This is The Signpost Newsroom, a place where The Signpost team can coordinate with writers, both regular and occasional, and people who have suggestions for topics to cover. See the boxes below if you have suggestions (something for the team to write about in regular columns), proposal/submissions (for articles you want to write/have written yourself), or want to create a pre-formatted draft article in your userspace, with helpful links and easy-to-edit syntax. Discussion occurs both here and in the SignpostDiscord.
Discussion of upcoming issues is done at the newsroom talk page. For general feedback on The Signpost as a whole, go to our talk page. To learn more about The Signpost, see our about page.
The Signpost currently has 5601 articles, 701 issues, and 13659 pages (4456 talk and 9203 non-talk).
To suggest a topic to be covered by The Signpost, simply click on the button below or post to our suggestions page manually. Example of good topics are
Editors who have done something extraordinary/wonderful
If you have an idea for an article you would like to write, you can submit it for review by the editorial team. You can do so by clicking the button below or by posting to our submissions page manually.
News articles should be kept relatively neutral and report on a specific piece of actual news. They can be on any topic of interest to Wikipedians, from general events, to technical news.
Opinion pieces are evaluate on originality, relevance to Wikipedians, and the quality of the arguments. They should provoke thought and encourage productive discussion.
Special pieces cover things that don't fall neatly in the above two categories. If it's interesting to you, it's likely interesting to someone else as well. Check with us and we'll see what can be done!
Create a draft
To create a draft of an article in your userspace, simply copy-paste {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} at Special:MyPage/Signpost draft (replacing USERNAME with your own username).
You can also use the button below. This will preload a form, which you can then save and edit. We recommend saving without making any edits to the preloaded form before starting to write your article.
Below here is an automatically generated master list of every page whose title starts with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/. It's automatically generated by SDZeroBot every day. Also consult the mockup page for the next issue to make sure all of their titles, images and blurbs are correct.
You should click the button to manually update it and make sure it's current before doing anything serious.
Note: There are also a bunch of things in /Drafts and /Next next issue. When prepping an issue, make sure that articles in this expand-o-box are accounted for.
Note: The below discussions are automatically transcluded from the newsroom talk page; to comment on a draft or submission, go there and create a section with the same name (i.e. "News and notes", "Arbitration report" etc).
@Bluerasberry: a correction is required on this paragraph: The Signpost made requests to see the deleted text with permission from Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Oversighters, who are moderators with specific and different user permission. Neither of those groups have access because of the black lock. No one in the Wikimedia community has access to the deleted text through the Wikimedia platform.
I’ve mentioned this briefly above, but I recommend amending all text about reliable sourcesas a factual statement in the upcoming issue, unless it's clear that these sources are only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia is determined by its contributors, so just because the community decides a source is 'reliable', it doesn't mean it's objectively reliable outside of Wikipedia. The Special report currently reads, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in reliable sources., and should be changed to something like, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in sources the Wikipedia community deems reliable. Svampesky (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: Perhaps, I am open to change, but I am generally resistant to the idea that Wikipedia's editorial process is fringe or that it needs explanation or justification. My belief is that there is a shared objective truth on what constitutes reliability. While there are exceptions and edge cases to anything, Wikipedia's process is not the underdog and there is no need to defend what we do. When the Wikipedia community deems something reliable, that is a reflection of normal global human consensus. BBC is among the challenged sources here, and the other sources seem aligned with BBC reporting. If someone wants to challenge whether BBC is reliable or legitimate journalism, then they are the ones that need to speak up. Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism.
These are not sources "only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community". These sources are the best the world has to offer in terms of journalism, and they are aligned with third party journalism reviews like Poynter Institute evaluation. Right? Am I addressing you entirely and directly? Please tell me more. Bluerasberry (talk)16:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism is a stance which I respectfully oppose. From a Google search of 'BBC bias' there are reports being published today—from other sources Wikipedia deems reliable—reporting on accusations of it having a pro-Israel bias. No source is absolutely reliable, and should not be labelled as 'reliable' as a fact. Svampesky (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: I am comfortable with anyone saying that BBC is biased, and that BBC is a bad source. It is still objectively among the very best journalism sources that humanity has produced, and for that reason, it is reliable. Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". No one should expect the term to indicate Platonic ideal or divine transcendence. Yes, BBC is absolutely reliable. It is reliable even if other, similarly reputable reliable sources publish contrary or conflicting claims. Journalism is among the humanities and as such, is achievable. No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement. BBC is objectively reliable journalism because it goes through all the processes and culture of journalism, regardless of any bias it has or its relative quality to any other journalism. Similarly, The Signpost is free to do journalism at the level that Wikipedia volunteers can achieve, because journalism's definition is a social construct designed to be achievable by typical humans doing things. The Signpost has a right to exist as reliable journalism without being a billion-dollar media house like BBC, because journalism is a thing that people do.
Your concerns are valid and I respect you answering the question, but life is for humans to do human activities. The words we use describe human levels of quality and human expectations. I think that you are missing the mark to expect more than more than the human culture of collaboration. I am not willing to take a defensive stand from low-effort, fringe actors saying that the BBC is not legitimate journalism. Without a thorough explanation from the underdog, dismissing BBC and similar is insincere trolling. I commend you for probing this but I think I am solidly aligned with other Wikipedia editors when I say that we are comfortable identifying, summarizing, and citing reliable sources, and there is a shared understanding of what this means that goes beyond only Wikipedia editorial culture. Bluerasberry (talk)17:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that a source is reliable, in a factual tone, does suggest it is absolutely reliable. I agree with No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement, which is why The Signpost shouldn't state that sources are 'reliable' in a definitive tone. If The Signpost is to have a broad reach, it shouldn't write in a tone that would only be understood by Wikipedians, and Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". needs to be clarified in the report to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, but The odd part from a Wikipedia editor perspective is that Asian News International seems more interested in challenging Wikipedia's way of summarizing and citing information from other sources, than it is in challenging the original journalists and news agencies misinterprets how damages would work in a legal setting. There would be more damage from alleged defamatory statements being permanently (re-)published on one of the most-visited websites—as a Wikipedia article serves as a go-to document for the general public about an organization—and less damage from it being published in a news report that people would likely forget by the next day. There is nothing odd about this, and to label it odd is entirely subjective for a news report, and misses this vital context. Svampesky (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table is generated by querying the database replica and is periodically updated by a bot.
Edits made within the table area will be removed on the next update!
