Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Give yourselves a pat on the back

Another issue completed! Well done, Newsroom crew. @Chris troutman: please turn the crank – note that we aren't publishing the In the media section that was created this month. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ok. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Issue published, tweet sent, email to the Wikimedia list sent, and watchlist notice requested. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor Bri: WMF refused to let us advertise this issue via the mailing list. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the so-called “humor” piece, I don’t think we deserve a pat on the back this month. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

pythoncoder, both Headbomb and myself tried saying something. You can see the push back there. Of course, I wasn't in a position to say anything more. Both Co-Editors-in-Chief signed off on it. This was the first edition I had contributed to. I don't know what else there was to do. The rest of the Signpost at least turned out well if you ask me. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s always how it goes when there’s a scandal like this. People forget the good and only notice the bad. I hope that we can find a satisfactory resolution sooner rather than later, so we can all get back to work on the next issue. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, this will probably end with more than one people losing their head. Unless possibly both the current editors-in-chief resign, I would brace for this to be a protracted thing. People are going to want to see something change (just my prediction). (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue there is such strong pushback because the Signpost normally is quite good. If the Signpost was normally shit, nobody would be reading it, and nobody would care. This piece is absolutely out of character for the publication. If you want to do more, you can join myself and others in calling for a retraction and accountability from the two EiCs here.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, you can join me in drafting next months "From the editors" here. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Signpost editor, so I can't write a piece that's from the editors. I already have an article in the works at User:Headbomb/Crapwatch, but whether or not I submit it for consideration (or keep reading the Signpost at all for what matters), will depend greatly on whether or not this hurtful piece of garbage is retracted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Signpost (I was most active back in 2009, but have contributed articles sporadically since then), I would like to express my disappointment with the current editorial leadership (or lack thereof). It would be better, IMO, for the Signpost to gracefully be retired than for it to become a soapbox for trolling, bad jokes, and conspiracy theories. At the risk of sounding like an old grump, the Signpost used to actually be a well-respected and sober-headed publication. If there isn't enough energy to continue it at a reasonable standard of quality, I won't be disappointed if the current slow implosion ends in its final demise, as sad as that is to say. I won't be contributing anything to it myself in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right heading to put it under, but I just wanted to say that this was probably the wrong month for me to space out for a few days, aha. The pitchforks are nothing new so I ignored them until I saw what they were actually about. I know it was well-intentioned, but that humor piece was pretty hurtful... I hope we do better next month. I'm crossing my fingers that I can get a less soul-crushing job so I can actually write full articles myself. ♦AcoriSage 02:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also hasn't it been a full year since Corrine passed? It feels weird to list it as "front page news". ♦AcoriSage 03:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Acorri: See WT:POST#This isn't normal (reflection/brainstorming ideas) (also, its probably best to keep the newsroom for discussions of upcoming issues, and have other discussions at the main talk page) - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Ah, okay, sorry. I have been a bit spacey, heh... ♦AcoriSage 03:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report

I've made a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns so will recuse myself from writing the Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be willing to write it --DannyS712 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. You will probably want to check WP:ARC about mid-month for new cases. Also, please note this motion and associated events. By my quick count, there was resignation of a checkuser/oversighter under a cloud, allegations of disclosure of private information, removal of CU/OS bits and de-sysopping. This was covered on reddit and elsewhere. The initial resignation (only) was covered at October's arbitration report - Bri.public (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Can I ask why the motion wasn't included in February's edition? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply missed it while it was posted at WP:ARC. I was on wikibreak and rather out of touch with WP-land in the first half of the month. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny, It might be worth mentioning this clarification request as well, but of course I say that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

February issue aftermath

I'd like to say thanks for the opportunity to lead this team but now I think it's time to turn over the reins and de-list myself as acting Editor-in-Chief. Part of the problem for the last issue was sheer lack of time to comprehensively consider the items I'd already written up as pre-publication checks. I suggest the team update the checklist with consideration to the recent MfD and community feedback; my own opinions on freedom of action here may be extreme.

Hope that someone here has the courage/interest/wherewithal to write up the aftermath of the February issue. For the record the final outcome of the MfD was to blank but not to delete the offending column. Voting was heavy, coming close to making the top-ranked deletion debates. Vote count:

Delete 45

Keep 28

Comment 5

Blank 2

Retract 1

Neutral 1

Replace 1

I'm available by email if you want to discuss offline. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bri, I'm sorry this was how things turned out for you. It sucks being the one in charge during this kind of controversy. :( –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I am willing to attempt to write something up about this if others would be okay with me taking point as an inexperienced contributor. I'm not about to let the Signpost go away anytime soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Go for it. We do need a post-mortem of this dispute from a neutral observer. — JFG ^talk 11:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate that the formal E-in-C title is not used unless the office holders are willing to stand-up to what that formal title entails, or re-define it purely in SP contexts. Highfalutin titles are all well and good, but if in reality it is a content aggregator job then let's be clear about it. @MJL: if you need input, I will provide some. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

JFG, I am probably not neutral. I opposed the humor article before publication but the concerns were shut down (second link). My idea would be to just to make a statement about how we are an inclusive publication, and we do not consider that article to meet are high quality standards. etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Even if the (heavily canvassed) consensus was that the article was inappropriate, a lot of bad blood has been spilled by several very mean spirited individuals, long-timers and newbies alike, including editors and admins for whom I have had the highest respect. There are people who will look for any excuse feel they have been insulted, attacked, or intimidated (ANI is full of it) and there are the drama lovers and wannabe Wiki police who rejoice in the opportunity to join in the fray and pile on. Wikipedia is getting out of control. It's time to stop the fiasco. Kudpung3 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Dear news room staff, fwiw, even as someone who voted speedy delete, I'm sad to see Editor in Chrief Bri has stood down. I don't see why any needed to step down. As per my vote I didn't think you guys warranted any censure at all. I'd guess some might have thought otherwise due to the framing effect. I read the article first via the Signpost, before Id seen any of the canvasing. While I'm quite progressive on these things, I didn't see anything wrong with the article, thought the joke was directed just at elite SJWs, and found it the funniest thing I'd read for years. I went to the MfD expecting to cast my normal Keep, only changing my mind after reading what others had to say. The point I'm getting to is that while I agree the essay was potentially highly damaging, this wasn't obvious. It may have been a misjudgement not to catch it, but only a minor one. Yes said minor mistake had a big impact, but this was a For Want of a Nail effect, due to these gender topics being such a minefield. Hopefully both Bri and Barbara will soon feel ok to return to their roles, if they want to. Thanks for the excellent reading you've been making for us over the years.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What's next?

I don't really know what to say here. @Bri and Kudpung: helped save the Signpost and were great editors. I'm afraid that this incident could be the death knell of the Signpost and I'd like to do everything possible to avoid the closing of the magazine. I'll ask all current staff and former contributors to weigh in here on 2 questions

• What do we do for the next issue? I see 2 choices if we want to keep the SP open
  • Publish the next issue on schedule
  • Wait one month until things get straightened out
• What changes do we need to make in the long run?
  • Everybody will have different views on this, but I'll start it out with
    • There should be more long-form, in-depth articles, and
    • We shouldn't just publish articles as submitted by the authors (with some copyediting), but engage in an editorial dialogue with them where the editorial process challenges the writer and improves the article.

Most folks will probably say that we just need more submissions, and that strong editing will thus decrease the quality of the SP. I'd disagree with that - the way to publish quality articles is through strong editing, and then more quality submissions will follow.

One thing about the February crisis that worries me. Signpost writers were attacked in 4-5 different forums and even had emails sent about them trying to have them removed from volunteer positions. We have to take a stand against that or nobody will want to contribute to the SP. I have no problem saying that the SP made a mistake publishing the article. I might even invite Fae to write an opinion piece explaining his concerns (properly edited of course). But there are proper ways to disagree with a publication, i.e. on the Signpost comment pages, then write the editor for a concern that otherwise can't wait.

I don't really have a lot of experience writing for the Signpost - really only 4 articles (plus a few "In the media" blurbs). But I have to say that those 4 articles have been among the highlights of the 12 years I've edited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs a place where writers can write in-depth articles criticizing the powers-that-be, whether those powers are admins, arbs, the Board, WMF management, or commercial interests. We also need a place where we can celebrate everything that is great about Wikipedia. We need the Signpost.

So what do you think our plan should be?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to publish on time. We still have twenty days to get the issue around and delaying by a month will send a bad message to the readership. Further, no changes need to be made. The humour essay was criticized in draft form and Bri chose to go ahead with it. It was a single mistake. If you believe the error was systemic, then I think you need to think long and hard about the sort of people that edit here and the pressure we're under to prevent slipping away from regular publication. This newsletter used to be weekly. We don't need to institute a political litmus test on articles lest the editors whom ARBCOM chooses not to punish come after us, again. As for me, I need to see the contributors coalesce around a new EiC or I will consider resigning my position, as well. I cannot agree to push the "publish next edition" button on behalf of any random editor that shows up and claims the job. Bri had Kudpung's approval and I hope the next EiC can similarly show they carry the political consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, (1) I say we are going to publish a new issue on time. If we don't do that, then this publication may effectively be dead. (2) I plan on writing something later today, but we need to stop thinking of the Signpost as this separate group from the general Wikipedia community. I swear every single person refers to us as like they aren't included. If you read the Signpost, then you have just as much stake in it as anyone else. Once people recognize that they have as much control over this publication as the spooky sounding "editorial board," we'll be hopping again. That's what makes us different, and that's what makes us great.

Should I expect to see a "In the media" blurb written by you the start of next month? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

MJL, Why should you be expecting anything? This sounds a bit bossy to me. Considering the long comments on your talk page, are you sure your're not 'rushing innto things' again? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To miss the next month's edition is to instantly kill the Signpost. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hardly a catastrophe if The Signpost never appears again, Vami_IV. Those who escalated the issue into a farce should have thought aboiut that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should publish the next issue precisely on schedule. That's MARCH 28. (Actually the box at the top says 31 March, though the Signpost main page says MARC 28. I'll settle for 31 March) That's a lot of work and we should definitely get to work now.

@Chris troutman: I see 2 critical people here; 1) you - is there anybody else who knows how to push the "publish next edition" button? and 2) the next editor-in-chief, who needs to take personal responsibility for publishing every article. Finding an EIC needs to be done within a week. You're right that the staff needs to coalesce around him or her. How do we find this person? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been debating taking on the mantle myself personally, but I'm not exactly sure what exactly needs doing as EIC. I certainly don't have time to write much or do things like the Tech Report and interviews or figuring out the technical side of things and the like, but I could squeeze in an op-ed and review pieces before submission. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC)Good to see a volunteer. Folks should correct me about what the duties of EiC are, but as I see them they are 1) encouraging people to write articles for us (including going out and saying to somebody "you obviously have a view on xxx, would you write an SP article on it". 2) Discussing the drafts with writers in order to be sure everything is clear, point out the spots that need work, suggesting changes in wording or organization, and (in hopefully very few cases) saying "no, we can't publish that" 3) helping with the copyediting where necessary. 4) writing needed articles that nobody else has volunteered for. 5) signing off on each article before it's published. And most importantly making sure everything that needs to be done before publication is actually done.

Since you are putting yourself forward as a candidate, could you say a line or two about your experience working with Signpost or in journalism in general? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No formal experience working in journalism much, in the sense that I never edited a newspaper, or been employed as a journalist. But I wrote several Signpost pieces over the years, which can be seen here User:Headbomb/My work#Signpost (plus an upcoming one at User:Headbomb/Crapwatch). I've also edited the Bot Newsletter for the last few years, but that's a very irregular newsletter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

While past EICs have generally also been a writer for one of the regular sections, there is no actual requirement to do so – just the things Smallbones mentioned above, plus writing the occasional (or more often if you want) "From the editor(s)" piece, and deciding which section names (Opinion, Op-Ed, Special report, etc) to use for submissions you approve. - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If I were to take the reins as EIC, I'd appreciate having an assistant editor. If @Bri:'s willing to help with the transition in that capacity, that would likely be tip top. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I'll provide technical commentary as required and as able, but it's really best for the publication to have the new crew unambiguously in charge. Also, I have this admin's comment hanging over my head Either you withdraw this trash and apologize, or I will be sure that the community will debate more serious consequences for the editorial staff. I'm not apologizing, and The Signpost hasn't withdrawn anything (note the page blanking was preemptively made by another administrator, not associated with The Signpost, prior to resolution of the various discussions). IMO a forced apology is a logical impossibility. I've made this statement and my XfD comments which speak for themselves. So. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Funnily, Bri and Kudpung could publish. Honestly Evad37's script makes it so easy anyone could. The issue there is getting the page-mover and massmessage rights, both locally and globally. I'm still able to publish, I just wouldn't want to distribute copy without consensus as I don't control what we publish, I just press the button. There are also written instructions for the process, including the time-intensive manual process. As for finding a new EiC, I still think WMF should be paying money so we can get someone as more than a volunteer. The EiC should have instincts about what we cover and what we don't, with the requisite ability to cajole volunteer contributors to complete their write-ups on time, not to mention copyediting. The Signpost is not encyclopedic and having editors beat reporting takes a different motivation and skill set than writing articles. The Signpost is always a magnet for opinion pieces but our regular items like News&Notes, Arb report, traffic report, etc. take a level of dedication. Whomever feels motivated to take up this duty should already know that we need the help, which is why I know chasing Bri away was a foolish thing for Wikipedians to have done. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It certainly was a foolish thing for Wikipedians to have done. Has anybody been doing the most important beat News&Notes lately? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In the past year, Bri and Kudpung have been the most-prolific contributors to News & Notes. Pine contributed to the last issue and pythoncoder has contributed some, in the past. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We haven't really had any regular, non-EIC writers for N&N since early 2017 - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Evad37, I see no reason why that can't change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure it can change, and it would be good if we did have one or more regular writers for N&N – just no-one's volunteered to do so in the last couple of years, so it either becomes another task for the EIC(s) to do, or issues get published without a N&N section - Evad37 [talk] 08:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also available as a backup publisher - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the E-in-C?

A fancy title? A real role? A content creator? A content aggregator? A content checker / approver? Handling reader complaints and taking responsibility for issues after publication? Per Editor-in-chief or tailored for SP purpose? Please avoid fancy titles until the role is clearly defined responsibility-wise if you want to avoid the blame game when something goes wrong. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's all talk - nobody really cares

Despite having been lauded in the past for its various scoops and investigative journalism, let's face it, The Signpost is obviously not needed.
That was clearly demonstrated by March last year having dropped from weekly to two-weekly, to monthly, and then sometimes not at all, abandoned without a word by its E-in-C, with nary a whisper from the community. Many readers had not even noticed that it had practically closed down until this article shook the tree, and many more people still did not know of its existence after all these years. But the article was at least a knee-jerk: the following volumes had more columns, news, and entertainment, and readership increased, and publication was on time. But nobody has bothered to read the back issues, all they can do is come storming with pitchforks and torches on a canvassed witch hunt à la Streisand when they are displeased.
The naked truth is that no Signpost at all, is better than a Signpost that attracts criticism, fake outrage, and trolling.

At this stage, despite that article exactly a year ago which brought the magazine back to life, very few of those who actually commented are ready to lend a hand. That's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it?: people throwing their ideas and criticisms from the sidelines but never do anything to help. Adminship and RfA is another example and one where its detractors harass our admins and insult them knowing that admins are not allowed to defend themselves; it's hardly surprising that no one today wants to be an admin and likewise, nobody wants to sit in the E-in-C's chair of The Signpost. The February 2019 humour column brought a lot of " I'm looking for stuff where I can claim to be offended" people out of the woodwork and even some of those for whom I have held the greatest respect and/or known personally for many years have shown their true colors and choler and the meaner side of their character.

For years now, even with the best intentions, The Signpost editorial board (what editorial board?) has been in serious difficulty. Appeals have been made in many issues for both editorial staff and contributors and under the regime of several of its Editors-in-Chief, including those who now do little for Wikipedia, but sit back and scorn the magazine from the sidelines. In many issues the The Signpost editors would be in their right to ripost with: "if you don't like it, come back and do better, but your unflattering remarks will only end in its definitive demise" - which according to one former regular contributor is now his or her firm intention to bring about.

Producing the magazine is more than just going through the Internet and aggregating some snippets of news and allowing the WMF to dump its 'Recent Research' column and expecting the editorial 'team' to do the reviews and copyedit it. People who are not involved beyond leaving their scathing comments refuse to grasp the distinctions between being an occasional article contributor, a regular columnist, or a newsroom team member - and over the past 11 months in order to produce a volume of reasonable weight and quality, and publish it punctually, a tiny handful of people have been doing all three jobs.
People are now suddenly volunteering, but it'a bit late in the day. Some of those volunteering are themselves responsible for the current situation, whether it is from their personal attacks at users who are or have been regular contributors in the newsroom, or harassment they have left elsewhere. Even enthusiastic newbies who still don't understand fundamental CSD criteria annd hardly have the competency and institutional memory to write informative articles, and produce compelling prose are talking with 'authority' in the newsroom. Whether quality press like the The Times or the The Telegraph or gutter press such as the Daily Mail or The Daily Mirror, journalists have an instinct for news and have their sources, columnists offer considered opinion which may not please everyone, and both have a flair for prose. Make no doubts about it, working in the newsroom will mean even the keenest volunteers biting off more than they can chew - it's extremely time-consuming, the job of E-in-C takes 30 or more hours a month, not including the actual researching and writing of articles, if, as over the past 11 months, they have had to do most of it themselves.

I can't blame any of the former contributors and editorial team for retiring from The Signpost if that's what they are doing, and I would fully support them for doing so and encourage them to leave if they haven't. Some who are reading this and who may have commented above or in the recent archive and in the many other venues and talk pages on this topic, including ANI, MfD, and Arbcom, may well indeed have contributed to effectively killing off The Signpost for good as we know it. While the community can share the collective guilt for publishing what 30 or 40 editors out of 33,000 decided to be improper, that same 30 or 40 can share the blame for the total demise of The Signpost .
So why now all of a sudden the panic and flurry over getting a March issue out? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)