Talk:The Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleThe Signpost has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
March 1, 2016Articles for deletionKept
March 13, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
March 16, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
April 6, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 11, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
April 22, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 16, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Signpost publishes stories related to the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Foundation, and other Wikipedia-related projects?
Current status: Good article

Is it defunct?[edit]

Is The Signpost defunct? It hasn't published a new issue for three months. Not criticizing, just asking whether its status should be adjusted in this article. - Bri (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been curious about this as well... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We have a new issue today, so question is moot. - Bri (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Other projects[edit]

This article, quite early on, says that The Signpost is linked to other projects in the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikinews would be the obvious link here). So, is it really accurate to describe The Signpost as Wikipedia's newspaper?Vorbee (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no other newspaper-like periodically published thing, with its own masthead, editor in chief, columns, and other things that make a newspaper. So I think the answer is "yes" it is accurate to describe it as a newspaper. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
News outlet—no paper is involved. Tony (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor in Chief position[edit]

A "citation needed" tag was placed for 2017–2018 leadership events. It's hard because this internal diff is the only thing I know of announcing the change. I'm not aware of it being announced for the public. The only 2H 2017 "From the editors" was written by Bluerasberry. Not sure what else to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So how was the position decided? There must be some chat or process that led to it. Or was there an election we can link to?  — Amakuru (talk)
No election. De-facto recognition of the job Evad37 was doing. See discussion here, September 2017, confirming and congratulating Evad37 for taking up the "reigns". As far as I know all positions at The Signpost are by self-designation, there has never been any election since I became involved in June 2017. @Bluerasberry and Pine: can you confirm or deny this is how things work? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah OK. Well that conversation does seem to back that up. Evad drifted into the role by doing the actual work, and that conversation was what made it more formal. Presumably that's what you could link to from the article then. It's a primary source, but it's unlikely you'll find any secondary ones for that fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. I listed publisher as "The Signpost (reader page)", I'm sure it can be fixed if that is unclear or inaccurate. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Positions at The Signpost are by consensus following self-designation. I am not aware of consensus ever removing anyone from a post because I am not aware of there ever being conflict or controversy in the newsroom. People who are in the newsroom, even if they write articles, tend to seek to avoid editorializing to limit their labor.
In general in Wikipedia it is routine to name the editor of a publication based on primary sources following the common practice of naming one top person at organizations in any way possible, including by primary sources.
I see no reason either in the facts about The Signpost or in editing this wiki article to avoid naming the editor in chief. It does not seem urgent to me and I assume that Evad37 either appreciates the recognition or is at least indifferent. If an editor explicitly asked to not be named then I think wiki spirit and The Signpost could meet that request by making the odd accommodation of having no single named editor in chief. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors in chief have, as far as I remember, always taken on the position through non-standard means, like back-room discussion. I should know. Problem is: it's very hard to get anyone to commit to it, and has become harder to get them to stick around for long. Tony (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what sparked this discussion off, but FWIW for having jumped in with both feet just to prevent the Signpost from closing down altogether, I'm already being harassed and getting PA for what I did. Apart from that, it's a steep learning curve, and it's a lot more than I bargained for. I don't mind continuing to submit content every month, but the June issue can carry "We're hiring" on the masthead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
My memories of how the Signpost Editor-in-Chief position and other roles are selected are generally aligned with how others described the process above. As far as I know there has never been a public election similar to an RfA process. The lack of volunteers for the role, combined with those who accept the job generally having the support of the other regular Signpost contributors, have been factors in how people get the role. In my time at the Signpost, the newsroom regulars, especially the more senior ones, were generally good at developing consensus among ourselves. There was occasional friction, but on the whole I thought that we had a good team spirit. The ed17 might be willing to comment on how his selection as Editor-in-Chief happened, if you are interested. --Pine 04:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was privately asked to serve by a couple Signpost regulars who thought I was a good fit for the role, would be able and willing to further the journal's mission, and would be around for awhile. Other regulars agreed, and we announced it not long after. More recently, the handoffs seem to have been less formal, with people falling away without notice, and there may simply be no citation for those changes. (Also, a +1 to the problems named by Tony1—a steady and long-lasting hand on the tiller is something that could be real useful.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

See Former editor-in-chief, The ed17, noted that during his tenure from 2012 to 2015, the publication expanded its scope to report on the wider Wikimedia movement in addition to Wikipedia and its community.[citation needed] QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Credit for story break[edit]

I am not sure what the precedent is for detailing which stories in a publication get credit from other publications for breaking a story. If this is something we include in the bodies of articles, then here is a description of Smallbones for the The Signpost breaking a story. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Perhaps this is better discussed at Talk:Matthew Whitaker where your proposed change (presumably to #Early life and education) could be taken up by editors to that article? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)