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.
Submission deadline: 4 days' time! Publication scheduled for late Wednesday, July 8, 2015.
Once all tasks are complete, editor(s)-in-chief Gamaliel or Go Phightins! will complete the publication process.
Our current standard weekly schedule:
- Thursday–Sunday: start. Start all pages that are to be included in the next edition, either on-wiki or in Google Docs. Please note that "News and notes", "In the media", and the "Arbitration report" are typically drafted in the latter, but suggestions for them are always welcome through our suggestions page. Note that Featured content, due to using a weekly schedule based on WP:GO, will not have a finalized content list until the Sunday (UTC) starts, and will thus usually be a little bit behind the others at this point.
- Monday: draft. A rough outline of topics to be covered should be in place by the middle of Monday, so that if a regular reporter is unavailable, the editor can find a replacement for that week.
- Tuesday, early Wednesday: mature versions. Aim to have reasonably mature drafts of all pages for comments by the managing editors, fellow journalists, and other interested editors. Signpost editors recommend any structural changes, reductions in length, expansions in scope, necessary coordination between pages, postponement to subsequent issue.
- Wednesday: finish! Last-minute tweaks and copy-editors go through the drafts; publication in the evening. However, due to its prominent position at Portal:Featured content, the Signpost cannot publish if every single section of the Featured Content report isn't finished, and this section can't even really be started until Sunday mornings. Please pitch in if Featured Content is falling behind.
Ideas for Signpost features can be pitched and discussed by any interested parties here. Items should be listed directly at the opinion desk
or the special desk
, submissions from which are automatically transcluded here.
From the opinion desk
The following proposals have been transcluded from the opinion desk
Wikimedia Conference 2015: Challenges and opportunities for WMF and affiliates
- Discussed previously by email with the EICs.
- Hi Pine. I talked to some of the editorial board about the piece, and we were talking about the structure as it stands. There are two choices, basically: 1) it can be a stand-alone "travelogue", which is sort of what it is now or b) it can be an op-ed analyzing the conference from the perspective of an attendee. Which direction do you want to go? Go Phightins! 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Go Phightins!: calling this a travelogue is fine. I'm ready to be done with it. I've boldly added it to the TOC for this week and called it a travelogue. --Pine✉ 04:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Pine: Tony was acting on behalf of the editorial board with his revisions to your travelogue. In all honesty, it is long, and many sections are too detailed. We need to streamline much of the content to have reader appeal, and we think some of the images should be placed in an accompanying gallery to reduce vertical space. Having been in our shoes before, I know you can understand our predicament. If you would prefer, we could move the unabridged draft to your userspace and link to it as a NAN in brief. Let us know. -- Go Phightins! 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Go Phightins!: I'm fine with shortening the report, but I wish you would have discussed that with me instead of asking Tony to do it. Anyway, what I suggest is breaking the travelogue into a 3 part series. We did something similar last year with my Wikimedia in Education series, which started as a long one-part report and turned into a series. If this is ok with you then I'll break up WMCON report into a series. --Pine✉ 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Pine: Pine, it is not about the length, it is about the level of detail. We have decided that we need to make cuts in order to facilitate reader interest. Due respect, readers will not be interested in what movies you watched on your flight over, with whom you ate breakfast, or even about the history of Wikimedia Cascadia, etc. No matter how many installments this is presented in, it is too detailed. Go Phightins! 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Go Phightins!, there are a couple of points to having those sections in there. First, this is intended to be a travelogue and sort of autobiographical. The reason that is important is that this isn't the cut-and-dry WMDE grant report or list of official follow-up activities; this is my subjective report about the conference, and it's important that readers understand the perspective from which the report was written. Second, those sections are intended to humanize the author of the report. I realize that some Wikipedians have a cut-to-the-chase, just-the-facts mentality that is appropriate for writing many content articles, but that approach is suboptimal when writing what is inherently a subjective report. I could shorten the report by cutting out most of it and going straight to the conclusions section, but I think that would deprive readers of a great deal of information that they might find useful for understanding how I came to those conclusions, and would also deprive readers of links and imagery that would be helpful to people who might have been unable to attend the conference but would like to get a feel for the experience. --Pine✉ 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pine, the personal stuff needs to be treated with care. That you had breakfast each day is not something you'd even bother to write home about. I'd remove the trivia. And the photographs are huge lumps in whatever narrative there is. It's a very disjointed effect. Meeting x and y on the street could well be a slight breach of their privacy. Tony (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Given the large number of pictures I suggest moving to a slideshow format, something like this. And absolutely removing the airplanes-and-hotels cruft. ResMar 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, given the consensus here, I'll work on shortening the piece sometime next week. --Pine✉ 05:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Better now? The entire travel section is gone from the first part, and I made a few other tweaks to remove some of the lighter material. I left the photos as they are, since I think that they are helpful for understanding the conference. Pinging Gamaliel, Tony1 and Resident Mario. --Pine✉ 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
From the special desk
The following proposals have been transcluded from the special desk
This space is for irregular reports which do not belong to categories above.
The following proposals have been transcluded from the review desk
This space is for editors sharing internal ideas about topics or issues the Signpost should focus on or find writers to address, but for which reports or proposals have not yet been drafted. Items here are automatically transcluded to the opinion and special desks so that contributing editors may be aware of our current editorial focus.
- Copyright: How overly strict copyright limits are hurting Wikimedia contributors? Alternatively, how Wikimedia contributors' copyrights are violated on a daily basis?
- Public release I've seen a couple of stories about major releases of materials into the Creative Commons of large numbers of literary and scholarly works in the languages of India, specifically Kannada and Tamil, thanks to the efforts of Wikipedians. Perhaps a talk with some of the participants or an overview of these kinds of efforts?
- LangCom: LangCom seems to have ossified, how come?
Note from editor(s)-in-chief
Great issue everyone! Thanks to everyone for your contributions. Gamaliel has the helm by his lonesome for the next two weeks in my absence. I trust all is under control. Thanks again! Go Phightins! 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)