Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost

This is the Signpost central hub. To learn more about the Signpost, see our about page. To subscribe, see our subscriptions. To suggest coverage, see suggestions. For general feedback, see our talk page.


The Signpost is usually published over the weekend period and is currently on a fortnightly publication schedule. Signpost contributors can contact the editor-in-chief for updates on the publication date below. Once all tasks are complete, the publication manager will complete the publication process.

Current discussion[edit]

From the submissions desk[edit]

WikiJournal of Medicine[edit]

Needs update
@Evolution and evolvability: Sorry we missed responding to this for so long; we've been rather disorganised since February. Would you be able to write a short update as to how thing have been going so far in 2017, which we could include at the end of the piece? (perhaps as a postscript, or otherwise formatted so as to differentiate from the original) - Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Initiative for Open Citations[edit]

Moved here from the old Special desk - Evad37 [talk] 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Will be covered in the upcoming issue's News and Notes - Evad37 [talk] 01:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-23/News and notes - Evad37 [talk] 02:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post[edit]

  • Submission: User:Charles Matthews/Facto Post/Opinion piece
  • Submission type: Opinion
  • Author: Charles Matthews
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about Facto Post, a mass-message monthly Wikipedia newsletter, with a deliberately provocative brief, and why I am writing it. Its pilot issue of 14 June can be read here. One good reason for discussing it in the Signpost is my feeling that the current Wikimedia movement review is failing to be radical enough.Charles Matthews (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Feedback Charles, I read your editorial completely and came away a bit confused. I'm not sure readers will follow, either. Recommend sharpening the ed. around (1) the common sourcing issue and the solution you see in Wikidata (2) the editorial position of Facto Post and how it intends to address the problem. Hook the reader earlier in the editorial and make them want to find out what you are proposing. Try to put some meat on the bones of "citation reform and integration" – is this the crux of the proposal? Also, it's your call, but I sensed a bit of Eurocentrism in the middle of the next-to-last section that left me a bit put off. Bri (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the constructive feedback. Eurocentrism: yes, that is a crude name for something. "Make the European Web great again!" That sounds like, well, not what people want to read. But Berners-Lee is saying something that is in the same ballpark. So I'll work a bit on the piece. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Having just reviewed something else for Signpost, I think you might also want to see if this work by Arwid Lund speaks to the issue of tilting away from Silicon Valley approaches to all things social media/collaborative content. But in a more positive way than currently stated, perhaps. - Bri (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • I've cut all that out, leaving a piece fuller on "citation reform" as you suggest. Let me know if you think further changes are needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The state of taskforces in 2017[edit]

Needs writers

Also it explains why Task Forces are struggling to remain active22mikpau (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@22mikpau: This might work better as an opinion piece looking at the state of taskforces (or subprojects of other projects) and issues they face in general in 2017, and using Rick Riordan Task Force and its edit-a-thon as an example. Perhaps we could even get editors from other projects/task forces to give their views and ideas, and publish a few different pieces on the same topic alongside each other. - Evad37 [talk] 02:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37: That is a fantastic idea! I think we can keep most of what I've already written with a few tweaks here and there. I would be willing to find other editors you've mentioned above and see if they can give their two cents.22mikpau (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, 22mikpau; I've renamed this section accordingly. I'll also ask around, and we'll see what we both come up with. - Evad37 [talk] 02:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. good idea. I was contemplating opening a discussion on this very topic a few hours ago...which I might just now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
G'day, just dropping in in response to the note at WikiProject Military History. Can you just clarify, WRT this do you mean the project overall, or our internal taskforces? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Probably leaning more towards the general situation across the site... but using the internal MILHIST taskforces as examples of what could be done, or what has and hasn't worked, or something like that, would also be fine. - Evad37 [talk] 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia competitors[edit]

Needs drafting
  • Good idea Eddie891, I think this is something Signpost readers would be interested in. There are a number of these "...pidias" out there, some focused on specific topics, areas of interest. Don't know if you would care to include mention of Simple English Wikipedia. JoeHebda • (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thumbs up Should be interesting - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Competitors? I don't remember reading anything in our prime objective, or the five pillars, or the core content policies about there being a competition. Perhaps we and (more importantly) our readers might be better off if we think of other encyclopedias as enterprises we can work with or learn from (if nothing else, from their mistakes), rather than competitors that we need to "beat". We're here to build an encyclopedia, not win a competition. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Next issue[edit]

Discussion here is archived after the publication of each issue
  • We're now published! A big Face-smile.svg Thank you to all contributors to this issue. Next issue date: 7 July 2017 - Evad37 [talk] 09:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind, a lot of North American editors may be preoccupied with Independence Day and Canada Day around that time. - Bri (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's see how we go, we can delay publication if necessary - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking really good! Delightful. – SJ + 05:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Hexatekin (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Huge credits to Evad for getting out this issue on time! And yes, let's try to keep the planned publication date with the upcoming issue too - I'll do my part with the research section. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Article status[edit]

Next issue: Current subpages

Irregular articles

See current proposals Add irregular article

News and notes

Not started

In the media

Not started

Discussion report

Not started

WikiProject report

(@Jamesjpk and Megalibrarygirl: you can update this when the status changes - Evad37 [talk] 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC))

Featured content

In progress

Arbitration report

Not started

Traffic report

Not started

Technology report

Not started


Not started


Not started

Use the Labs Tool to simplify importing.

Recent research

Not started

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its seventh volume, still catching up on our monthly schedule after the Signpost hiatus earlier this year). Help is welcome to review and/or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)



Needs gallery of contestants' work (e.g. previous issues: 1, 2)

postponed until after round three ends

Regular responsibilities[edit]

Editorial board[edit]

WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg For more on Signpost administration see our coordination guidelines (being revised, see here for more current information).
Task User Backup
Editor-in-chief Pete Forsyth
Editor emeritus Go Phightins!
Content editors
News Tony1, Milowent, Pete Forsyth
Features (open)
Editorial (open)
Special reports and interlanguage desk Tony1
Publication editors
Publication manager
Design editor (open)
Social media coordinator (open)
Copy editor Montanabw Barbara (WVS) - I can be a proofreader


WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg For more on the responsibilities of being a regular writer see our content guidelines.
Feature Lead editor(s) Contributing writer(s)
News and notesR Peteforsyth Tony1, Go Phightins!
In the mediaR Milowent Peteforsyth, 3family6
WikiProject reportRD Megalibrarygirl
Discussion reportR Esquivalience
Featured contentR Armbrust
Arbitration reportR GamerPro64
Technology reportR (open) Evad37
Traffic report Serendipodous, Milowent EllenCT, Maplestrip, JFG
Recent research
(last issue of each month)
Tbayer (WMF) In collaboration with the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
Copy-editors Montanabw
Backup writer (open) (open)
  • EllenCT (Traffic, Tech, Discussion, CEing)