Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

OneClickArchiver f'ing up on this page again

While poking around in some archives, I found an exceedingly bizarre page located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 1. Yes -- an archive page for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost itself, not Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. I have no idea what is going on here. It seems that this bizarre page was created accidentally in 2020 by the use of Technical 13's OneClickArchiver, but has also been added to in 2022. We have had some trouble with that script before, adding threads on this page to the wrong archive. Ironically enough, I can't link to the thread where I last brought this up because the stupid archiver puts them all into random places.

I think it may be possible to repair some of the broken archives -- and it may be possible to figure out what's making the archiver go bananas -- but in the meantime, it may be condign to stop using OneClickArchiver on this page and just manually archive things until we can figure out what the hell's going on. jp×g 20:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've changed procedure, it has been the responsibility of the publication manager to archive this talk page every month. The archiver (much as I like it), should not have been used. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 1-click archiver error but not the one identified above. They didn't come from this page; rather from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions starting with [1]. I suspect the archiver script may have problems with a pseudo-path to the page more than one level deep? Bizarre, but not a problem with the publication manager procedures.

The misplaced archives have been moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 31 & Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 33. I'm going to mark Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 1 for deletion but it will probably happen again if anybody touches 1-click archiver. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that cleanup deletion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 1 also led to the deletion of discussions from the Signpost entire first half decade (and the vanishing of all archive links from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost), via a (now gracefully corrected) admin mistake that I spent some time tracking down yesterday after encountering a broken link elsewhere.

Honestly, all these complications and mix-ups and wasted time look like a good argument for not burdening the publication manager with archiving this talk page manually every time. Rather, let's just let the widely used and tested lowercase sigmabot III do its thing, as already configured in the first of the two (contradictory) archive templates on top of this page.

Also, some threads clearly got archived too quickly, As I wrote on March 27 in a thread about the same topic that we already had on this page: "if anything, the 30 days limit should be increased instead of decreased, given that because of the Signpost's publication cycle, some threads may still see new activity after a month (like this one right now ;-) )" Ironically, JPxG one-click-archived away that comment after less than three hours *cough* ...

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the issue of the weirdly messed-up archives for this page may have a happy ending, if I can convince my buddy who has just gotten into editing Wikipedia to do a very boring task (going through the archives one by one and noting the dates of the first/last post on each). Once this is done, I think it will be easy to just rearrange them to not be ass-backwards. jp×g 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: Curious whether you had seen this thread and what your thoughts about this matter are. It seems that you disagree with the concerns about using OneClickArchiver on this page, and about archiving threads too early? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Seems that the use of OneClickArchiver is indeed already messing things up again, with one section being duplicated: [2][3]. Again, I suggest to just rely on the tried and tested automated archiving like on most other talk pages, instead of wasting our collective time with all this manual fiddling and futzing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with either that, or someone just manually archiving the threads each publication day. I don't think there is much utility to be gained from the archival happening over the course of dozens of separate edits (especially when it has so many foibles and foozies over where it puts the archived sections). jp×g 00:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social media credentials

A note for general awareness: I wrote up some documentation last month about the Signpost Twitter feed and Facebook page (having taken care of posting each new issue there since February 2021, when they had been dormant for a while). In particular, I have listed who has access to these (to my knowledge). Experience has shown that that information tends to get lost over time. If someone happens to read this who also has access and doesn't see themselves listed, please add yourself on that page.

And some related responses to a more recent question by EpicPupper:

I'd appreciate if you could send me the credentials for our Twitter and Facebook accounts :)

There are no credentials for the Facebook page, access is granted via individual Facebook accounts - i.e. you will need to let The ed17 (currently the page's sole administrator) know your personal Facebook account, so that he can add you as admin or editor. He has also been the person who has been taking care of maintaining the @wikisignpost Twitter credentials for years (it may well be thanks to him that they haven't been lost yet). I'll send you the password myself now, but I can't commit to serving as the credentials maintainer/distributor in the future. (CCing JPxG who IIRC had been interested in helping to improve the bus factor in such matters)

I'd love to help with writing copy for each issue, as well as scheduled Tweets/Facebook posts, in order to hopefully increase our reach.

I'm still fine with committing to send out at least one post for each new issue. But I tend to not have bandwidth for much more, so if you are up for contributing additional posts, that would be great. You are also welcome to take on that initial announcement in any given month, but in that case please notify me beforehand - I'd like to avoid allocating time for writing up and posting the announcement only to find out that someone else has already done it.

Besides posting more links to our own stories, it would also be great to curate the Twitter account more actively by e.g. tweeting or retweeting relevant news in a timely manner before covering them more fully in the next Signpost issue. I was doing that back in 2010/2011 when I was editor-in-chief (random example), and IIRC more than doubled the number of followers within a year, to around 2000 (it's at 4,235 right now).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" The ed17 (currently the page's sole administrator)" There should definitely be 2 administrators for any such property. Ppl disappear, ppl loose their FB account and sometime ppl die. We should not rely on a single owner. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. https://tweetdeck.twitter.com lets you share Twitter accounts with a team, without having to pass around the 1 and only password to each of those team members. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, HaeB! And I am of course happy to grant admin access to someone else on the Signpost team. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: @HaeB: Check your emails. jp×g 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JPxG: I've replied! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: Un-archiving this thread since the last activity was less than three days ago, and also because I'm not entirely certain whether you have read it yet? In particular, the exact thing I had asked to avoid above just happened [4][5]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Twitter

Over the past 28 days, I've posted 22 tweets, impressions have risen 3,095.8%, profile visits are up 819.5%, mentions have increased 160.0%, and in June we have 9 new followers. I'm taking this as a success to keep on doing a similar strategy This tweet was the most popular, earning 11.2K impressions, which lead me to come to the conclusion that more tweets welcoming newcomers would be beneficial (as that tweet was designed). Our top mention this month was this WMF tweet requested by me through DMs, indicating that we probably should request more of such things. Finally, this was our most popular media tweet. I think that we should probably include more media in our outreach efforts. All in all, I consider this month to be a success! I'll be considering expanding into more social channels like Instagram and Reddit. Pinging @JPxG, who requested these metrics. Cheers! (PS, also noting that I'll be going through the suggestions tomorrow). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: You neglected to mention in your research methodology that you posted a red panda. Keep it up, you are doing great, but I think a more plausible theory is that cute animal pics matched to beginner outreach is effective as a comms strategy. I think people want beginner outreach too, but we are a social media channel that can post interesting pictures in an on-topic and relevant way. We can leverage that! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The Twitter feed looks great.

Andreas JN 466 18:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder readback

View feeder readback

Here ya go. Hopefully we can figure out something a little less half-assed (@FormalDude: that message-board thing looks like it would be really neat) jp×g 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Comments. ––FormalDude talk 22:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, everyone!

Think we have a quite nice issue this month! I'll try to do the initial setup work on FC around the end of this month, as normal. Does someone else want Gallery this month? It was kind of fun, but if I'm going to do it again, I'd rather not do it last-minute. Also, not quite sure who renamed Featured content, but good job! Always find naming them awkward. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 23:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on a summer holiday starting around our publishing date, and preparing to go for the prior week. I'll expect to be contributing sporadically up till then. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on holiday for the next two weeks, but might contribute some. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one's claimed Galleries, how about a theatre focus? But I am willing to have it ruthlessly kicked forwards to next month, so please feel free to make your own gallery if you'd rather. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing lists

We haven't announced the new issue on the Wikimedia-l and WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing lists yet. Could one of you who's an active member of both do the deed? --Andreas JN 466 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. documentation and this thread from last week (EpicPupper: does any of the recent suggestions resolve the issue for you? If not, I'd volunteer to try my luck with the Gmail account myself; albeit without committing to do more than sending these monthly announcements.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can look into them. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and posted it to both. [6] (The one to WikimediaAnnounce is still stuck in the moderator queue.) Andreas JN 466 06:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff for next issue

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1010653/she-spent-a-decade-writing-fake-russian-history.-wikipedia-just-noticed.

jp×g 01:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical implications of huge scoop

I have seen Wikipediocracy thread (and, I assume, so have others) making quite a spicy claim -- namely, that the perpetrator of the latest deranged act seems to have edited here (under the username 2dgirl) and repeatedly tried to write a mainspace vanity article about himself. This seems like a pretty big scoop -- and, per the readership statistics of the last couple months, it would probably get us some sorely craved eyeballs, as it is fairly recent and nobody seems to have written about it yet.

However, I think it could potentially be chickenshit to run an in-depth story about this, and we shouldn't do so, based on the following reasoning:

There is significant evidence that the people who perform repugnant acts like this do it in the interest of notoriety, recognition, and to expose large amounts of people to what they have to say (or at least that, if not the sole motivation, this is typically a significant factor). The Unabomber, for example, used the threat of additional bombings to compel newspapers to publish his manifesto. Subsequent murderers have made explicit or implicit references to this in their writings as well. (Further reading: Hate is not at the root of most mass shootings, James Densley and Jillian Peterson, Washington Post; Terrorists Read Your Articles, Too: How To Report On Manifestos, Emmi Conley, Logically)
Providing a large audience to these people creates an incentive structure whereby committing acts of violence entitles you to detailed reporting on your actions, your personal life, your beliefs, and your SoundCloud. It demonstrates, empirically, that doing things like this causes you to become (in)famous.
While there may be a legitimate news interest in reporting on the notability of an event (like an act of vandalism or a series of murders), it is not clear to me that this necessarily extends to the person who did them; evidence for this can be found in the established mainspace consensus where Wikipedia often redirects articles about mass murderers to articles about their crimes (for example, Adam Lanza, Joaquin Roman, et cetera, whose articles are redirects despite massive reams of WP:SIGCOV about them).

Basically, it seems to me that if we write an article about this guy, we are at risk of sending a message to the world: "we don't care about what you have to say, unless you murder a bunch of innocent people, and then we will spend a lot of time caring about what you have to say, and we'll push other stories down the fold to explain it to our readers in great detail". I suppose that this gesture may be wasted if someone else writes an article about it before us (it's already been several days), but I think it is still worth making, in the name of maintaining integrity (which is really all we have to care about, since we all do it for free here). And I will admit it is possible that I've made an error in my reasoning, or failed to consider something -- but for the time being, I cannot come up with a reason for us to give this asshole the time of day. jp×g 18:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that "chickenshit" articles still garner clicks, someone with a registered account who during one day years ago made a few edits is not a Wikipedian and there's no reason The Signpost should care about such a vandal. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to mention that a couple of days ago to Stephen Harrison ... he published an article earlier today: https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/bobby-crimo-highland-park-wikipedia.html (It has a link to The Signpost.)

I hadn't actually seen this on WO, but remembered from discussions years ago on WO that there have been a fair number of people like that who edited Wikipedia (Anders Breivik, Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, Luka Magnotta, John Patrick Bedell ... Midsize Jake actually once wrote a blog post about this). So when I searched for the name on Wikipedia, sure enough – there it was.

I added this to next issue's ITM a few hours ago even though I understand and sympathise with all the above reasoning. I hope that's okay ... Andreas JN 466 20:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: Hmm: "said Andreas Kolbe, a Wikipedia volunteer on the editorial team of the Signpost, the site’s community newspaper, who also contributed to the reporting of this piece". I guess that puts us in kind of a weird position, doesn't it? Much to think about. I suppose an intelligent way to mention this might be contextualizing it through the lens of WP:DENY. I will try to get something written in this vein for July. jp×g 22:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, journalists on all continents have trawled through the guy's social media history and music and video uploads and reported at length ... However, Wikipedia was something that had universally been missed. Most journos don't know how to look for something here – Wikipedia's internal structure is a closed book to them.

You can contest the Slate article's conclusion – sheer ignorance of Wikipedia rules is more common a factor in such cases than anything else – but it closed the gap and accurately describes what happened here.

The article resulted from a couple of off-hand comments of mine that were originally just meant as "by the way". But given that it was written, I was offered attribution and thought a name check of the Signpost complete with a link might help bring some of the abovementioned eyeballs here. Most of the world has no idea we exist. Slate were kind enough to oblige.

As I said before, I understand the "Deny" argument, but to my mind there is no scope for meaningful denial of attention on our part here, given the global in-depth reporting that has already been done by the mass media.

Just for reference, prior cases like those I mentioned above generally have been covered here – see

but I have no problem with it if we pass over it quietly here. I added the link to ITM yesterday; what if anything you want to do with it is up to y'all – I had no intention of writing it up personally, for the reasons Smallbones mentions. Given this precedent I'll leave ITM write-ups of any further articles by this writer to others as well. Okay? Andreas JN 466 17:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris; I don't think six edits in one day (plus whatever handful of edits made from a non-logged in account) is worth discussing. The Slate article might be enlightening for anyone unaware of what happens when editors try to create autobiographies, but it doesn't tell any tale unfamiliar to those who have seen it happen innumerable times already. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support not running anything related to this story, especially the Slate article which is a really poorly done, irresponsibly and speculative opinion piece. I don't think it should be included in next issue's ITM at all. ––FormalDude talk 00:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{od} I'll note that something similar came up on-deadline a few months ago. See here I didn't mention the alleged shooters name, user name, or the school where the shooting took place. Not that I had a lot of time to think about why rhese should be left out, but when in doubt it's a good idea to leave them out.

Next, @JPxG: when in doubt don't take anything WO says seriously, it's not a reliable or unbiased source. Their editorial line is that Wikipedia is always wrong. I've been tempted to use material from them 2 or 3 times, but it's better to just not read them. I was dissappointed in all but 1 case.

BTW Harrison is a good journalist. He doesn't have to follow the same rules Wikipedians do. The evidence on the offending edits is sparse, but the conclusion looks ok. To me the point would have been thar Wiki processes wprked to keep out the offending material. But his readers aren't very interested in the details of Wiki processes. Andreas does have a COI in writing this up on ITM and he should stay away from it. I might also write an opinion on this, mentioning the case briefly. If anybody knows details on other editor/shooters please email me (I won't print anything other than the pure number). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article jumps to a unwarranted conclusion in attempting an analysis of the editor's psyche based on their Wikipedia activity. How many other editors have idly made some attempts to get an autobiography submitted? I would venture that most of them were not obsessed nor nihilistic, but bored and looking for a diversion. isaacl (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six edits some time ago seems like a nothing burger to me. It's as if we were a retail establishment and he walked in the door once. There's no meaningful connection. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite right, but if a mass murderer had walked into your store once you'd tell your colleagues about it, wouldn't you? Andreas JN 466 18:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I live in "America's killing fields" and people here don’t usually go around commenting on the time they bumped into Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgeway. So, no. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fascinating article, and I see what you mean. On the other hand, the very fact that the Seattle Times published an article titled "Does Northwest draw out serial killers?" could also be seen as countering your argument.

Just like serial killers are more common for some reason in the Northwest, the proportion of mass shooters who have dipped their toes into Wikipedia and registered user accounts here appears to be greater than the proportion of the general population who have done so. Andreas JN 466 10:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Aspiring rapper or someone closely associated with him tries to create a Wikipedia article on them" is not news, its almost the other way, if an aspiring rapper didn't try to create a Wikipedia article on themselves that might be less common than the opposite. I'm speculating that we have a correlation - misfit loners who become school shooters are likely to have made unsuccessful attempts at fame through rap etc first. But given the vast number of people who make a handful of edits to this site and then gone away, it should not surprise us if some are people who probably wouldn't have fitted in here. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the earlier examples of mass shooters mentioned above (von Brunn, Bedell, Breivik, Lanza, Rodger), none of them had musical ambitions. The common theme surely was already identified when JPxG started this thread: it's about notoriety, or the "attention-factor". More generally, Wikipedia – more so than other social media – is an obvious way to reach a lot of people, and the desire to do so is surely something shared by all people who edit here. --Andreas JN 466 07:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that fits with what I said "unsuccessful attempts at fame through rap etc". Not sure you were replying to with that "none of them had musical ambitions" comment. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind.

One thing I had completely forgotten to mention above was that Raymond Spencer, the Edmund Burke School shooter, also edited Wikipedia, both before and after the shooting this April: contribs (that's on archive.org; his user name has been wiped off Wikipedia, though his edits, like this one, are still there). His Wikipedia editing was mentioned in the Washington Post. Andreas JN 466 17:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community view (Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections)

@EpicPupper and JPxG: What happened with the board selection poll (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Community_view)?

Did we have significant participation or was it too little to be worth reporting? Andreas JN 466 12:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, note yesterday's WMF email on the Election Compass.

Community members are able to propose statements from July 8 to July 20 (unfortunately too short a window to advertise in the Signpost) but the community can then vote on statements from July 23 to August 1. That is worth including in the next issue.

Note that the Elections Committee makes a selection before the community vote and then makes the final selection after the community vote. Andreas JN 466 12:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked 16 people voted, so I didn’t publish the results. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still do a Watchlist message?

I know we used to, but haven't seen one in a while. It might help traffic if we did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an op-ed for my WMF board candidacy

Hi @EpicPupper and @JPxG, I'd like to write an op-ed about my WMF board candidacy - would that be OK? Legoktm (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well-versed in what the precedents are on this, but it seems like it would be fine to me. I will have to get back to you. jp×g 19:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'll suggest *not* doing this. It would be viewed as The Signpost's endorsement of your candidacy over the other 11 candidates. This doesn't imply that I oppose you candidacy at all, just that we would need to consider the others as well. As far as I know there have been 2 or 3 attempts by The Signpost to provide election info on individual candidates (or somewhat close to it). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Board of Trustees candidates which I wrote - it was harder than it looks and there was a very polite complaint that my method unfairly disadvantaged some candidates. In another, I didn't mention any candidates, but I think some folks might have read something into it. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-28/Op-ed, I think it still holds up pretty well. The only other attempted election commentary I remember in TS involved a survey of candidates and then classifying the results. The candidates refused to play the game. So I support the general idea of election commentary, but haven't figured out a good way of doing it yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't asking to solely run just an op-ed from me, it would be nice if other candidates wrote things too! I'll be honest, I was a bit miffed at the coverage two issues ago, where it felt like us candidates were being reduced to our edit counts, when many of us have contributed to Wikimedia in so many other ways. But my approach is always if I'm unhappy with something I try to fix it, and this is my idea/proposal on how to improve the situation.

It's certainly not perfect, but I think it would be good if the Signpost is able to let readers hear from the candidates in their own words, as well as provide a place to ask questions. An op-ed is the simplest solution that doesn't require too much effort on the Signpost staff's part. In the very old days, and even slightly less old days the Signpost did various interviews and surveys, maybe that's an option this year? Being a digital publication, the Signpost has a big advantage that print newspapers don't have - if candidates don't reply in time their op-ed or answers can still be updated after publication (maybe even a mid-month MassMessage to let readers know).

Ultimately, given the importance of the board election I hope the Signpost is able to help inform voters about the candidates. I appreciate y'all even just considering my ideas :-) Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: You appear to assume or (more likely) be aware that you are on the shortlist. However, the shortlist does not appear to have been published yet on Meta (only the ratings are available, here). Have you seen the shortlist? --Andreas JN 466 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: to be clear, I have zero knowledge of who will be on the shortlist other than guessing based on the other candidates. I am of course hoping I will be on it and am proceeding as if I'll make it through given it's unclear how long it'll take for results to be announced and the deadline for the Signpost's publication coming up soon enough. Legoktm (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper, JPxG, Jayen466, and Blue Rasberry: If we're going to do this I think we need to start immediate and not underestimate the difficulty of the job. There will be complaints. There's no need to suggest impropriety however.

I suggest we just have the lead story in News and notes be about the election with links to the candidate statements of the full list of candidates (unless the short list is officially announced a day before publication) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do sort of share your unease that if some of the shortlisted candidates have a piece in The Signpost, people will ask why the others didn't get one as well. If we're thinking of offering a slot to everyone, then the next consideration will be whether all shortlisted candidates feel comfortable writing an op-ed in English – it's obviously not everyone's native language.

Let's hope the shortlist is published tomorrow (the vote should have finished a couple of days ago according to the schedule). Andreas JN 466 20:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: All candidates had to write their statements in English, and the shortlisted candidates are apparently now being required to create videos of themselves answering questions in English, so we're well past that point. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 21:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: If you can actually get consensus among the shortlisted candidates to submit platform statements then I think that would be fine. It becomes more ethical the more transparent and inclusive the process becomes. As Smallbones said, coordinating the collection of such statements in a few days is difficult and I think it would push the limits of what Signpost editors can accomplish. It is about a week to publication, and the shortlist is not even published yet, so there could be 1 to 7 days for comments from 6 people who are not expecting to be asked to speak for publication.

Lego if you can coordinate this, then even as a candidate, I think that is fine. All candidates are experienced Wiki people, we all know the constraints of keeping to an election schedule, and we all know that monthly publications like Signpost are essential news sources which have to go out on time.

Lego are you willing to ask all the candidates to submit statements as soon as the shortlist is published? If so here is some guidance:

Check agreement and consent for this op-ed process ASAP - if all the candidates do not explicitly approve then I think we have to reconsider allowing Lego to coordinate. I like the idea of a candidate coordinating this because realistically no one is more involved, and because all the candidates are peers and colleagues.
This op-ed cannot be an undue burden on any candidate. Everyone involved is a volunteer, time is short, and public attention can be stressful. Set a limit to cap the candidate labor cost to participating in this. I suggest 5 sentences which is about 100 words. If candidates agree then 200 words is probably the limit of what Signpost readers can take in for 6 candidates in our publishing format. Anyone can link to their candidate profiles for more detailed information.
If all the candidates can collectively author an introduction to explain the election and get out the vote, then that would be welcome. The entire op-ed could be co-authored by the candidates.

I realize that it is non-traditional for a publication to turn so much over to candidates but for the wiki community at this time in these circumstances, I think this kind of collaboration could work. For context in case anyone is not aware - to date this has always been a friendly election among people who all support each other's candidacy. I expect that this election is the same.

Bluerasberry (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident I can be neutral and objective in coordinating something like this, but I'm going to pass, I think avoiding the appearance of impropriety/COI is just as important here, and one definitely exists. I'll see if I can wrangle someone else to take this on.

That said, if the Signpost is just giving candidates 100-200 words it'll probably just be easier to copy from the candidate statements, which were limited to 150 words. Speaking for myself, I would have just copied my statement and tweaked it to fit the word limit.

I'm a relatively strong English writer so I have some bias, but I don't think allowing up to 500 or 800 words is an undue burden - personally I think setting low word limits are more burdensome because it's really hard to describe oneself and what we'd like to do on the board in just 100-200 words! My 2 cents is that voters would like to hear more from candidates, not less. Legoktm (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: If you can convince anyone to come to the newsroom and coordinate that is most welcome. We have a shortage of contributors and coordinators here. The 100 words is a suggestion; I was looking for a way to be fair in making a request that the candidates can reasonably achieve in a few days. Whatever the case, if you can recruit someone to present something, and none of the candidates object, then I invite them here to do whatever is reasonable. I apologize - The Signpost gets good readership and comments to articles, but we struggle to attract, support, and sustain our writers and editors. The lack of capacity is why I am asking for your help. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable coordinating this for this issue. It's the least I can do after being on holiday for the last one. That being said, I will say that The Signpost desperately needs more contributors. It's hard covering a movement of millions of people with a small team. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 days

I'm back.

Board elections (see above, @Smallbones, @JPxG, @Bluerasberry, and @Legoktm): I'd support interviewing the candidates or the shortlisted ones, if they're released. I can get translation done if needed. A NAN segment about the elections seems warranted, especially the Elections Compass (@Jayen466).
Watchlist message (@Adam Cuerden): Yes, we do. The one for this issue was removed on July 4, per usual for the timeframe. They require an admin to add, which is why sometimes it lags behind. Hopefully that'll be better in a few months (hint hint).
Shooter (@JPxG and many others): I agree with JPxG's conclusion. If needed, a very brief item in ITM can be considered, and I'd be happy to accept an Op-Ed from Smallbones.
Lots of ITM (see "Stuff for next issue" above), a potential report above NPP and a WMF Human Rights-related NAN item.
Gallery looking great.
FC great.
User group status: application waiting. Recently, a new group was accepted, so hopefully AffCom's workload is lower now and they're better able to support us.
Tech Report: TODO HELP NEEDED, see https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/11/tech-news-2022-28/
Other news for NAN and/or news from WMF: TODO HELP NEEDED, see Diff https://diff.wikimedia.org/
Discussion Report: TODO HELP NEEDED
Serendipity: will have submission.
Traffic: I trust that the team will complete this. Help always welcome in generating the most edited articles.
Essays: TODO HELP NEEDED Done I've got this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tips: @Headbomb, are you interested in doing a piece on citation bot? If not, I can republish from TOTD.
Humor: @Ganesha811, submission welcomed! If not, I might be able to work on a Wordle clone that's Wikipedia-themed.
Bright side: TODO HELP NEEDED; usually this includes happy news.
Other technical stuff: HELP NEEDED to change contact links to email User:The Signpost (which forwards to both of our emails). If anybody's interested in creating a scavenger hunt, tagging authors of pieces, or other projects, please reach out.
Discussion board: @FormalDude, any progress on this?
Socials: I'll try to Tweet some stuff, but I've been away.
Mailing list: I'll try to coordinate creating a editors@signpost.news and use that for mailing list announcements.

I think that's all. Still a lot of exciting improvements ahead: discussion board, updates to the script (for automatic semantic tagging and social posts), scavenger hunt, user group status, author tagging, Wordle clone, and more. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I've suggested that a submission on the submission page be accepted and volunteered to edit it.
- I'll send a proposal to the joint User:The Signpost email on the Op-ed proposal within 2 hours
- Be careful with Wordle. It's copyrighted and the NY Times paid big bucks for it. I don't see any reason that they'd allow our use of it, or what our defense would be if sued. Fair use is not allowed on The Signpost - at least for photos. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Signpost should publish a word puzzle: strictly from the copyright perspective, you can't copyright a game mechanism. Additionally, Mastermind-like games aren't anything new. (In theory, a truly novel mechanic might be patentable. In practice, finding one that is considered non-obvious and not already published and thus ineligible for patent protection is hard.) isaacl (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Thanks for the warning. I'm planning to not use any copyrighted elements (colors, branding, even perhaps the "Wordle" trademark). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: I'll polish the piece on Citation bot this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper and JPxG: I finally sent the email to the "new user" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do my best to get the Gallery in time. Mostly over COVID. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 05:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper and JPxG: Could use a copyedit, but my articles ("Featured content" and "Gallery" are otherwise pretty much done. I mean, I might poke at them a little more, but they're publishable as-is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 00:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Kind of hate having to rush for deadlines, so... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper and JPxG: And I did the Essay. Though I think we normally grab existing essays, not yet another patented Adam ramble on something that may only interest him. Feel free to spike, move or delay if you see fit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: Draft for Election Compass is in News & Notes. Will need tweaking nearer the time. --Andreas JN 466 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brief notes for new WMF job openings in NAN

Hiya y'all. What do you think about adding a brief line in NAN that advertises the three newest WMF job openings? The WMF is crucial for supporting Wikimedia's development and more help always benefits them. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "Classified notifications" article instead? (obviously not "Classified ads" - but similar in form) Any Wiki project, affiliate, institution (e.g. ArbCom, featured articles) or their representative could put a 30 word notification about their next edit-a-thon, backlog drive, etc. Classifications might include "Careers" (real paying jobs), "Help wanted" (I need some unpaid body to write my articles), "Edit-a-thons" (if I ever learn to spell it), "Get togethers" (e.g. for affiliates), "Conferences", maybe even "Personals" (not "DWM seeks ...", but maybe "Serious newbie seek mentor"). It could be fun and provide a service at the same time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a regular article or section about that! Perhaps it could merge the sporadically published WikiProject news as well. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not see it supplant the in-depth things like Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/WikiProject_report, as we're much less likely to get the big reports if people feel they have to be limited in length. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant things like the item on that page like "WikiProject Wisconsin is requesting photographs of Door County. A Reward Board item is available!" 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Although we could probably make that fit News and Notes in a pinch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate shortlist

Out today. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF wants to keep the list of affiliate orgs who participated in the shortlist vote secret. Community members are complaining about the perceived lack of transparency on the mailing list: [7]

This makes me wonder: How many people actually have access to the votes cast? (@Sj: As one of the people involved in the discussion – do you know?) I am not saying the WMF is making them up, but I wonder whether there should be a bit more community oversight ... it feels like things are becoming more and more opaque and serving a WMF-driven rather than community-driven agenda. --Andreas JN 466 09:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

I've done the one for this month's issue, but does anyone want to take August? I don't want to block others from the opportunity, but I also tend to do my Signpost stuff as early as possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a chance for a gallery in August. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Right! I shall leave it to you, then! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 20:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking SF Examiner interview

San Francisco Examiner has an interview of WMF CEO Iskander. Islander said "Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people...not paid staff." which isn't entirely correct since there are paid editors, just not paid by WMF. Is this worth pointing out in News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I would keep the tone of voice non-accusatory, as I think this was an honest mistake. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's almost a quibble. Paid editing is hardly encouraged, outside of some rare academic collaborations. Most editors are unpaid volunteers. It's maybe not 100% accurate, but it's more of a simplification than a complete inaccuracy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree it's a quibble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) returns 6421 transclusion(s) found. In other words, over 6,000 articles on English Wikipedia have paid contributors. That we know about. Some are quite prominent articles, too, like World Bank and Saudi Arabia (just picking two that catch my eye from the first 50 results). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pretty simplistic overview of Wikipedia, but it's not a quibble any more than the lack of gender or racial diversity on (English) Wikipedia is something to quibble about, I don't think either of these were mentioned as well. Paid editing goes right to the issue of credibility and the WMF should mention it more. We can probably deal with the interview in ITM with a sentence or 2 of background added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I see your point, but I still think that, when you're not talking to Wikipedians or people who know the details, the simplistic version is probably going to leave them with a more accurate impression of the site ethos and structure. Kind of like when children are taught to divide stuff up into mammals, birds, insects, fish, and a few other categories, and then all the other categories get explained later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's something to expand upon when the discussion turns to weaknesses and challenges of Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be mentioned all the time when discussing an overview of Wikipedia. For instance, the third pillar doesn't have to be "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, including paid editors." isaacl (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that millions of people (and donors ...) believe or imagine that the WMF plays an active part in writing and curating the content of Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, that it employs paid moderators, etc. ... so what she says is valuable in terms of countering that mistaken impression. Compared to that, the fact that there are paid editors on Wikipedia is a detail. It's an important detail, for sure, but a detail. Andreas JN 466 09:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the SFE article now, I agree she should have mentioned paid editors. For reference, the exchange goes as follows: You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So how many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us make sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and verified and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia Foundation that provide support to these communities and volunteers, but the volunteers themselves are not paid staff. To omit all mention of paid editors in reply to a direct question like that really is a bit iffy and I agree it deserves a mention.

I also don't very much like this answer: Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to give money? They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. The money demands have never been about "ensuring that things remain as they are" – they have always been about funding exponential WMF growth. Andreas JN 466 10:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implicit context of the question was how many editors are paid by the Foundation to edit Wikipedia. I agree with the original assessment that the response was countering the assumption that the Foundation writes and edits Wikipedia. I agree with EricPupper about avoiding accusing anyone; interviews are typically edited and the original line of questioning may have made the context more clear, or the original response may have provided more detail that isn't included in the final article. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've written to Maryana and Jeff Elder, the SF Examiner's interviewer, with a cc to Wikimedia-l. I hasten to add that I've done so as an individual, and not on behalf of the Signpost. Andreas JN 466 13:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia chapters' application for WIPO observer status denied

WMF post: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/07/15/seven-wikimedia-chapters-rejected-as-permanent-observers-to-wipo/

The WMF post says, "China was the only country to oppose the Wikimedia chapters’ request for observer status, again, claiming that chapters were complicit in spreading disinformation and are subsidiaries of the Wikimedia Foundation."

But note https://twitter.com/jamie_love/status/1547954981633871877 by James Love (NGO director) – he says a whole bunch of countries that aren't mentioned in the WMF post supported China. I checked and he is right. You can view of the actual proceedings of July 15 at https://webcast.wipo.int/ – the webcast in question is titled A 63 DAY 2 AFTERNOON and the item is 6. Admission of Observers, starting at 01:30:05. Andreas JN 466 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked James Love on Twitter whether the WMF press release was compatible with the facts. His reply. --Andreas JN 466 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RF doesn't like WP

Russian Federation declared WP ~~"war disinformation"~~ spreading "war fakes" according to Moscow Times. I don't care to repeat Russian gov't stuff in our pages but I'm putting this out on the Newsroom in case someone has a different view of it. Bri.public (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of desperate attack is interesting, as long as we don't give them much more of a platform than "note their ridiculousness". Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Earns Accreditation to the United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Council (ECOSOC)

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/07/22/wikimedia-foundation-earns-accreditation-to-the-united-nations-economic-and-social-affairs-council-ecosoc/ --Andreas JN 466 18:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I read about the endorsement a few days back. NAN seems worthy. Might be worth mentioning about future WPTO opportunities. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WIPO. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's newsworthy, but...

According to my calculations, as soon as Becquerel passes, I'll have hit a full 8% of all featured pictures for the ones I've created/restored alone. Mind, I'm also 17 FPs away from 600 (which is maybe 2-3 months?), so... your call. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 19:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interesting to do an interview with you in time for your 600 FP milestone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will let you know when I get a little closer. I've had about 47 since the start of the year, probably a few more before we close out July, so it works out to around 7 a month. At that rate, I'd imagine that aiming for October or November would be about right. (Of course, I think the actual total FPs I have is a bit higher - there's a bunch of older FPs that I didn't think were good enough that I stripped from my list somewhere around 2012, only keeping the best of my early work. And I don't imagine the count would have been perfect anyway, especially with my habit of declaring things "half a restoration" when I don't feel I've done enough.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 days

News from the WMF: republish https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/14/dont-blink-public-policy-snapshot-for-june-2022/
Opinion: I trust that Smallbones will have a piece ready. I'd also like to write something on the power of Wikipedia's open discussion forums, and how the WMF is damaging them through complex, bad requirements such as question limits in the Board elections. I think that all three can be published under something like "Op-Ed - Youth culture", "Op-Ed - Criminals", "Op-Ed - Open discussions".
Discussion report needs writing. Short one for this month.
Tech report needs writing. Lots of Tech News inspiration. New user scripts as well (including one of mine!)
From the archives could benefit from an anniversary/holiday-based item.
On the bright side - perhaps a story about Ukranian Wikimedians, or Wikimedians in an age of COVID
NAN: Briefs about https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/21/reflections-on-funding-from-the-middle-east-and-africa/, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/20/the-platform-powering-wikimania-2022/, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/19/movement-strategy-and-governance-newsletter-issue-7/, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/18/who-will-be-the-2022-wikimedian-of-the-year/, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/14/the-birth-of-a-team-the-movement-charter-drafting-committee-met-in-berlin/, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/12/the-wikimania-festival-goes-global/ 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I've been quite busy and preoccupied lately - if you have a submission I haven't been getting around to lately, please poke me or JPxG. Thanks. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's up to copyediting my three (Featured content, Gallery, Essay), it might not be the worst idea. I'm quite happy to copyedit other people's work, but I can't really be my own copyeditor. Misses the point.

On my part, I've copyedited the war diary. That was painful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 03:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one note on the war diary: From what I can tell, we dropped the ball are publishing it a bit late - I believe it's from May. Given I'm sure there's going to be an outpouring of support over it, how do we make the timing clear? George knows it's being published now, right? Just it is about his son being killed; you don't surprise someone with ripping that sound open again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A technical error caused it to publish late, yes. There's also some new content from his talk page that I'll add to the bottom, but I can write up an editor's note. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 06:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper and JPxG: One more thing I should quickly note: I decided to start setting up August's FC, because I'll have less time in August, and have insomnia now. As long as it's not accidentally deleted in the publication process it can safely be ignored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 06:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for letting us know. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]