Submission deadline: Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.! Cut-off for submitting finished articles this week is 14:00 UTC, Monday Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue/Next 2012; publication scheduled for 22:00 UTC. Once all tasks are complete, the editor-in-chief (or nominated deputy) should complete the publication process.
Everyone interested in Signpost matters is invited to join the IRC channel at #wikisignpostconnect.
Check http://identi.ca/wikisignpost and the suggestions page for possible news items to cover in the upcoming issue (especially for the "News and notes", "In the news" and "Technology Report" sections), and the Signpost resources page for further sources and other information about each regular section.
Standard weekly schedule
Tuesday–Thursday: start. Start all pages that are to be included in the next edition.
Friday: draft. A rough outline of topics to be covered should be in place by end of Friday, so that if a regular reporter is unavailable over the weekend, another can follow up their leads. Irregular articles such as interviews and opinion essays should be proposed by this day, to allow for review, consideration and planning.
Saturday–Sunday: mature versions. Aim to have reasonably mature drafts of all pages for comments by the managing editors, fellow journalists, and other interested editors. Signpost editors recommend any structural changes, reductions in length, expansions in scope, necessary coordination between pages, postponement to subsequent issue. Copy-editors go through the drafts.
Late Sunday to early Monday: trouble-shooting. Fresh stories added by the "Next issue deadline" (only if sufficiently topical and important).
Monday: last-minute tweaks and copy-edits; publication.
Thanks to everyone who pitched in this week, and especially to Jan and HaeB for going the extra mile at the Berlin conference. Unfortunately our colleague Tony1 has been admitted to hospital, so our thoughts are with him at the moment, and we wish him a speedy and full recovery. Skomorokh 06:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Tony is in recovery I believe, and is irrepressibly aiming to finish his report on Berlin for the coming issue. Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals
Ideas for Signpost features can be pitched and discussed by any interested parties here
As there was no In the news section in this week's Signpost, thought I'd mention this here in case anyone missed it and is interested to listen again: Jimmy Wales was the subject of a BBC Radio 4 'Profile' programme on Saturday 17 March: [1]. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! Skomorokh 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Letters to the Editor: Like any good newspaper, the Signpost should let readers send "letters" to the editor. Their own opinion on a piece they've just read. It'll allow the readers to engage with the article and provide suggestions to improve future article, which is valuable information for the writers. This should be a new regular section that is published every Signpost issue. The editor-in-chief will review the letters for clarity and MoS, then publish it! Whenaxistalk·contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting possibility, though the thought strikes that unlike traditional newspapers for which letters to the editors were a reader's only avenue for engagement with the publication and their peers, the Signpost has both comments at the end of each article, and a mechanism for publishing extended reader opinion. What purposes might letters to the editor serve that these don't, and should they differ from the traditional format given the peculiarities of our set-up? Skomorokh 02:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of having readers' thoughts in the side lines (i.e. on the article talk pages or on the bottom of the article), we have it with the rest of the main content. Allow the readers to submit their opinion without all the restraints needed to write an opinion piece. Whenaxistalk·contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is interesting, too. But on examination, I agree with Sko that the unique ability of The Signpost to enable readers to comment on the spot on stories (and watchlist the comments) does undermine the notion of the traditional letters to the editor. Whenaxis, do you think it's instead viable to have a ?six-monthly round-up of the feedback that has appeared on our pages, plus perhaps a summary of page hits, circulation on en.WP and on other projects? Tony(talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an interesting possibility. But would the comments not be out-of-date and no longer relevant by the time the 6-month period comes around? Because the feedback would also be in relation to the topic of the article and not just about the Signpost itself. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Game: This is apparently a documentary-in-progress about Wikipedia vandalism. They've released a few interesting trailers and have been discussing the project on WR for the past year or so. They've just applied for a Kickstarter campaign, so the story could soon get interesting. It's a novel angle to take on Wikipedia, and the producers would likely be amenable to an interview. Anyone interested? Skomorokh 03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not looking at bored kids at school; they're looking at long term vandals and other disruptors. I think in this day and age they're approaching this doco from an insufficiently tight-fisted perspective; you can interview 12-15 people scattered all over the planet in HD for less than USD$60K. I don't see this doco being in the interests of the project; vandals and mischief makers don't need edification. However, hearing how Willy on Wheels could justify his actions would be fascinating. Josh Parris 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kickstarter campaign failed; this project reached the deadline without achieving its funding goal 1 day ago. They got under $6k pledged fairly early, then it went nowhere. They got 55 backers pledging at total of $5,774 (they had a $60,000 goal) with the bulk being pledged by one backer. Josh Parris 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update Josh. I wonder if it's worth covering at all at this point. Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In development
The following proposals have been greenlit and are considered in active development
Interview with a paid editor. The WP:COI RfC is in full swing, various scandals are just settling in the news (Portland Communications, Bell Pottinger, etc.), and paid editing pops up regularly on Jimbo's talk page. I'd like to do an interview with paid editors, perhaps on some regular schedule, and explore their motivations, conflicts, practices, and reception on the encyclopedia. I have a few off-hand who I could start with, but there are definitely many available. Would there be interest in this, and should I get approval before or after I conduct an interview? Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit | c 14:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Best to run it past Sko first, including who your first victims would be, hehe. He'll have some tips, and would want to look at the draft first, I guess. He's usually around Saturdays to Tuesdays, I think. Tony(talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first 'victim' would be User:Peteforsyth. After that, User:Eclipsed, User:CanalPark, and User:WWB Too, User:King4057, and User:Philgomes. Other related but not paid targets are User:Silver seren (who started WikiProject Cooperation) and User:Jimbo (whose view on paid editing are legion). I think it would be very interesting to get to know those who many consider to be 'the enemy' on the one hand, and to give paid editors a fair chance to explain themselves on the other. It's worth exploring, I think. Ocaasit | c 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ocaasi, and thank you for your proposal; it sounds very interesting, and as you rightly point out, the issue is of no small relevance to the community right now. I wonder could you elaborate on your motivation (as opposed to the worth of the topic in itself), how you think the interview(s) might best be conducted (email vs realtime, follow-up or not) and what sort of coverage you have in mind (once-off straightforward interview; series of straightforward interviews; interviews incorporated in a special report on the issue with background, analysis etc.). Looking forward to exploring this, cheers, Skomorokh 18:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My motivation is to illuminate one of the dark corners of Wikipedia. I have personally worked with some excellent paid editors, who contributed meaningfully to the project, as well as some COI editors who would have been better off blocked if they haven't been already. I am also active in WikiProject Cooperation and Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, where I take the position that education, discussion, and promotion of best practices is the path out of this muck. My views, however, would not be advanced in the article, unless they would stimulate or provoke thoughtful answers.
The idea of paid editing is so controversial that I think it needs to be explored in a tangible, concrete form. As with any major conflict, it's too easy for people to become entrenched in their views, to see things in extremes, and to substitute vague impressions for real people and their experiences. The goal of the article or series would be to put a face on paid editing, and to bring the discussion forward without assumptions or hyperbole, to look at what is actually going on.
I think the interviews would be best conducted in two rounds, both over email. An extensive list of general and interviewee specific questions would be presented, and then followed-up on. I don't have a strong opinion on the form or presentation that it would take. For convenience, it would be easier for me to interview a person every-other week or every few weeks, and to publish their responses in full, or in a narrative form (I usually prefer full form, with minor editing for flow and cogency). A special report is more than I think I want to invest in, though I love the idea of individual interviews. There's a preliminary list of questions I've posted for my first proposed interview, which is still pending approval both here and from the Wikipedia editor. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just what I was hoping to hear, very stimulating ideas Ocassi! I'm greenlighting this for development, so you can seek participants as a Signpost reporter (it would be good to sandbox the enterprise in subpages of the interview desk, as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Interviews desk/Rob Schnautz). I appreciate that a special report is a lot to take on, and standalone interviews would still be very valuable to the readership, but perhaps at least for the first installment, an explanatory paragraph or two covering the recent history of the paid editing debate would go a long way to getting readers engaged in the topic. Have you any ideas on a provisional timeline? The Signpost publishes on Mondays (drafts in by Sunday ideally); we can operate on a weekly or fortnightly basis depending on what fits the series best. If you would like input, co-operation, or feedback on anything, just stop in here and let your fellow reporters know! Cheers, Skomorokh 15:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The working title for the series is Does Wikipedia Pay?An ongoing series to illuminate paid editing and paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, Public Relations industry editors, COI policy in practice, and Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the real people involved. I have two interviews in process, one with User:Peteforsyth and another with User:Silver seren. There are about 8 more on the to-do list. I'm aiming for mid-late April for the first finished draft. I'll keep posting updates. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 00:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, I think we can work to that schedule, appreciate the updates. Cheers, Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future Arb Analysis series: I have an idea/outline for future Arb Analysis stories. My general goal is to have one Arb Analysis story per month (at a minimum) to supplement the sometimes "bland" nature of the regular Arb Reports. Here is my idea:
March 26May 7 – Inside the ArbCom mailing list (discussion from interviews)
April 16May 21 – Review of Arbitration Sanctions (Betacommand 3 case and others)
That's a great idea—I read your article for March 12 coming up and it seems interesting. Keep up the good work. Regards, Whenaxistalk·contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this is quite promising. Do you think there will be enough information on the mailing list to fill out a full report though? Are you planning on getting into the history (leaks and controversies)? Skomorokh 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the mailing list article – I hope to get more feedback from Courcelles and Newyorkbrad within the next week which would help build a stronger story. I'm not so much getting into the leak controversy, rather about how the mailing list works (inefficiently it seems) in terms of a vehicle for communication between arbs. I want this series to be more educational and insightful than 'scandalous', if you see what I'm saying. The leaks have been covered, now I'm interested to see what's happened since. Lord Roem (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the leaks showed several fascinating "civics" lessons in action, which would make for a good analytic article. There wasn't all that much scandal (I checked! :-)). Almost all the scandalous parts were basically confirming what one could know already from reading Wikipedia Review, even if denied in the "official story". It was nice to have that proved (especially in a few instances of character-assassination), but perhaps sadly, it doesn't go far. Anyway, it may be corny, but my reading of the leaks overall had me thinking it really shows the importance of a free press, an independent judiciary, that justice is difficult, etc. Unfortunately, politically I can not write that article, on a risk/reward basis. But I think there's something very meaty there if someone else wanted to do it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Seth, but honestly, I'm really just interested in how the mailing list functions, the way the Committee organizes itself, and the proposals to reform that process. Its a peak into their "conference room", for lack of a better term. Lord Roem (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "leaks" were all a bit of a yawn. I don't think they make for interesting reading at this stage. Tony(talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mention the leaks as a suggestion for material to cover (although I think Seth's point is apposite), but in an attempt to pin down just what we are hoping to impart here. I agree entirely with the educational/informative aim of the arb analysis series, but as expressed in the "Current discussion" note above, I'm concerned that we're not presenting features in their best light – the content of last week's arb analysis was quite fascinating I thought, but it didn't seem to elicit much interest. So, questions like "why is the mailing list something readers need to know about?", "what exactly will readers learn from this feature?" and "how does this feature fit in to the overarching series" are ones I'd like for us to have clear answers to before we hit the presses, in order to maximise the feature's effectiveness and impact. Skomorokh 02:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this schedule still being adhered to (edition for March 26th)? Skomorokh 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to shift the schedule around (as I still haven't recieved a response from NYB on the mailing list questions). I'll do the TimidGuy case focus this week, if that's fine with you. Lord Roem (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, keep us posted. Skomorokh 08:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the schedule to be more realistic per my own RL obligations. Lord Roem (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly work with this, and I appreciate the update. Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CC 4.0 has a first draft published (April 2) & it already produced some discussion in regard to wikidata on meta (here) and the related ml. even 4.0 as such aside it would fit in nicely (in a way) with the piece Jarry will do in the net edition, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC):[reply]
I'll bat this one, will actually have time this weekend (vacation). ResMar 22:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good tidings! We were a little bare on the minor stories last week, so there might be a thing or two overlooked from the past fortnight. Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming together. ResMar 01:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, any idea on a timeframe? Clock's ticking... Skomorokh 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mabeenot and I sorted this one out on time this week. Ready for review. Rcsprinter(speak) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the energy, but be careful not to jump the gun on declaring it finished. It still needed the news sidebar, pictures, a teaser, and an expanded lead. Contact me so we can get you scheduled to conduct an interview for your own article. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to update the article a bit as we get closer to publication, but generally fine for copyedit review now. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger told me the PD in the Review case will be posted Monday. I'll try to cover it, if it comes before publication. Besides that, the RF case section can be copyedited. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the update, will keep an eye on the watchlist in case there's movement on the review. Skomorokh 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pending publication, but feel free to jump in with an update anyone if there are changes in the next 45 mins. Skomorokh 20:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Education report
On hiatus
Can we get a proposed schedule for the Ed report I wonder? It would be good to know in advance of the weekend whether a report was likely to be forthcoming. Cheers, Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in March 2012 is now available: Wiki version, Blog version. guillom 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the notice Guillom, thank you. Skomorokh 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add intro/context, and revise this into narrative shape; the issues discussed are very important, but something of a tough sell to readers. Contributions most welcome. Skomorokh 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regular responsibilities
In addition to once-off and irregular features contributed on an ad hoc basis, the Signpost has a number of regular reports (typically published on a weekly basis) for which experienced contributors tend to claim responsibility. This responsibility entails ensuring the report in question is consistently well-written and submitted before deadline, which in turn involves selecting the stories to be covered, managing the writing of the report (often contributing most of the content themselves, or recruiting other reporters to do so), and communicating with the newsroom to keep editors informed of developments. While all articles are subject to final review by the editor-in-chief (or managing editors), the regular reporter of a feature typically determines its direction and focus.
The Signpost is always looking for new reporters, so if you are interested in contributing to a given feature, contact the reporter listed as responsible for it below, add yourself to the "Contributors" column of the feature, or simply go right ahead and edit the draft article. If there is no reporter listed as responsible for a given feature, interested editors with experience contributing to the report and who feel up to the task can assume responsibility for it. If a regular reporter is unavailable or no draft for the next issue is listed above, any editor should feel free to write it that week.
