3] and 2) is trusted by the SPLC[4]
  • WLU's does raise points, and James should have assumed better faith, but I am reminded of the society for following paranoiacs - Cantor repeatedly tried to put the article in there (mentioned in the signpost piece), an article which received its fair share of criticism - it's understandable if not regrettable and a problem she's touchy about it.
TLDR: By analogy, if somebody is recreationally drop kicking toddlers in a park for years, and somebody starts running around shaking people and setting off fireworks and saying "why don't we do something", and constantly tries to stop the baby-kicker, and ends up banned from the park instead of the baby-kicking dude, that was an unjust and wild decision. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my links was supposed to be to MrADHD's evidence; I have struck and replaced it.
but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this - I strongly disagree; I think they are two very different people who were each deeply problematic in their own idiosyncratic ways. Cantor supported the Blanchard typology and Jokestress didn't, yes; but (since I have to get more specific now) Jokestress argued, for example, that pedophilia being described as a disorder is reification and a NPOV violation [5], that pedophilia is an "iatrogenic artifact" (meaning the harm is caused by the medical system) and equated it to now-rejected disorders [6], and stated the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy is based on moral panic and invited people to try to get the policy reviewed and to make no mention of "if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject" (but still inviting such people) [7]. I encourage anyone to read these diffs, and others from the case, in full. Neither of the stars of this sorry saga are 'saints'.
The Signpost should tread carefully in how this history is depicted; at minimum I would hope that (if accepted) this article at least acknowledges even if vaguely that there were issues back then besides just transphobia. Crossroads -talk- 07:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go over James' views on pedophilia, let's quickly look at Cantor's: we are talking about somebody who's whole shtick is that Pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation tied to neurobiology- see his comments on "LGBTP", his work with the Prostasia foundation that supported terms like MAP and campaigned for child sex dolls, his starring in I, Pedophile (article written by him), and support of Virtuous Pedophiles (article also written by him).[8][9] Note how for the latter, some were perhaps not so virtuous.[10] Like, if we're bringing up views on pedophilia, Cantor's pretty sus. Fitting for a proponent of AGP/HSTS, his research on this supposed "orientation" only extends to men, and he leaves women out of his schema.
Now, I am not an expert in this topic - but I will say I'm suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation. If we accept it's true however, that a subset of the populaton is inalterably and permanently attracted to pre-pubescent/pubescent children due to a brain abnormality - that doesn't explain the practice outside that disorder. Sociologically and even psychologically speaking there are different explanations for pedophilic behavior than "chomos brains are just wired that way". Linguistically, there are other definitions. Even Cantor agreed in those articles, he just wanted the article focusing on the definition he helped create.
James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice (ie, what people mean when they say pedophilia), even Cantor in those archives was agreeing that CSA was not limited to those he'd diagnose with pedophilia. You selectively quote those diffs - "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it[11], you ignore her calling it iatrogenic is followed by explaining its the medicalization of a social problem and her comment that not only Cantor's definition of pedophilia should be covered in the article[12], and in that last link she's complaining about being pedo-jacketed for trying to bring neutrality to the article.[13]I must confess, it's kinda funny to see James and not Cantor stepping up for self-identified non-offending pedophiles considering that's Cantor's job - I'm almost wondering if it's another case of very bad taste satire.[14]
Sidenote: when reviewing the case and reading the pedophilia article I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one.
I said James' was WP:POINTY and disruptive, but you are ignoring three things 1) she was banned from all queer topics in addition to such discussions; 2) Cantor was not banned from either; and 3) the DS were about trans stuff, then sexology, then hebephilia (all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)). On trans topics, she was absolutely a relative saint. On pedophilia, she does not seem to me to be the FRINGE activist she was said to be and there did seem to be issues with the article prioritizing the diagnosis.
TLDR: Cantor seems to have fought to have the pedophilia article reflect only the diagnosis and his idea that pedophilia is a neuroanatomical condition and no other definitions or historical sociological discussion, James was WP:POINTY and could not let it go that was the case but ffs points she was making were sociology 101 though you've very selectively quoted out of context - the arbcom case itself was kicked off by more than that article. I'm not devoting much space to it in the signpost piece because 1) it's already long and that's not the main focus and 2) from the data I have, the thesis of that would be Cantor helped Wikipedia normalize pedophilia, the concept of the "virtuous innate pedophile", and promoted himself and his friends (I just checked and pedophilia cites him ~17 times) - in much the same way he dominated wikipedia with his and his friends views of trans people, he did the same with pedos and downplayed criticisms of his medical model.
If anybody wants to quote any of this out of context, refer here: I have taught chomos physical lessons on the errors of their ways, am still dealing with trauma from my own fucked up 14th year on this planet I'm not about to share (but y'all can probably guess), and have no tolerance for pedos - I think Cantor seems to have used WP to normalize pedos and promote his own views on them, and it looks like some editors tried to pedo-jacket James for noting that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation - keep in mind that "innate" and "sexual orientation" are two very distinct claims. That it is at least partially innate (like other brain/mental disorders) is, as far as I can tell, mainstream, but the idea it is a sexual orientation is very much not. (Whether pedophilia is alterable or not is a separate, 3rd matter.) I agree with you that e.g. Cantor's comments about pedophilia as a sexual orientation and "LGBTP" are fringe.
James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice - I feel that you are (probably unintentionally) steelmanning her here and in what follows - attributing to her a more reasonable position than was actually evident. She was not just arguing for more sociological perspectives; her view seemed to be that all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, and she openly edited accordingly. It's one thing to oppose the medicalization of being transgender or of harmless consensual fetishes; it's quite another to extend this to when people's primary sexual interest involves seeking out partners who cannot consent. Those forms of sexuality really are pathological, and arguing and editing otherwise is pro-fringe. I rest my case on this as the diffs and discussions above are sufficient.
I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one - no, this would not have worked. This is similar to what was actually done back then (but with a longer title for the one "about the practice"); it ended up deleted at AfD for being a WP:POV fork.
you are ignoring three things - those just weren't really germane to what I feel are my main points. FWIW, in hindsight, at this point I think it would have been best if the both of them were topic banned from sexuality and gender years before the arb case. If 2024 Wikipedia norms were fully formed back then I bet that would have actually happened, too - the overall approach of being so openly "my particular ideas are correct and the article should reflect them" rather than "here's what seems to fairly reflect the academic consensus" from the both of them is too obvious. But back then was closer to early Wikipedia and its very laissez-faire approach to "anyone can edit", when POV pushers and cranks of every stripe ran rampant.
I'm sorry to hear about the trauma you have experienced. Crossroads -talk- 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we've established Cantor had fringe views on pedophilia that went beyond the medical literature.
Those forms of sexuality really are pathological - I think this is the crux of the dispute: you can say it's immoral, abnormal, etc, without saying it's per se a pathology. One can disagree with framing it as an inherently medical problem without being FRINGE. Murder, racism, beating children, etc, are all obviously bad and immoral behaviors but not medical ones. Same for wanting to murder someone, wanting to beat a child, or thinking racist things while being civil. One can say the same for fucking children or the desire to, obviously awful, not necessarily a medical condition.
With regards to all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, paraphilias are recurring or intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, places, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals and the paraphilia article is largely about the controversy over what is and isn't "atypical". AFAICT, the DSM-5 atm defines paraphilias as the scientific term for kink and notes they're not inherently pathological, with them specifying "paraphilic disorders" are when "your kink causes problems".
Regarding that idea and content fork, I had indeed come across it before, and only read about half because of it's length. Still, there was support for keeping or merging material and the close noted Some of the content may be suitable for adding to other article(s). I'd spoken in haste, the real solution would have been the pedophilia article including all the definitions.
I feel they are germane, your argument is that James wasn't treated unjustly, mine is she was because the scope of the ban (everything queer) was disproportionate to the issue (her interactions with / reactions to Cantor) and by neglecting to sanction Cantor for his fringe views in any topic they vindicated his misbehavior and views in the eyes of the community. I take the view that if Cantor had been banned years before, James' would not have been driven insane by his presence and advocacy here.
And thank you, I just put that bolded disclaimer there because I don't want to end up accused of promoting a "sex-with-children-normalization point of view"[15] for saying "pedophilia is awful and immoral, but not necessarily a medical condition". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so ... admittedly I haven't followed all the details above and in the current draft (or its many references), so feel free to set me straight. But it's a bit concerning to see that we are apparently seriously discussing which of two problem editors (one permabanned for sockpuppeting, one permabanned from the topic area at hand) the Signpost should portray as a pedophilia apologist and which as unjustly sanctioned by the community? In many news publications, the former would mark a moment where the managing editor takes the writer aside and says something like "great work, but we really need to run this by our legal team before we can publish it".
To be clear, I'm not saying that we should be overly concerned about extreme interpretations of BLP and such, if we are fully sure that we can stand behind every statement and conclusion (or attribute it to other sources at least). Also, this is not about the article's harsh criticism of ArbCom (ArbCom will survive that and the Signpost has published controversial opinions before). I'm just saying that JPxG or whoever is going to make the call to publish it in this issue should make extra sure that if someone covered in the piece with their real name feels inclined to take legal action (or file a complaint arguing that some of the text is a UCoC violation), we can justify every sentence if needed and have nothing to regret. And if, after giving the text a fair review, that Signpost team member is still unsure about that, they should feel empowered to postpone or reject this submission.
YFNS, like Crossroads I am very sorry to hear about the trauma that was inflicted on you, and I sincerely hope you are in a much better place now. It also seems that you have taken the lessons from your own former topic ban and have so far adhered to the remaining restrictions imposed when that ban was lifted (e.g. is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed). You clearly have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. As for physical lessons however: While nobody here can judge you for whatever you are alluding to (by the way, for others here who like me were not familiar with the term: wikt:chomo), I can't help noticing that this may describe another type of situation where one can get very easily get into legal trouble even if most people would agree that one is morally and ethically in the right.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting as someone who copy-edited the piece, I will chime in that I too am rather uncomfortable in The Signpost 'taking a side', if you will, in such highly contentious topics with where both editors clearly were far from saints. A "Yes X was bad, but at least X wasn't as bad as Y" is not an argument I ever liked because it excuses/justifies bad behaviour because there is worst behaviour. I'll also note the huge BLP implications, not just on IRL people but also on active editors that have steered clear of blocks for years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB I want to clarify that the article very deliberately avoids going into the weeds on James and Cantors editing on pedophilia, focusing on the anti-trans quackery aspect. Crossroads came to argue that I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban [Andrea James] was, or might have been, wrong because James's views on pedophilia were FRINGE, and I should further elaborate on those. I countered that they weren't FRINGE, and if we were mentioning views on pedophilia, I'd mention the multiple pedophilia-related-articles Cantor edited with COIs and what FRINGE views RS say he has publicly advocated (such as that "P" should be added to "LGBT" or that hyper-realistic child sex dolls are a victimless crime or his position on the advisory council for the Prostasia foundation, which pushes the term "minor-attracted person" )[16][17] The discussion between me and Crossroads above is about all the stuff that's not going in the article, rather than a discussion of it's contents.
Thank you for the kind words and advice. I kinda wish I hadn't mentioned that night (which, for the record, was unrelated to the physical lessons and not quite so large an age gap as to constitute pedophilia on their part) - but I did because from what I saw in the archives some editors tried very hard to pedo-jacket James for not agreeing with Cantor's takes on pedophilia, so I wanted to pre-emptively address just how little time I would have for anybody who tried to do the same to me and why. And by "physical lessons", that could mean a lot lol. Art therapy or some shit hypothetically - notwithstanding Occam's razor it's up for interpretation :)
That all being clarified - I've got a request for you and @Headbomb if you're open to it. Me and Bluerasberry went over the article a few times to make sure the claims/refs lined up, and I floated it by a few friends to review and took their concerns into account too, so I think it's airtight now. However, the more eyes critically examining before publication the better - so I'd appreciate if you two could give any amount of time to reviewing it and the sourcing and make sure everything lines up! Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy the last few days and have not been able to devote a proper amount of time to being actively involved in the review and revision process for some of the stuff in this issue, specifically this piece, so I will start by apologizing for that.

I read through this with great trepidation, because unlike most newspapers we are essentially required to give all of our drafts and revisions and feedback as permanent indelible public diffs -- I am sure that whatever I say in this comment it will result in some manner of Cool Kids Crew accusing me publicly of being a whatever, maybe here or maybe on another site. Well, whatever: I have to publish the paper, I have to make it be good, and I have to make it not be bad, and this matters more than my feelings, so if some guy reads this comment and gets mad at me for being woke, or for being a chud, or whatever (both have happened before), or if I get an ANI thread or an ArbCom case request against me as a result of saying this, then I guess that is the price of freedom, but at least I acted freely.

Okay, well, time to be serious: I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of publishing this draft. I have not gotten through the quite-large volume of the documents referenced (e.g. all of the proceedings for the arb case, including a secondary large volume of documents referenced by the statements made there, etc). However, what I've noticed so far is that the case seems to be a total zoo -- at least according to all of the actual evidence that I see, both Cantor and James were acting very badly, both of them were playing fast and loose with representing their own opinions as expert consensus, and so on.

Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career. The department for the piece is "Disinformation report", it's got a high resolution picture of him as the lead image, and it's got "Anti-trans advocacy on Wikipedia" in big text right over that picture. I think this is too much of an argumentative piece for the Signpost to run, especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that). If you want to post this in your own userspace as an essay, that would be entirely reasonable, but I don't think we can include it as journalism, even as a publication that makes much space available for opinion writing. jp×g🗯️ 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On editing Wikisource

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

Submission

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission:
  • Column: Book review
  • Author: Sgerbic
  • Discussion:

I have written a review of Stephen Harrisons new book "The Editors" and would like to submit for publication here in The Signpost. This is my first attempt to submit to the newsletter and if I am doing this incorrectly I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic. Do you have a link to the draft that you'd like to include here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have it saved in a word doc, can I email it to someone? Sgerbic (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good spot for it might be your userspace. You can create any page you want if you prefix it with User:Sgerbic/. So for example, User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors. See above for more examples :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgerbic: Post soon if you want review for the next issue. Otherwise no big deal, can go into following issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm traveling for a few more days and then I will when I get to my computer.Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made the User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors live. Now what happens? Sgerbic (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a valuable topic for the Signpost. Looking forward to reading the review!
Note that the book is not published yet ("Available August 6th" according to this post by the author, which btw also has some interesting background about the book's genesis that might be worth mentioning).
I know that pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish this review only when the book is actually available to the public. In any case, you might want to disclose that the review is based on an advance copy.
By the way, the "Editorial Reviews" section of the book's Amazon page and the author's own website already highlight a blurb attributed to the Signpost:

“The great Wikipedia novel. There’s a new adventure on almost every page, and it’s hard to stop reading as you fall down the rabbit hole.” —Pete Ekman, The Signpost

It appears that this quote is taken from a brief note that we ran three and a half years ago in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Odd bits, referring an earlier work-in-progress version of the book (then tentatively titled "Infodemic", with Five sample chapters [having been] available here),
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

Discussion on the recent possible-hoax Kalloor. Spoke briefly to JPxG over email about it and they gave me advice. I've also talked about original information on Wikipedia. The article was insignificant, so possibly a good chance to have a discussion without a heated political debate? Based the writing style around other Signpost articles. Svampesky (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=1227520460"