Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

The Signpost feedback

Please use this page for general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints.

• If you have a suggestion of a topic to cover, please add it to our Suggestions page.
• If you have an article-specific comment, please add it to that article's talk page.
• If you have a proposal for a feature, please list it at the Newsroom.
• If you have a proposal for an opinion essay, interview, WikiProject report or book review, please list it at the dedicated desk: Opinion, Interviews, WikiProject, Review.
• If your message is urgent, please leave a message here or try to find a Signpost regular in the IRC channel #wikisignpost ^connect.
• For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.

Arbitration Statistics

Hey! I was wondering whether there would be interest in me doing an update on Arbitration statistics, following the format of this previous Signpost article I wrote? I would be glad to work on an article for the next issue :-)

Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What tool did you use to gather those stats? I'm having a bit of trouble doing it manually. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Steven, I just took an hour to go through the ArbCom records to manually count the cases and their duration. I believe they have (or had) a table with this...let me see if I can find what I used. Lord Roem (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I meant like in my report (The pie chart). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you clarify please? Lord Roem (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured you had found a tool or something to gather the stats for your graphs, instead of doing it manually. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for article

Hi all, I am basically wikipedian from Czech Wikipedia. We held there really successful WikiProject about Protected areas (national parks, nature reserves and so) and we would like to write article to the Signpost to let know about us in other communities. However, I am not sure, if Singpost is accepting articles about non-en-wiki topics. My question is, is it? :) If yes, we will be glad prepare some info about our project. Thanks for answer. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We do from time to time feature other projects under a section called "Sister Projects". The focus is usually on an entire project and not so much on a smaller WikiProject. However, do tell us more about what you mean by "We held ... really successful". What was held? Why was is successful? If this is something that could help or be of interest to other WikiProjects, we may consider running your story. --SMasters (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. First of all, I have to say that I made a mistake in English. We are still holding, not held :) Sorry for this. However, of course there will be different standards between English/German Wikipedia and smaller projects as Czech Wikipedia for to say "really successful" project. But I think that we can be huge inspiration for smaller Wikies where community is not so wide and numerous. Also, we can offer to everybody insight how to run wiki-project and generate a lot of results. Firstly, let me introduce some of our greatest success.

1. We have prepared, submitted and succeeded with the grant application to local chapter. This grant provides financial cover of expenses for photographers which are traveling trough the Czech republic and photographing protected areas for Wikimedia Commons and all wiki-projects. Actually we got more than 1,200+ images and 70 localities.
2. We started cooperation with Institute for Environmental Studies at the Charles University in Prague, Czech Rep. During the class students are writing articles about protected areas and photographing these localities. This cooperation is generating really high-standart quality articles Zábělá, or Křížová cesta from the Czech Republic and even from Finland! We are able share our experience from this cooperation and say to the wiki-community that this is one of the way, how small projects can improve the content and reach new editors.
3. We realized that what we really need are new editors to our community. However it is hard to reach them. For this reason, we are running fan page on Facebook (267 fans) which we are feeding with news and interests from protected areas and giving them information about our project. For many people is surprise but this activity work and it is generating new editors. If the fans on Facebook see, that we are working on it, they often help us, give us new images or just give as advice what to do better. This is really good and important lesson which is helpful for all projects. Outside public relation is the most important and social network are giving us opportunity to speak with our readers and join them to our community.
4. We prepared other outreach activity as talk on conferences, published article in Czech nature magazine, we are preparing now promotional flyer and we made a small game for children with story about our project. Czech version of this game was printed in A3 format and now is distributed in the Czech Republic for everybody free of charge. We believe that this is also good way how to reach new possibly editors. English version is freely download-able for everybody from Commons...

Of course, we also wrote a number of articles and made huge number of images, but these above are the most highlights from our activity. You can see, that there is many parts, which might be interesting share with others, especially with smaller wikies which need new editors. We are showing the way, how is possible to reach them :) If you will be interest, we will be glad prepare article about all these activities with some advice what to do and how. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like there is a potential story here. The last Sister Projects article we did was on Wiki Loves Monuments. It was done as an interview, but the article does not need to be in this style. If you would like to do a draft somewhere, I can help you develop the story. Cheers and thanks for your suggestion. --SMasters (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! We will prepare some draft of the article soon and then submit for your reviews and corrections. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Finally, we completed our draft, it is available on Czech Wikipedia page, see link. Feel free correct, comment or modify. We would be happy if somebody will be able "polish" our Czech-English and make the story more readable for native speakers. Also, your opinion about the text is welcome. If you will like it, we will be glad to publish in Singpost. If not, please let us know, what is wrong and we (or you) will try to make better. Thanks for your time and looking forward to your reply. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You should start a new thread; things this high up tend to get buried. I've bumped Sko, our managing editor. ResMar 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will keep this information for the next time :) ! --Chmee2 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Chmee2, sorry that this proposal got lost a little. I'll notify the editor of our Wikiproject Desk, and we can see what to make of this feature and whether it is a good fit for the Signpost. Regards, Skomorokh 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an exciting WikiProject and one that definitely deserves a place in the Signpost's WikiProject Report. Most of the English projects I've interviewed are cruising along on autopilot, just accumulating members and articles with an occasional discussion on the talk page. In contrast, your project has incorporated social media, started classroom projects, created and distributed a game, reached out to environmental groups, and a movie is in the works. I feel the English Wikipedia's projects could learn a lot from their Czech counterparts. If possible, I'd like to add some follow-up interview questions with you and anyone else you'd like to invite from the project. I fit the article into the WikiProject Report's schedule for March 19. Is there a newspaper like the Signpost on the Czech Wikipedia that could also carry this article? -Mabeenot (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am happy to see, that you like our topic! Feel free to add questions to Czech page or modify the page there. I (or other authors as well, I will try attract some of them to join us) will answer soon. If you don't mind, will be more better for us prepare the article on Czech wiki-pages, because our Czech participants will see changes and maybe join us in the interview.

We do not have something similar as Singpost in Czech Wikipedia (we are too small), but Czech version of the text was already published on Wikimedia Czech Republic blog. However, we can try address this story for some Czech real newspapers. They might be interested :) --Chmee2 (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted some interview questions at the bottom of cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt Chráněná území/Signpost. Please add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you would like other members of your project to answer the questions too, please invite them and feel free to translate the questions into Czech if needed. Thanks! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken RSS feed links

I reported this informally off-wiki (IRC, personal communication) on a few occasions, the Signpost RSS feed links are broken since October. Here's what they look like:

http://www.wikipediasignpost.com//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-09/Technological_roadmap

Can you please fix them? Thanks! --DarTar (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tisk, I know not how. ResMar 16:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that this week's edition is completely broken (empty) [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Special report

I feel as though we should consider merging the different special sections into a single one: basically Dispatched and the stuff here into a one-pager. ResMar 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title under which we publish certain content, or the place it gets tracked/worked on? The article series are collections of different types of article on a related topic (i.e. the Books series included "News and notes", "Wikiproject report" and other columns. I'm not clear on what's being proposed here. Skomorokh 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean that we lack a comprehensive setting for these articles. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Series lists some of our special reports and page strings, but I think we should have a page that explains what a special report is, how it is judged for publication, and lists all of the previous special reports. It would be nice if we could internalize FCDW as well. I'll draft something. ResMar 15:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it "Special report" has hitherto just been a term of art used to slap on something too long and focused to fit in a standard report and not pointed enough to be called an opinion piece. Adding Dispatches would muddy the waters substantially though, as it bears little resemblance to the fundraising/IEP/patroller reports [which had timeliness, novelty and controversy in common]. We could establish a set of guidelines for "Special reports" to develop into a defined feature, based on these last few, if Signpostians felt that would be helpful though. What say ye? Skomorokh 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything that fixes the current jumbled mess. ResMar 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Interviews

Moved from the newsroom discussion of a proposed interview by HaeB of foundation trustees on movement roles. Skomorokh 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: (1) Will HaeB be conducting the interview(s) if he is actually a WMF employee? (2) I fundamentally disagree with the public framing of questions and the emailed interview technique. I'll discuss this at the talk page if anyone wants to talk about it. Tony (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the interview was proposed by board members Sj and Bishakha who approached me about it. While I was Signpost editor, I tried several times to get someone to cover the movement roles debates more thoroughly (because it seemed to me that the topic's long-term importance was not matched by the attention it got from the non-chapter/non-WMF editing community). As representative of the movement roles working group, Sj was very supportive of the idea - the questions he posted here in April 2011 were mostly based on questions I had sent him, and spent quite some time preparing such coverage (his June 2011 blog posts, noted here, were written in that context). So I see this as natural continuation of the work I started back then. As Skomorokh mentioned, I would prefer not to conduct the interview all by myself, but to integrate questions from other community members, although nobody has contributed any since his remark - perhaps we will get more in case the interview is postponed to the Feb 27 issue. Tony brings up a legimitate point (although I am a contractor, not employee); however I will be doing this as a volunteer, and of course any conflicts of interests should be clearly noted as usual. (I'd like to remark that much of the "furore" story in the current issue was written by someone with close ties to one chapter, at least two of whose former or present representatives were quoted in the story.) As for the process, Sj has suggested to develop the draft on-wiki and I tend to agree. I'm not sure if I understand the objection (2) - would you prefer a non-public process? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

HaeB and everyone, the only reason the Gardner interview wasn't a boring same-old endless question–answer alternation was that I spent a lot of time unmessing it and crafting it into a more engaging, journalistic register (Sko was not well at the time). I know it's been the norm on The Signpost to conduct extended interviews by email, but it doesn't work well for anything more than the selection of short quotations from various people in a larger piece, such as I did last week for the fundraising story. The essence of the interview in print is the ability of the reader to feel they're witnessing a real conversation between two people. This was traditionally done in person, where the journalist scribbled notes furiously while maintaining eye contact with the subject; but over the past few decades, phone interviews have become the accepted way to write to deadline interview-based stories that involve a physically distant subject. The emergence of VoIP (e.g. Skype) has made audio contact free or almost free: it is a quintessentially Internet facility, and we are a quintessentially Internet newspaper.

Presenting a subject with a heap of prefabricated written questions has two fundamental flaws. First, it robs the interview of any kind of personal spontaneity, which shows through in the written product even when you labour to make it seem like a real conversation; follow-up questions are difficult and there's no real interaction of personalities ... yet these are the fundamentals of good, interesting interviews that WPians will really enjoy reading, and that will deliver the kind of news we owe them. Second, to do justice to balanced coverage our interviews should not descend into press-release mode, where the respondent carefully prepares answers in essay-like fashion. And it's particularly difficult to interview more than one person via the disembodied question–answer email model. The notion of developing questions in public on-wiki forums further damages any hope of the professional-standard interview. The resulting disorganised bloat gives the journalists responsible a hell of a task in chopping, cutting, rewording, rationalising, and not least in trying to achieve a smooth, logical thematic flow.

Please consider (i) single-subject interviews, or if two subjects, not asking them the same stock questions; (ii) binning the questioning-by-crowd method; and (iii) if at all possible, arranging a one-to-one Skype interview. Phone interviews are not easy for the journalist, and oh boy they require good research and preparation. But I put it to you all that we need to make more use of them if The Signpost is to evolve with the times. Tony (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

given the sound arguments presented: can't we get it done at the berlin conference? that would take care of the methodological points made & would be lovely timing. the movement working group is scheduled to meet on march 29 in berlin anyway and we could push it out in the first april issue, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur that spontaneity has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. An element of surprise may help in a personal interview where one tries to get the interviewee to reveal interesting aspects about themselves, but this particular interview is rather about having knowledgeable individuals explain a complicated general topic. About the second point, I disagree: One is interviewing proponents of particular positions in these debates, and while they promised to make efforts to incorporate their opponents' views into their answers as well (as we are used to do as Wikipedians familiar with NPOV), this is much easier for them if they have a bit of time to look this up or maybe even quickly check with their fellow board members if needed. Again, spontaneity may be good to reveal unfiltered person opinion (and stimulate debate), but the mailing lists are full of these, and I was rather aiming at something helping normal editors understand the whole movement roles issue and its importance.

E-mail interviews, for example, are an established journalist technique by now. The weekly WikiProject report (based on wiki interviews) has been a successful Signpost section for years, even though it sometimes requires editing work. And by the way, for myself as WMF contractor (as for anyone intensively involved with chapters of course), it is easier to avoid COI issues if the whole process from posing the questions over editing to publication is transparent.

Since the above discussion, the movement roles debate has progressed, of course (and indeed one challenge for a well-prepared interview was keeping up with the changes on Meta). I hear yesterday resolutions were passed on the topic which makes this a good point in time for this interview topic - I was expecting them to be published by now, but it seems one will need to wait for a few more hours for that.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the counterarguments convincing. I hope the audio interviews I've lined up aren't going to cross over with this. Tony (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your work is mainly focusing on Friday's resolutions, i.e. fundraising, and on the conference itself, while this is mainly about movement roles, i.e. the general background to yesterday's resolutions (which it seems are being published right now - at least Phoebe said she is about to put them out and the list of resolutions has come online since I wrote the above, if not yet their full text). But I'm happy to coordinate, I'm available on IRC most of the time (or do you prefer email? ). As I indicated above, I find that a collaborative approach has many advantages, in particular if it is a controversial topic where it is important to keep one's own possible biases in check. And if you know of any convincing counter-counterarguments, I am prepared to listen to them as well :)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Emailed. Tony (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For others who may have been reading along here: The topics are sorted out now, and anyone who would still like to add questions for the movement roles is very welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Interviews desk/MR until further notice. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Patricio Lorente's name

Hi, just noticed that Patricio Lorente is misspelled "Lorenta" in the board seats section (in the caption). Should I go ahead and make a change? Didn't want to be presumptuous and just do it on my own. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to make uncontroversial changes to fix misprints, typographical errors and the like. We've fixed this particular one in the published version I believe, so thanks Matthew. Skomorokh 06:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Structure

Special desk

We've been talking about how we need one, so let's formalize it here. ResMar 00:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Newsroom conversation

I really don't like storing special reports in progress on this page; we should create a special report desk and work out a submissions process, like with the opdesk. I said I'll work on it before; perhaps soon. ResMar 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've set up something here. ResMar 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ack, appreciate the initiative but I was going to suggest more consolidation rather than dispersal to low-traffic pages! One way or another though a complete restructuring of Signpost internal architecture and an overhaul of our guidance/submission system is definitely needed. Matter for the talkpage once this issue is in the can. Skomorokh 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with consolidation is that this current system of denoting everything here is very...cluttered. I don't see how we shouldn't have a separate desk for all the non-standard sections, as we do so with op eds, interviews, and book reviews. At the very worst the page could serve as a guideline. ResMar 01:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't ever find anything. Pages are so scattered, I only come across them accidently. Could there be a TOC or something to help those as disabled as I am? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Mathew that navigation is an issue; we have built up an edifice over the years without rhyme or reason that taken as a whole is neither intuitive or efficient. I propose overhauling the Signpost's page architecture so that it is much easier to find and navigate between guidelines, resources, collaboration areas and templates. This would incorporate splitting or consolidating existing pages as required; the newsroom, the various desks, and the guides for writers are in particular need of attention. I'd invite suggestions as to what criteria we ought to be keeping in mind for when a function requires its own page vs. when it is best incorporated into one of broader scope. Skomorokh 06:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Current editor in chief?

After Haeb stepped down and Jarry1250 filled in for a few weeks last summer, the Signpost installed Skomorokh and SMasters as joint editors. However, SMasters's real-life commitments have prevented him from publishing an issue since January and he hasn't edited Wikipedia for over a month. Since Skomorokh has been so engaged in discussions and has pushed out a new issue of the Signpost each week, would it make sense to elevate him to the editor-in-chief position? -Mabeenot (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly thought he was Chief already. Sko's been fantastic in my brief time working with him. If we need this to be official, I'd Support. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, but thinking selfishly, it would be great to have SMasters as the back-up when Sko's real-life workload becomes unbearable. Tony (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I completely concur. Lord Roem (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely honoured at this proposal, and greatly appreciate each the faith you've all shown. I think we should have this conversation in the broader context of what the Signpost needs right now and where we should be going; the current editorial arrangements, while they've enabled us to muddle through for the past few months, are unsustainable in the long run. I'll give extended thoughts on this later (and a proper response to the proposal), but there isn't an immediate rush, as I don't think any decisions should be made before we've heard from all our volunteers and had a proper discussion. Regards, Skomorokh 06:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Is this a renowned 1871 oil-on-canvas painting by American-born painter James McNeill Whistler, or a featured image on Wikipedia and Commons chosen for its high resolution, quality and encyclopaedic value? Signpost readers want to know

I move the following conversation here from my talkpage, so that we can collectively discuss and determine the outcome. Skomorokh 05:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Being new to the Signpost, I'm asking for some direction regarding "Featured content". Should the "Featured picture" blurb contain content unrelated to the image itself, but taken from articles that have not gone through any kind of vetting process, such as GA, FA, FL such as general information about a film's more recent box office in a blurb about an image of 1930s film poster? (Sometimes I've found, this additional information is inaccurate, so now I do more checking.) My thoughts were that the "Featured picture" blurbs should be about the image quality, what had to be done to make it "featured", technical aspects of the photo, etc. In other words, to educate the reader about the aspects of an image that an average reader may not be aware of. What do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, these are great questions, thanks for asking. I'm extremely busy today but should get a chance to look at this in the evening (UTC). Skomorokh 07:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also posted another concern in response to a topic at "Featured pictures" talk.[2] I worry that it poses a problem for Featured pictures that the successful nominations are dominated by one person. It's out of whack with the other featured process. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since I'm involved in both, I might as well weigh in. As I explained on Mathews' talk page, I feel strongly that there should be some context to allow readers to understand the image; we shouldn't just say "the image was promoted for its high resolution (5,000 x 3,000 pixels), sharp edges, and good framing". That is insanely subjective and technical, which will bore most readers. A little context doesn't hurt, and may interest readers into editing and fixing articles which need it.

As for the nominations, the need (or lack of it) to limit numbers of nominations should be handled by the projects. If, for example, the same name comes up 5 times, the Signpost can't just say "you've met your quota". That would be terrible journalism and go against the spirit of the newspaper. I've seen an editor successfully nominate five of his own works in a week; instead of complaining about too many nominations, I interviewed him, to try and draw more interest in the project. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is exactly my point:

  Amplexus (common toad) (nom; related article; related article) Creator:Bernie Kohl, nominator: Crisco 1492 on the basis of high resolution and quality, interesting topic (frogs mating). Photograph of the common toad mating.

That is easily one of the most uninformative write-ups I've ever seen, and I can't begin to understand why Mathew linked both articles the image is used in. It's been common for Signpost to link to only the article with the highest EV, otherwise images like the Mona Lisa would have 50 "related articles". Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also Skomorokh, has it ever been Signpost policy to only include content if it is cited in the article? Look at, for example, this edit. I think it detracts greatly from the write-up, especially since little is known about the portrait itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit indicates why we should not try to read minds. That was nowhere near why I nominated the image. Mathews edits have become misrepresentational. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mathew Crisco asked me to come here to respond. The first thing I want to say is that Crisco and Mathew have been doing a sterling job on FC. If I were to suggest anything, it would be to aim for slightly shorter blurbs.

  The issues raised above: I'm sure there's no Signpost policy about including only info from articles related to featured pics. It was my idea to include a "related article" piped link in the blurbs, which saved the need to cover the FP blurbs with blue links, since they're usually in the related article. Occasionally I wondered whether two related articles would be better, when cited at the nomination page, but always went for one for the sake of neatness and brevity (presumably they mutually wikilink). Here are some random comments about my experiences of reported FPCs: (i) only occasionally did I search further than the related articles to include extra information, but that this was no big deal (unless a contentious topic, I guess); (ii) it's not normal in the journalistic register to include refs, but occasionally I gave an external website, piped down to size; (iii) I found it problematic setting out multiple promotions by the same person in the same week, but I had no problem with the fact of the multiple nominations; (iv) one bias I did practice was not to report negatives much; (v) I was once roasted by Papa Whiskey Lima for not giving him adequate mention in the editing of an image, which I thought was very unfair; (v) my tendency was to treat the blurbs differently sometimes, so that one or two might have a quote from a reviewer, one or two might mention or sum up the reviewers' opinions, but most didn't, given unremarkable nom processes ... sometimes I mentioned technical reasons for promotion—mostly not. My eye was firmly on what makes a good read (provided it's accurate), under the assumption that it's hard to get readers to get to the end of a page (we have data only on hits, not how WPians read Signpost pages). Variety was a factor, attuned to the array of info readily available (given time constraints).

  The "subjective" comment above ... as a reader, I don't mind being told occasionally when reviewers praised technical aspects (but it would be tiresome if done as a formula), and I suppose the review process is always prone to subjectivity ... it is at FAC and FLC too, yes? "and nominated by Crisco 1492 because of the fame of its creator."—I'd tend to work a directly quoted fragment into the text, if Crisco had commented thus at the nom page. Same for "because it is a valuable and informative well-done photo (The nominator also added a possible crop)" ... needs to be quoted, I think, and it might be a bit vague to be useful in this context. PS I did get into trouble once for repeating a "fact" given by a nominator that turned out to be wrong; but I'd say in defence that FC reports what it sees on nom pages and takes information there in good faith. Perhaps that could be subject to stricter rules if journalists think it's necessary.

  Please, both of you, keep up the good work. I love reading the page each week. Tony (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, let me echo Tony in his praise and appreciation for the diligent work being done by both of you at the Featured content report in recent times; it genuinely is a pleasure to review. There are a lot of issues raised here, and all three of you will have had more experience in dealing with them than I, but let me unpack a few of them and see if I can offer direction as asked.

• Signifier vs signified: Should write-ups focus on the subject matter of the featured content, or the characteristics of the content itself? I think that the longstanding practice here has been to focus primarily on the subject matter of the featured content in question, but for a report on content judged to have met certain demanding thresholds, it would seem unusual not to touch on the quality or distinguishing features of that content. That said, blurbs along the lines of "image promoted for its high resolution, quality and encyclopaedic value" would make for extremely tedious reading before long (per Tony), as there is not a great deal of diversity in featured content nominations of media (i.e. sounds and pictures). So, I would tentatively propose that we adopt a practice of mentioning noteworthy (read: distinctive) qualities of the content, or debates thereon, that are raised in the nomination process; something along the lines of one sentence focusing on the nomination at the end of a blurb focusing on the subject matter itself. Does this sound workable?
• Quality control: Is it acceptable to take 1) non-peer reviewed (i.e. GA/FA/A-class/PR) and 2) otherwise unverified (i.e. no credible references) information from 3) articles other than that directly associated with the promotion, in describing featured content? Ideally, we would be in a position to fulfill the remit of the report with recourse only to verified information, but given the constraints of relying on Wikipedia, I think that requiring independent verification of every single factual claim is untenable. I would urge that potentially controversial claims, particularly those related to living persons, POV battlegrounds, negative information and so on, be investigated, but that otherwise there is a lot more reader value in adapting any relevant article content that passes the sniff test for the blurbs than adopting a strict verificationist approach whereby we either spend enourmous amounts of time to eke out a report or go to print with only the most cursory of information. Including a disclaimer to this effect is long overdue, I think.
• Linking best practices: This is another question that should be addressed by a Signpost editorial policy (more on that later), but for now, let me just say that I concur with Tony's thoughts on the matter – both that restricting links only to the directly relevant articles offers the best reader value, and that there may occasionally be more than one such appropriate article to link.
• Serial producers: My read on this is simply that while multiple nominations by a single editor in a short period of time may be an issue for the featured content processes (FAC restricts editors to one solo nomination at a time, IIRC), the brief of the Featured content reports impels us to give a comprehensive report on all content promoted to featured status in the previous week. Of course, if those nominators happen to be Signpost editors, as in the case of our mercurial Crisco, it would be best to get a second editor's input on the write-up.

Initial thoughts, Skomorokh 06:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mercurial, eh? Hope I'm not poisonous. Thanks for the feedback, both. If I don't misread you terribly, it is fine to give contextual information about the subject of piece of featured content, such as the director of a film, controversy over a painting, etc. That's more or less how I've done it.

For information included, I agree that it best to have information cited, but rarely do we have featured images for featured articles. Articles written explicitly for another main-page purpose, like a write-up on a painting done for DYK, will generally have better referencing than a long-standing article which happens to have a nice picture. If Wikipedia were to require editors to cite every bit of information in an article before nominating the image, FP would go the way of FT and Fportal... maybe 2 promotions a month, methinks.

For linking (and I don't recall this coming up), I agree that linking anything that isn't inherently pertinent to the blurb (like a previous failed nomination if discussed) is unnecessary.

Thank you both for your well-reasoned and even handed feedback. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The sniff test: oh, I like that! When Sko says: "So, I would tentatively propose that we adopt a practice of mentioning noteworthy (read: distinctive) qualities of the content, or debates thereon, that are raised in the nomination process; something along the lines of one sentence focusing on the nomination at the end of a blurb focusing on the subject matter itself.", I presume he means "mentioning only noteworthy" qualities. I still think it's an individual judgement call depending on the context, not to mention how many other such blurbs mention such qualities in the same edition. I'd ration them. Also, something I forgot to mention, which you guys have picked up, I think, is that preparing FC also relates to one's memory of recent editions, particularly in relation to which images are chosen. I sometimes deliberately ditched the idea of displaying a superb pic at the top because, well, we'd had too many bird pics that month. Tony (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the part that set this off was that the film Queen Christina may have featured the first lesbian kiss. Mathew objected, so I switched that it currently has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. He objected, I said that it was well received. I figure, if a film did well then the poster may be recognizable.

• You did not switch it, Crisco. I did.[3] MathewTownsend (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For the images, I think we have a fair balance for the lede. Last week, film poster. Week before, coin. Week before, a cathedral. We haven't really had an issue with images yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The week-by-week thing was just an aside. I think you guys do that well too. I do hope this duo team can continue. Tony (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one that removed "lesbian kisses", not Crisco.[4] Too much conflict of interest here and I don't like policing it. Too much dyk style of doing things. Most of the Featured pictures are Crisco's. The Featured nomination process is controlled by only a few editors and the nominations are superficial. Mostly, no thoughtful reasons are given for the nomination. Just "EV" if that, and little more. The way things are going now, there will be a preponderance of Featured pictures by Crisco in the foreseeable future as there is an inexhaustible supply of paintings by famous artists, posters and such. Rather than get caught up in being criticized for trying to balance what is obviously unbalanced, let Crisco handle it. I was hoping to have a reasoned discussion with Skomorokh. I guess not. I just now found this thread. It's already too long and intricate to answer my questions.So I bow out and let all of you handle it. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

However, I do wish my original question had been answered. I'm not willing to wade through all the subsequent unrelated comments. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tony's suggestion of shorter blurbs. Blurbs filled with tedious detail aren't considering the reader. I'm going to strive for shorter, more general blurbs that give the overall picture, sparing the minutia. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured pictures

I asked this question before but never got an answer. As it happens, one of the editors of Featured content is responsible for most of the Featured pictures each week. So inevitably often three and sometimes four of his featured pictures appear in the Featured content. I'm wondering how this should be handled, as FP is dominated by a handful of editors? It isn't a rigorous process on par with FA and FL. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When you have a regular task like this, you expose yourself to scrutiny when it involves your own work and a potential CoI. So I'm sure Crisco's aware he'd be criticised if he didn't treat his own promotions fairly in relation to the others. If you feel there are instances where this has not happened, perhaps you could follow it up with Skomorokh. Tony (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

well, this week he and I have argued (quite heatedly at times), as we are each quick on the trigger, but we seem to have resolved it. Hopefully the FP people can be persuaded that the caption matters, and such discussion should happen there and not in the middle of editing the Featured content. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I'm so pleased. The Signpost can't afford to lose either of you. I guess as a postscript I might say that because it's in a quite different register (something approaching the journalistic) from the rest of WP, the relationship between writers and readers is different, and that includes the way facts are handled. In a WP article, for example, a supporting reference at one step (in a wikilinked page) wouldn't be acceptable—indeed, WP articles are by policy not treated as RSs. But at FC, that's more normal, for a few good reasons.

Come to think of it, you guys, as writers, engineer a relationship between your text and images, the readers at large, the nominators, the reviewers, and those who run each forum. It could be complex, but usually pans out automatically without hassle in its own form of balance and neutrality. One of my stated agendas was to highlight the good work done by our featured-content creators. That would never do elsewhere; FC's one of the few chances we have to do this. Tony (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• This week seems to be okay so far. I'd just like to comment that I much prefer the current format over the old potpourri mix. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from the newsroom

Skomorokh, we need to talk about what the Discussion Report should look like after this. By the way, thanks for your help in pulling together the discussion report this week, looks fantastic! :) Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's something we should definitely do. I'm glad you appreciated my input last week; I was concerned you might have been discouraged by the perhaps heavy-handed nature of it in places. To get things rolling, would you like to give a response to my comment you link, and perhaps indicate your vision for what the Discussion report should look like, with regard to focus, temperament, editorial voice and so on? Skomorokh 06:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be more open and have the author's opinion throughout while providing the facts of discussions. I also would like to examine the process of discussion in addition to just a recap of discussions on Wikipedia. This would be more in line with the rest of the regular features that the Signpost has. I think this will be more engaging and interesting for the reader. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we should be allowing an author's opinions (as opposed to 'In the News' using others') in the SP's article space. That's what you guys created the Opinion desk for. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All reporting is coloured by (at the very least) journalistic decision making. I have no objection to opinionated reporting; perhaps it's all the better that it's openly opinionated. It adds flavour and interest to the report. Josh Parris 09:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

...upon which you'd lose readers, possibly to (a) rival paper(s) espousing to give a different point-of-view. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Journalism should have some artistic freedom, I would hope, where the writer can embellish the story to make it more engaging. That's why when we bring news sources into articles on Wikipedia, we sometimes have to tone down the writing. This is where I'd like to see the Discussion report. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's where we differ, because to me that looks like an attack on the ARS by the Signpost. Also some of the language used later (ex. 'oh what a pity') is a bit ... odd. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, this is what we ended up with. Which is a fair compromise between the strongly opinionated article before and a completely non-opinionated, facts only article. The entire second section is opinion. Seems acceptable. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have adequate controls at the moment to reign in wildly opinionated pieces, yet respecting our readers enough to offer some analysis atop bare facts. Josh Parris 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I find it hard to frame the "Discussion report", although I have a sense that it's not right yet. I know that Sko is keen that it be shaped so it performs a valuable/useful role in the publication. DR labours against the fact that (i) discussion is pretty bloated and everywhere for just about every active editor on WP (so who wants more?); (ii) the discussions that individual editors don't participate in are presumably distant from their core of interest, and thus may be hard to make interesting to the general readership; (iii) it's tricky, but by no means impossible, to present a neutral report that is still interesting—as a journalist, one is tempted to quote the juicy bits, but this could fan flames in a way that contradicts site policy. A few comments: the 19 March edition could have backgrounded the ARS in a little more detail ... what it is, who long it's been going, what it does (beyond the obviousness of its title). "At the time of writing, there were nine editors in support of the proposition that the ARS has engaged in canvassing". A few examples of accusations of canvassing might have been interesting—I found I was already losing interest by this time. Possibly a few quote-fragments worked in? Dank55 did a few DRs a while ago and used to include quotes, I recall. What does the "Discussions of interest" add that "Centralized discussions" lacks? (I ask not to be critical, but in analytical terms.) Tony (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should have a trial run so we can get the Discussion report back and rolling for next week's issue (April 9). I'll work to get the Discussion report to include important facts, quotes and a little bit of fluff (opinion) to make it interesting for next week's issue. Are there any other problems that need to be addressed? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

i'm not so sure whether i fully grasp the conceptional move proposed here and the one in regard to "letters to the editor" in the newsroom. the signpost isn't like "any good newspaper" (in offline-land) in the vital sense that the signpost isn't the primary i (or even best) instrument you have (as the reader or signpost-editor) to make your views on whatever publicly known. quiet the reserve, the signpost is (opinion pieces and the inevitable editorial judgement aside) level 3-focused (reporting what others say elsewhere (level 2) of something (level 1)) for good reasons. its hard to see how changing that by opening level 3 up to level 2 in an environment where level 1 & 2 are - unlike in offline-land - open to everybody and can to be conducted at (nearly) all places (call it wiki) would be beneficial for the signpost. especially since wrapping it all up neutrally is a key benefit to readers (i assume hardly anyone reads _all_ the debates covered). all said unless i missed something or the provided analogy wasn't supposed to work this way, regards -Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Small News

I recommend that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost have a link to Wikipedia:Small News.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Signing off

It was suggested above that the Signpost needs an editor-in-chief, and that I might be an appropriate candidate. As thoroughly as I agree with the former proposition, I cannot endorse the latter. Simply put, in recent weeks, professional and personal developments have left me with far too little time to function effectively as editor. Some of the practical consequences have included dormant desks languishing without attention, unanswered emails demoralising would-be contributors, and a lack of direction and co-ordination on multi-author reports compromising quality and coherence of coverage. Such a situation needs to end if the institution is to thrive.

The Signpost editor should be among the most actively engaged and best informed of Wikipedians. Alas, I simply do not have the time to keep up with the project, let alone effectively curate its essential developments. I greatly value the nine months I've spent contributing to the newspaper, but the circumstances in which I began that period – an avid reader and observer of Wikipedia and its travails lacking only a vector to express their interest – no longer hold. So, with regret, I am stepping down from all involvement for the foreseeable future. It's genuinely been a pleasure to work with such dedicated, disciplined and generous colleagues, and I wish you the greatest of success with what I remain convinced is a rewarding and crucially important endeavour. Respect, Skomorokh 03:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)