Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/SUBMIT
Submission Desk


The Signpost
The Signpost
(talk  · chat)
Recent changes:
main · talk
Submissions archives
Settings:
Sections are archived by ClueBot III when marked with {{completed}} or {{close}})


Submission desk

[edit]

Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Declined

On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.

Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: OpenSexism
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Submission(crossword)

[edit]
  • Submission:User:Spongebob796
  • Column:Crosssword
  • Author:Spongebob796
  • Discussion:
    I'm, uh not an WP Signpost writer nor editor, but I'm interested to make an Wikipedia crossword, which will have relevant information from the articles I have come across. This will also have Wikipedia terms, obviously, and words that are related to intresting information.Spongebob796 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject report with a focus on active Wiki Fixup Projects

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Needs clarification
@Kazamzam I'd be curious about what kind of events these projects work on, e.g. drives, and why do individuals affiliate with the projects, when many people engage in these activities uncoordinated? I like your focus/question on bots for example. Choosing multiple projects to profile is atypical, so clarity why you choose the projects you did, would make sense, for example why not copyrighters guild, NPP, AfC (other than fact they're active?) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam also check out the archive for past inspiration, specifically Article rescue squadron. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission:
  • Column: Book review
  • Author: Sgerbic
  • Discussion:

I have written a review of Stephen Harrisons new book "The Editors" and would like to submit for publication here in The Signpost. This is my first attempt to submit to the newsletter and if I am doing this incorrectly I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic. Do you have a link to the draft that you'd like to include here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have it saved in a word doc, can I email it to someone? Sgerbic (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good spot for it might be your userspace. You can create any page you want if you prefix it with User:Sgerbic/. So for example, User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors. See above for more examples :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgerbic: Post soon if you want review for the next issue. Otherwise no big deal, can go into following issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm traveling for a few more days and then I will when I get to my computer.Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made the User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors live. Now what happens? Sgerbic (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a valuable topic for the Signpost. Looking forward to reading the review!
Note that the book is not published yet ("Available August 6th" according to this post by the author, which btw also has some interesting background about the book's genesis that might be worth mentioning).
I know that pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish this review only when the book is actually available to the public. In any case, you might want to disclose that the review is based on an advance copy.
By the way, the "Editorial Reviews" section of the book's Amazon page and the author's own website already highlight a blurb attributed to the Signpost:

“The great Wikipedia novel. There’s a new adventure on almost every page, and it’s hard to stop reading as you fall down the rabbit hole.”

It appears that this quote is taken from a brief note that Smallbones wrote three and a half years ago in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Odd bits, referring an earlier work-in-progress version of the book (then tentatively titled "Infodemic", with Five sample chapters [having been] available here).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Updated blurb attribution HaeB (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and has potential, may be condign to run this alongside the release of the book as HaeB says. jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I am finished fussing with my article and have uploaded a photo of me and my reading helpers to WikiMediaCommons if you want to use it with The Signpost. Thanks all. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published in issue 20:14 Book report.

WikiProject Report: The Big Ones

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: —
  • Column: WikiProject Report
  • Author: Joe Roe
  • Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.
I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Wikipedia. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers is one measure of the biggest. Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are not so well known. Besides the ones you named,Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies have their influence.
Among all of these, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris 2024

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Support to publication. Gallery and opinion are both occupied for the next issue, so Serendipity seems like a fit, per Clovermoss' piece. The headline What it was like to be a Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics might be better suited, Summer seems redundant. Svampesky (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change the headline as you see fit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published, thank you very much, this was a good post.  Done jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book Review

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

I've written a review of "The Editors" at User:WereSpielChequers/Infopedium ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussion
Published in issue 20:14 Book report. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCWC article (to be titled)

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Looks publishable to me, but extensive copy editing needed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - i'd ideally like it to be published in this issue, and have done some more copyediting to that end. not sure whether to keep the flagicons? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published in issue 20:14 "Contest". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea ("Why you should take more pictures and upload them to Commons")

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Scheduled

Not sure what category this would go under, but I was proposing encouragement and advice for Wikipedians(especially those who are not skilled photographers) to take more pictures of subjects that are likely to be encyclopedically valuable. I can illustrate with some pretty pictures I have uploaded and added to Wikipedia articles recently. Mention tools such as press passes and wikishootme. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, JPxG Is there any interest is this content? If so, I'd be happy to write it up for the next signpost edition. I think it could go under tips and tricks or gallery. (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like it. jp×g🗯️ 03:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe/Why you should take more pictures and upload them to Commons (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled for 20:15 "Gallery". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highlights from the fiscal year 2023-2024 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Needs discussion
Hey @JPxG: just flagging that this piece is now ready for review. Thanks! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is basically identical to this recent Diff post, something that should be disclosed both as part of a submission and in the version published here. Basically every publication that solicits submissions will want to know whether they are getting original content or a syndication of something previously published elsewhere. I would think that most communications professionals know this, but perhaps it is worth clarifying it in this page's header (which currently already strongly hints that republication of finished pieces from elsewhere is not the norm, e.g. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story etc).
I'm still curious how the "News from the WMF" slot transformed from something for which the Signpost's editorial team would independently select a post from the WMF's Diff blog for republication to something that the WMF apparently sees as their prerogative to fill proactively. Having said that, the current submission does cover an important topic, and given that the Signpost's independent coverage of these audit reports by User:Jayen466 has often been highly negative, I totally understand the desire to get ahead of it this time.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, HaeB. I don't think I have any concerns at the moment: we finally have public, audited accounts for the Endowment, and all the fundraising banners I have read this year seemed on the right side of the red line. (The emails are still a bit pushy, but then that is a slightly different audience.) So as things stand right now, I don't see a reason for writing a critical piece. The 990 forms next May might be more deserving of a standalone piece by the Signpost team. Regards, Andreas JN466 18:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=1258013410"