Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Newsroom improvements and related things

I've overhauled a lot of little things here and there. Here are some of the highlights

  • We now have an improved deadline tracker. The big changes are that the tracker is now full width, rather than fixed width in the noticebox, so it will look better at all scales, and it now features an exact countdown during the last week before publication. The UTC time now links to a timezone converter, so people can easily figure out what local time that means for them. It is also very straightforward to update for non-techies. The deadline tracker is featured on both the newsroom and the newsroom's talk page, but you can transclude it on other pages (e.g. your user page) if you want.
  • The newsroom now features recent change links for both the current issue (including reader comments) and the next issue, for easy review of what's being written. We also have an improved task tracker. The big changes are it now takes up much less vertical space, so you don't have to scroll up/down as much as before. However, smaller changes are
    • A new |Final-approval=y parameter, to be used when the EIC give their final approval for publication.
    • |Ready-for-copyedit=y now displays Nota bene* instead of checkY, to signal a call to action, rather than a completed stage
    • |Copyedit-done=y now hides Ready for Copyedit item the checklist, since the call to action has either been answered, or never issued
    • |Final-approval=y automatically sets |Status=Done and vice versa, because they mean the same thing.
  • A reduction of vertical space use in the 'banner space' at the top of this page see old page.
  • A better organized {{Signpost/Templates/Navigation}} see old version.

For some future changes,

  •  Done {{Signpost series}} is now much improved. It displays the top 5 most recent articles by default. I have also started the 2018 and 2019 indices so that the tag manager works on 2018 and 2019 Signpost articles.
  • I'll be working with User:Tbayer (WMF) and others to develop {{Signpost/Research quote}} to improve readability and ease of formatting of the Recent Research column
  •  Done Make {{Signpost draft}} a bit more useful / more closely match the newsroom task tracker.
  •  Done Automated the most tedious aspects of the newsroom
  •  Done Uniformize/improve the suggestion/submission/draft creation process. This was split on multiple pages, with buttons that were inconsistent and not the most user friendly. The buttons have been made consistent, and new preloaded forms have been created to make this process as painless as possible. There might be some possible centralization to do, but for now, this is no longer terrible / unfriendly to newcomers
  •  In progress Improving pre-loaded forms for several columns, to make it easier to write articles

If you have suggestions of where things are disorganized or could use some polish, let me know and I'll do my best to look at them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that the {{Signpost draft}} template is used by the publication script – what changes were you thinking of making? - Evad37 [talk] 00:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Mostly adding a few links to resources/guides/newsroom to the template, and inserting some comments in the parameters when preloading. I don't believe this should break any script, but I'll ping you on any change I make to make sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I might add a ready for copyediting parameter and rename some of them to match the newsroom templates parameters. This would likely allow bots to maintain the newsroom trackers. This is something that might require updates to scripts, but fairly trivial ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: see {{Signpost draft/sandbox}}. Some parameter names have been updated, and some are new. This it not live yet, but that's the direction I'm thinking of going. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Submissions

@Smallbones: there's a few of my submissions that are pending there. If you could take a look and give me a thumbs up/down for them, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's slow down some here. The short answer is that all 3 of these articles are too different from our normal material, The Signpost will continue to publish the same type of material its published for the last 5 years until a restructuring is decided on. Above I suggested we do a restructuring over about 6 months. Let's do it in an orderly manner.
  • 1st we have to figure out how decisions are going to be made. I'd like to get this straight before we dive off into deep water. I've suggested the simplest structure I can imagine would work here: a 3 person editorial board, which focuses on a commitment to long term plans, general oversight, emergencies and succession planning; the contributors, who contribute whatever writing or copyediting they'd like, raise questions and give their opinions on policies and long term plans, elect the editorial board and EiC; and the editor-in-chief, who recruits contributors, gives editing services to the contributors, puts together the issue from the raw material offered, and certifies it as compliant with Wikipedia rules, before sending it off to the publisher.
    • I don't want this to be a one-man show. It can't be done that way, there's just too much work. It wouldn't be fair to me or anybody else to try to make any decision without some structure. If you want just one unilateral decision from me, it will be this "I'll assume that the above is how decisions will be made. I'll appoint the 3rd person to the editorial board, until we can have elections. I'll consider contributors to include anybody who has a byline or done substantial copyediting over the last 6 months." Otherwise, please suggest your own structure. No structure is not an option. Let's get this settled this month, before the 15th.
  • 2nd month - review the editorial standards
  • 3rd month - decide what subject material to cover, what rubrics (titles or categories such as "In the media", "News and notes", etc) we're going to use.
  • 4th month - decide what tools we need, e.g. technology or financing (if any)
  • 5th month - get the tools in place and gradually implement them.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how things being 'different from regular columns' is particular problematic. Special pieces are the best way to generate enthusiasm. Sure, beat reporting belongs here, but I'm not much interested in doing that. I'm not much interested in reading that myself either. We have momentum here, let's keep it going. Delaying things by 6 months or any other arbitrary deadline really achieves nothing but smothering enthusiasm. The Signpost has three main purposes: 1) Inform the community, #2) Entertain, 3) To be the best space available to present ideas, ... op-eds, and special reports from the community. My submissions are solid pieces, they fit those criteria, and baring actual problems, they should be published. They certainly merit more consideration for publication than "they're too different, we'll see in 6 months." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Readers have come to expect certain types of coverage in certain areas. So a "how to fix citations" article isn't at all on their minds IMHO when they come here and they'll likely just drop us if we don't meet their expectations. So please do outline, how do you think we should make decisions here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
A tips and tricks column meets the purpose of informing the community about existing things they may not know about. This particular piece incorporate major improvements to citation bot and to the citation expander gadget that have been made over the last year and a half. Readers have expected certain types of coverage, yes, but I'm not proposing we axe the traffic report here, I'm proposing we add informational pieces on special topics of interest to the community. Help:Citing sources is viewed roughly ~83,000 times per month. This is clearly a high-interest area, given how citations are critical to Wikipedia's mission, and this a column with plenty of long term potential, given how vast Wikipedia is. And readers have specifically mentioned citations in the past (see [1], search for "cite web" on p. 12/14, and "favorite Wikipedia tools" p. 13 and "tools, tips, etc" on p. 15 for tips and tricks in general.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring

I won't be completely off-Wiki for the next week, I'll stop in here briefly a couple of times each day. I'd like to get a conversation going about some gradual restructuring - say over 6 months. Somebody suggested that we review our standards for publication and put them all on one page so everybody knows what we expect before writing. I'll target that for month 2 if nobody minds.

A prerequisite for that would be an organizational structure - how do we make decisions? who is responsible for what?. I'll target that for this month, but let's keep it simple. I'll suggest having a 3 person elected editorial board that makes all long term decisions. Keeping it real simple, let me suggest 3 year staggered terms, and it should include the publisher, an editor emeritus, and 1 who could be anybody (staffer/reader etc.) Major duties could be continuity planning - e.g. what happens if the EIC resigns, closing staff discussions, telling the EIC that he/she made a mistake or even removing the EIC.

The EIC I see as the low person on the totem pole. He/she gets the blame if the paper doesn't get published on time, has to let (or convince) the staff get the majority of the work done, bring in new contributors, or do the work him/herself. In the last 2 weeks before publication that may involve some pretty abrupt no-you-can't-do-that's, or "sure just do it and get it right", or "let's get the opinion of the staff". Putting out a newspaper on a deadline isn't always a soft-and-gentle consensus process.

The 1st 2 weeks of the month should be dominated by the staff. Who's got ideas on what to publish, what changes should be made in the mix of stories. Plus actually getting the stories started. And "RFCs" on major changes which should be signed off on by the editorial board. But who is the staff? I'll suggest a working definition of "anybody who has a byline or any other significant contribution in the last 6 months." Keeping the governance open to any Wikipedian at all times would open the doors to disruption by folks with agendas or grievances who might not get anything done. Let 'em put in some work first before "getting a vote."

BTW, I'd like to work on a Walter Alston contract - let me know before the 15th of the month via RfC that you have a replacement EiC and I'll step down. There's no job security for EiCs anyway. I'll give 2 months notice (if needed) if I plan on leaving. Standard Wikipedia pay, health insurance, and vacations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather keep things as fluid in terms of the Signpost organigram. It's not that a clear structure can't work, it's that editors tend to come and go and we just have to deal with that. Having a well-defined organigram isn't the point of the Signpost, the point is to have a quality internal newspaper. Wikipedia is blob of chaos that self-organizes according to the whims of those that happen to be there on a given day, and I don't see the Signpost being very different in the long run. So let's not fight the blob of chaos too much. People can take on the responsibilities as they want, with the collective group stepping in to patch in the holes when we get them. That's not to say that we shouldn't make efforts to have a bit of structure when we can, or stop trying to do outreach/call for writers, but as long as there's a clear EiC (or a delegate of the EiC when the EiC can't be around), then the real structure of the Signpost is simply write something → ??? → get EiC approval.
I feel where we can make the most immediate impact is in the ??? part of that structure. Streamlining the drafting/submission process, and centralizing our advice, centralizing discussions pages so they're less spread out. We could also make an impact in the write something part, by scriptifying a lot of repetitive/cookie cutter aspects of certain columns. For example, the Featured content column is something that should be relatively easy to scriptify, which would significantly cut down on how time consuming it is to write it, with whoever writes it being able to focus on layout and review, rather than gathering every piece of featured content themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on a mainspace article about Quadriga Fintech Solutions. The company's CEO died and only he held the passwords to accounts worth about $130 million. Contingency (or succession) planning is important. The obvious place for succession planning is with the editorial board. Lack of this planning almost killed the Signpost at least twice IMHO. There are other things only a board can do at short notice, e.g. removing the EiC for cause. I really wouldn't mind being removed (e.g. for incompetence) but I really don't want to be the final Signpost EiC. This is just "the collective group stepping in to patch in the holes" which you mentioned above - and an obvious hole.
The collective (team, staff, contributors - pick your favorite word) is clearly going to have the major role in governance here. It's needed e.g. to legitimize the editorial board's role (by electing them), selecting the EiC (when there's time), and actually writing the newspaper articles. It's not necessarily good for quick decision making and making a commitment to follow thru on long-term planning.
We do need to define "who is on the staff? who is a voter?" It ultimately should be open to every Wikipedian who has shown enough commitment to getting the Signpost out. But I don't think it should be completely open to waves of newbies driven by some political, commercial, or other interest. We need to have legitimacy and independence to stand up where necessary to the WMF, ArbCom, admins, businesses, political parties, etc. I think a "mostly open in the short-term, completely open in the long-term" model would be best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Structure at the top is good, but I think it should just be a straight up community-appointed EiC (which you've been) + EiC delegates picked by the EiC, since the EiC who they'd trust with that role and who they work best with. These EiC delegates would default to being interim EiCs should the EiC resign/leave, up until the next EiC is selected. For the rest of the "staff/editorial board", we're not at a point where interest is high enough that we can be too picky with who helps, and start firing/appointing people according to a 'staffing policy' or a formal process or whatever. If you want to get involved, get involved. If trolls get on board, the EiC can step in.
As for who gets to vote on the EiC, I'd say keep it simple and go 500/30, with an admin or 'crat for closer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we limit who can contribute to The Signpost, only that "to get a formal vote" would require that a Signpost newbie wait a month (to the next issue) and anybody who contributed in the last 6 months has a vote. I don't see the editorial board being much different than what we effectively have now. It's clear that @Chris troutman and Evad37: are doing a good job and I'd be perfectly happy to see them continue, with a couple extra defined but rarely used tasks, and a third person to represent all Wikipedians who have an ongoing interest in The Signpost, to break tie votes. I would not run for the 3rd position, but at the proper time and the right conditions might run for the "editor emeritus" position :-). Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
My personal opinion is there isn't enough interest in the editor-in-chief position to warrant community elections for it. Additionally, I don't really like the idea of it being a position that's lobbied for. On the other hand, if most of the time there is only one volunteer stepping forward, it probably won't matter much either way. isaacl (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Without commenting on the restructuring proposal (I agree those doing the work should decide on the structure that suits them), I suggest to plan for succession, there could be a deputy editor-in-chief who would split duties with the editor-in-chief. The issue though is finding someone with sufficient time to invest in the role. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We could get certain benefits and adopt customs and social infrastructure if The Signpost team registered as a meta:Wikimedia user groups. If there is a will to formalize then I could assist with this. My recommendation would be to found the organization with explicit statements on capping the time commitment and bureaucracy to a minimum. Advantages of this would include increased certainty about succession, organizational representation in global Wikimedia decisions, robustness in responding to mistakes and controversy, and increased legitimacy as a news publication. Disadvantages of this would include a tendency toward bureaucracy, increased risk of mismanagement until and unless there is a membership base to gain the benefit of wiki-style governance, a misalignment between the current contributors interest in presenting journalism versus running an organization, and a requirement for about 5 people to have a few virtual conferences to confirm a shared vision in founding. I expect that eventually The Signpost will adopt this organizational system just because it has proven so useful for similar wiki community organizations, but I am not sure now is the time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I like the idea of a User group, but that might take a few months and we'd still have to organize it, e.g. most user groups have "officers" or similar, or just 2 people in charge of keeping in contact with the WMF. Some structure is required.
Top point Editorial board; bottom point Editor in chief, right-hand point contributors
I currently see no structure at work here. I only want the simplest possible decision making structure here. Headbomb mentioned an organigram or organizational chart (that seems like it's getting too complicated already - but here is my proposed chart). If we just describe what are the normal relations between the 3 points, we'll have an organizational structure. I can then figure out what decisions I can make, what the editorial board can make, and what the contributors can make. If I can't understand these relations - I can't do my job. If it's just chaos, nobody can do their job. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The ideal structure, for me, is a writer-focused structure, open to whoever wants to do the actual work.

  • Regular columns: The regular writer gets priority / is assumed to write the column. If no regular writer exist, or is away, anyone can become the regular writer by simply stepping up. EiC gets a veto on staffing or final publication if there's an issue.
  • Special columns: Open to everyone. Editors curate. EiC gets a veto if there's an issue.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks for presenting this diagram. This diagram is the way editorial process should work, but it misses the foundational challenge our bigger problem is in publishing and not in editorial process. You did some automation to relieve some publishing burden, so big thanks for that intervention right where it is most needed. The other difficult parts are making it easy to execute the publication when the EiC says go and making sure that first-time contributors can execute the draft template generator. Right now we are still in the situation where the editors are also like to contribute labor for content writing, publishing, content submission etc. If we had faith that new contributors could make submissions and get them published then I think it would be easier to develop the editorial process. We seem closer to ease of publication than ever before. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: if you mean the diagram on the right, that's Smallbones's diagram, and I can't say I understand it much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I also agree with you that getting submissions in and feature writing from the community is where the focus should be, since that is the purpose of the Signpost but judging from the response below in submissions that doesn't seem to concern Smallbones very much. That is worrisome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Email a private tip

This goes to the email of User:Wikipedia Signpost. Who controls this account? Should we deprecated this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that account is a bot that was deactivated a year ago... we should definitely update that function. Not sure how though. ♦AcoriSage 17:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It is, but the email function would still work. I think it would be clearer to everyone if we either replaced the email recipient by the EiC, or simply deprecated private tips. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably the easiest way to deal with this is to have the email sent to me via Special:EmailUser/Smallbones. If its been deactivated or ignored for years then very likely there will be no or few emails for the intermediate future. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Updated so that emails go to EiC. Not sure there's going to be much, but in case, at least now they'll get picked up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Signpost/Recent changes

The Newsroom now features a list of links to other Signpost-like publications, as determined through Wikidata. For now, I kept all the links up, but I feel that we're not getting much value from inactive newletters and reposts of English stuff.

If you know of missing newsletters (or if the Korean Wikipedia has its own non-Signpost newsletter), please let me know and I'll update the table! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Next issue mockup

I made a live mockup version of what next issue would look like

@Evad37 and Chris troutman: should be interested by this. This will likely require a small update to the publishing script to handle this upon publishing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd need to see the explicit approval from @Chris troutman: before approving this. It's too late to make technical changes to the publishing process without 100% testing. Chris is the person who would be most affected by this so he, at least, would need to give approval before this goes forward.
In the future, let's set a cutoff of the 5th of the month for proposing technical changes, and the 10th for getting full approval from 1) the contributors as a group and 2) from the publisher. Only in that way can we be sure that the change is A) needed and B) reliable enough to not mess up the publishing process. Thanks for your enthusiasm in getting this done, but we need to go about it in an orderly process. Everybody should have the chance to thoroughly review and vet technical changes, it can't be a one-person process. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You know, I'm getting really fed up with this obstructionist crap. The Signpost called for volunteers for years, now that you've got people getting involved, you're more interested in putting sticks in wheel than getting things done. "We need due process, we'll see in 6 months, you need to submit proposed technical changes before a committee can review and vet before approval". This is bullshit. The publishing script don't use this, and we've got 20 days to sort out issues if there are any. If there's an actual problem with something, identify it and it'll be fixed, and if it can't be fixed in time, we can revert things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please withdraw the "I'm getting really fed up with this obstructionist crap" and "This is bullshit." It's just not helpful. We need to work together to get good quality articles out by the deadline. I don't have a priority to redo the technology this month, in fact I think it could very well get in the way even if thee are only a couple of minor glitches. Let's move on. I certainly won't approve any more technical changes this month. To be absolutely clear, before making technical changes I want to understand
  • what are the benefits in terms of the long term success of The Signpost?
  • do other contributors agree and have they had a chance for input?
  • has the code been checked thoroughly by more than one person?
  • have we tested it live before announcing it to the whole world?
As far as I can see all this is being attempted by essentially one person. These changes can't be a one-man show. I don't have any more time for this discussion this month. Let's get on with the needed work of producing articles covering the usual range of topics. That will certainly help determine the long term success of The Signpost. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I will not withdraw that, because your mentality of refusing to discuss anything and punting everything 6 months down the road is an issue, as is your reticence to publish good, relevant, interesting writing fully compatible with the Signpost's mission because it's not a 'regular column' that dates back to 2008. I have led the charge with the technical overhaul here, sure, but @TheDJ, Pppery, DannyS712, and Evad37: all have chipped in. Call that a one man show if you want, it is not. And to answer those four bullets a) It's a mockup of how things would look like. You can see right away what the titles and blurbs are, and what exist and what doesn't. b) It's a mockup. There's nothing to agree with, it just shows what the next issue is shaping up to be. If you don't have a use for that, just don't look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue. The general appearance can be tweaked, if people prefer not to see the placeholders without existing pages, although I would personally say they have value by showing you at a glance what could exist, but don't. But again, that's something that can be tweaked depending on what people prefer. c) It's a live mockup used by nothing. It works. You could delete the page and nothing would be affected by it. This might affect things, but we've got 20 days to test it, and it can be reverted right before publishing if it causes an issue. d) It's a mockup of the next issue. It is live now. The only people who would care are us, and people interested in keeping track of how the next issue is shaping up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones has just taken on the EiC role and it's a difficult job. They've only produced one issue. If I were in their place I'd want to take it easy at first and learn how the job is done before trying new things. Please be patient.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: In his own words The Signpost isn't "a one man show", and an EiC who constantly rejects the work and ideas of those he works with for no reason but personal squeamishness is a poor fit for the job. An EiC can object to things, sure, but objections need to be based on actual reasons or measured against the purpose of the publication, not just throw WP:IDONTLIKEIT and call it a day. Objections should be based on reasons, and withdrawn when they no longer apply, or have been debunked. User:Headbomb/New at the Signpost is a fine piece of writing and the things it reports have been tested. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks is also a fine piece of writing, and is fully compatible with the Signpost's purpose. Could they be improved, sure, with constructive feedback, copy editing and the like, as would any piece of writing. The whole team has 19 days to address any actually shortcomings, if any are actually found. That is plenty of time before publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I cannot say that I share your enthusiasm and I think your effort is misplaced. The Signpost is a collaborative project and not something done but whomever thinks they have a good idea they want to implement. Do not ask for my consensus and then declare that you will go ahead however you choose. Please be patient and let us publish another issue (which is what we actually do here) and when we're ready to look at your ideas, we'll ask you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to ask for anything, the idea is here, it's implemented, and it works. Look at it, or don't, the resource is still there for those who want to make use of it. And if you have suggestions for improvements, let's hear them. That's the whole point of bringing this here in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the redesign and the new tools. I also get where Smallbones is coming from though. Basically I'm neutral. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Size estimates

Per some reader comment, would it be possible to make use of [2] to determine the size of each page, and shove that in Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet?

Sandbox output below.

Featured content
Out of this world

Out of this world: Both literally and metaphorically. (continued→) [ ~5.1 MB 📥︎ ]

The exact layout being TBD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also going to @Pigsonthewing: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's hold off until next month to decide whether we need this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No, let's not. This may or may not get implemented (either because consensus is that is not desirable, or there are technical challenges) but there is zero reason to delay discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I like this idea! Definitely helpful for people with data caps. And I'm not super educated on how templates work so I could be missing something but it doesn't seem like it would hurt anything. ♦AcoriSage 17:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The main issue I foresee with this is that this may not be possible to script-ify. Doing it manually is very feasible, but tedious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: It's actually not that easy to script-ify (wihtout paying for API access from Pingdom or similar sites), but I have found a way to estimate the page size in the publication script. It's not super-accurate, since it's just adding up the sizes of images and adding a bit to account for non-image resources (scripts, css, etc), but it's probably good enough – it gives 4.9 MB for Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/Featured_content, 0.6 MB for Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/Traffic_report, and 0.3 MB for Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: Pingdom numbers give 5.1 MB, 673 KB, and 0.364 KB, so you're slightly underestimate things, but you're in the ballpark. (It could be that the comment section increases those size estimates from pingdom, or maybe you're forgetting to include Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header?) I'll make a mockup using the current issue and see how things look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
See [3] (KB version), [4] (rounded KB version) and [5] (rounded MB version). I think I prefer the rounded MB version, if only because it's shorter and implies less precision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The script is looking at the source HTML, so it does include all templates, but working out the actual size is difficult – the data transferred is not just the final data itself, but also includes response headers, and may be compressed. Also, do we know how accurate Pingdom is? According to Chrome's Dev tools (network tab), the size transferred for each page is 4.8MB, 557KB, & 231KB, which are slightly lower than the amounts I calculated above. - Evad37 [talk] 02:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
We don't. But I figured a commercial tool would be relatively accurate (I didn't look for others, just used the one suggested by Pigsonthewing above). Anyway, just throwing ideas out there to see if it could explain a discrepancy. As long as the estimate is in the ballpark, it should be fine. Something like 250 KB vs 400 KB vs 700 KB wouldn't make that much of a difference to a data-limited user. However ~250 KB vs ~5.0 MB could, and that's really what we want to highlight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but this will have to wait until next month. We can decide whether we need this and how to implement it then. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be left out of the conversation, that's really up to you. But there is zero need to delay consensus building until next month, nor delay implementing said consensus if it is found. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Exploring the technical feasibility of the idea doesn't imply any implementation decisions will need to made before next month. - Evad37 [talk] 02:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, feel free to explore the technical feasibility. But before implementing it I'd like to know "What problem does it really solve?" i.e. is this going to be useful to 1% or our readership (editors including newbies) or 10% or is it the case that nobody would find it really, really useful? After that I'd like to know how long it is going to take for each issue, and who is going to commit to doing it each issue? I'm not willing to switch back and forth from issue to issue because nobody is willing to do it over the summer. So if 2% of our readers felt it would be useful for themselves, and it takes 20 minutes to do, and a newby says they might be able to do it, maybe for awhile, I'd tend to say "no". OTOH if 10% of our readers would find it useful and anybody could run a script that takes 2 minutes, I'd likely say yes. It needs to be discussed and then implemented if it is found to be useful but only after the discussion. We don't have the time for that discussion now IMHO Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"What problem does it really solve?" — The problem it solves is we don't want Signpost readers to inadvertently bust their data caps, and we should aim to be readable to as many readers as possible. If it helps 1% of our readers people, that's worth doing, because no one is harmed by this information being present. "I'd like to know how long it is going to take for each issue, and who is going to commit to doing it each issue." Ideally no more than a few seconds/minute upon initiating the publishing script. Also I don't know why you get to decide what others have time to discuss. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Smallbones is the consensus EiC. He makes the decisions. Please stop being impertinent. If you cannot be a team player than do not purport to be on the team. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been a team player and remain one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone needs to re-read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report recommendation

Hi, just wanted to say I appreciate the work being done on Arbitration report this month. I have comments and maybe a recommendation for the "Compromised admin accounts" item. There was 32 kB (so far) discussion about whether admins are 1) required to use two-factor authentication from the beginning, and 2) whether sysop bit restoration would be done if they did not have 2FA enabled at the time of compromise. My reading was that 1 is "no" but 2 is now "yes" since the change in policy. In other words, you lose control of your admin account, and you did not have 2FA enabled, you get to run a new RfA. I might have misunderstood the final result/parsing of the arbcom decision, though. It's unfortunate IMO that they didn't just come out and say this, if it's the intended effect.

That all said, the recommendation is to get an official statement on whether my guesswork is correct, i.e. will the next admin who experiences account compromise, and who didn't have 2FA enabled, require a re-RfA? Bri.public (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since they did restore administrative privileges to the editor in question on the condition that two-factor authentication be enabled, I don't believe your "in other words" summary is a hard rule. My understanding of the change is that it provides an explicit statement that restoring privileges is not automatic, and that the committee will evaluate the former administrator's security practices. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
However, they pointedly issued the new policy 12 hours after restoring Necrothesp's admin privs. So I take it to mean that was the last "gimme". All the more reason to ask the question of Arbcom. Bri.public (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's good practice in any case to always provide news items to the subjects for comment regarding inaccuracies. The restoration of the administrative privileges was discussed at the same time as the other motion(s) and was held up until the motion was passing (one intermediate proposal bundled the two together, but it was felt they were better as separate motions). My reading of the discussion is that the arbitrators already agreed that it was within their purview not to regrant administrative privileges automatically. They wanted to make an explicit statement and increase their vigilance for future requests, but did not make a hard rule about when a restoration would be granted. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This template is being prepared to post to all admins. Not sure what the timeline is relative to this publication's issue date. Bri.public (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Is anybody in contact with Tilman Bayer?

who put together the "Recent research" report. I just went to check in with him and he seems to have left the WMF. That could be a news event in and of itself, but I'm more interested in just saying hello and seeing if he has any suggestion for a RR replacement. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, I'm still around and reachable under this account ;) After thinking about handover options, I decided I should be able to continue this work as volunteer for now. Truth be told, RR / the Wikimedia Research Newsletter was always largely drawing on volunteer time anyway. Not just on part of the many fine folks who contributed bylined reviews over the years (something between 50 and 100 people I believe), but also for the editorial role held by myself (in previous years together with my then colleague Dario, with whom I launched the newsletter back in 2011, building on an irregular series I had started as volunteer before joining WMF). Similarly with the associated @WikiResearch Twitter feed that's the source for most of the new papers we cover (where Miriam from the WMF Research team has replaced Dario after his own recent departure from WMF). That said, while at WMF I had an arrangement allowing me to spend a few hours of staff time every month to ensure that basic steps of our production process got carried out, which has definitely helped making this one of the longest-running regular Signpost sections. That won't be the case going forward. I'll see how things work out with upcoming demands and commitments, but the next issue should be safe. In the meantime, Masssly and I can always use additional help e.g. regarding the bibliographical parts of the process.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC) (T. Bayer)
Thanks, I should have thought about your other account. I'll send you an email in a couple of days. Sounds like we can expect RR for this issue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Is anybody an OTRS volunteer?

I've uploaded 4 images with permission for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF. The OTRS ticket is Ticket:2019042510006324.

BTW, I've posted the Interview article, though my part is not yet complete. I don't think the responses need copyediting, since it looks like it has been professionally copyedited by the WMF. (In my quick review I found one word that I was tempted to change, but there is no reason to touch anything if that's all there is.)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

For the future post to Commons:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator, which is semi-automated and greatly reduces time to review. This just came out 2 weeks ago and is a major innovation which I / anyone ought to report in Signpost.
I did the permission in the case of these four files. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Blue Rasberry. The release generator is a fantastic idea and likely should be covered (in the Technology article? @DannyS712:)
I have to say that, after one very negative OTRS experience I've been quite shy in going back. I'll try the release generator at the next available opportunity to see how it works. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: If it just came out, it should be reported. But, since I don't have anything to upload, I can't test it out to report it, and since I'm not an OTRS agent I can't just submit dummy reports and deal with them myself. Maybe Blue Rasberry can take some screenshots? It probably won't make it into this issue though, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue coming together

It looks to me like we'll have a good issue coming up. I particularly like the interview with K. Maher, but would appreciate feedback, especially on the length (is there anything to do about it?) and the pull-quote boxes (perhaps my formatting is a bit unusual - but with all the text it needs some extra space in there). In general, my writing has always benefited from serious editing and comments from editors (as opposed to light copy editing) - please edit away on anything I write (but not on Maher's responses).

Similarly with the Humour column which I've hijacked, er compiled from other editors' material. And the "Gobbler of the month" part of "In the media" could use some feedback. I'll be putting 2-3 items in "News and notes" - 2 mentions of Wikipedia in the Mueller report, an Irish government agency attacking Britishfinance in the media, and probably 1Lib1ref.

We'll have fewer articles than last month (maybe 12 vs. 18) but I don't mind that as long as they are good articles. "Arbitration report" looks good. "Traffic report" has 4 weeks in it and looks to be its usual good material. Copyediting there is always tricky and I'd appreciate some help. Comments welcome on the Gallery. I'll always need help with "Technology report", but it looks good to me. Opinion and Community view need some editing but should be ready.

Is anything happening with "Featured content" and "Discussion report"? @Pythoncoder and Evad37:

I need to answer some emails to contributors. Copyediting ... anything else?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've checked with the main contributors to the Humour article. They would prefer to wait for at least a month. I revised it and offered them a veto for this month. Editors here, as a group, also get a veto. If it survives both possible vetos, I think we should publish it, but I'm obviously biased on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The humor contributors are on-board for this month. Ping me if anybody here objects to publishing it, or if you can come up with a joke that match the headline. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
DR will come in on time. Please don't steal it headbomb. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to know why few people want to get involved with the Signpost, you've only got to look at the anti-collaboration spirit that haunts it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
First, it’s only collaboration if both sides consent to it. Second, in the time I have been here, standard practice has always been to bug authors who are not writing their articles, rather than write the articles for them. I suspect this is because if people do the latter, there’s no reason to write the article yourself in the first place. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder: As a regular contributor, it's all yours until the copy deadline. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I interrupt. But I need you to tell me how to publish the article in the column The Signpost Hispanic, so that it appears on the cover of the Signpost or I do not know. --Villalaso (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Featured content" is written and ready for copyedit - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost ready to publish

@Chris troutman, Evad37, Bluerasberry, DannyS712, and Pythoncoder: There are 13 articles ready to be published. I've left 2 others, where I'm the author, In the Media and Humour, as not ready. I can mark these as ready in about 12 hours, if nobody copyedits them, but I don't think it is healthy that I write them, copyedit them, and approve them for publication. My writing always improves with some strong editing, beyond just copyediting. It's not easy to see the faults in your own writing. So please somebody should at least do some copyediting there. Other feedback appreciated as well.

It looks like a good issue to me. We'll see what the readers say. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

For the gobbler of the month, can I suggest trimming down the amount of survey information drastically, or even omitting it? Given that the whole point is how the survey is unscientific, it seems like too much prominence is being given to its results. isaacl (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I unstuffed the turkey, going from 13 to 2 reported results. Smallbones(smalltalk) 06:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. To take into account readers who may not be familiar with the connotations of calling something a turkey, perhaps a brief explanation of the section heading could be provided? isaacl (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe pipe "gobbler" to wikt:turkey in the header? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: OK, so are we now ready to publish? I prefer an unambiguous signal. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking more of a short sentence like "The Gobbler of the month is awarded to a news story that failed egregiously to get its facts straight." But I suppose that's moot now for this issue... Perhaps it can be considered for the next one, in deference to those who are less familiar with various English-language idioms. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ready for publication (unambiguous signal) @Chris troutman:. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the [citation needed] tag in the discussion report? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It’s a reference to XKCD’s What If?. There are a lot of places where Randall Munroe adds citation needed tags for obvious statements. Since by explaining the joke I just killed it, I will take out the tag. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

most of the way done

It's published, assuming there weren't other errors. Once I am home I'll send the tweet and the email. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've since sent the tweet and the email. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody

It looks like another successful issue. I'll be mostly gone for 3-4 days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Multilingual medical traffic report

Check this out:

Top 25 Wikipedia articles, in medicine, for every language of Wikipedia

Where can I blurb this? Technology? Traffic report? I want to present this with a few sentences, maybe 3-5. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks very interesting. I couldn't access the source - something about "Google Sheets". The presentation via the Wikilink is not made for readability, so perhaps we'd need more text to explain it. Somethings like the inclusion of Leonardo Da Vinci are not obvious. Go for it - wherever you think is best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

How are the articles coming?

@DannyS712, Pythoncoder, and Blue Rasberry: I'm a bit worried, given the holiday, that we won't make the deadline.

Danny - are you going to be able to get out news & notes? Blue Ras - I can't figure out where to put the medical articles material - perhaps News & notes. N&N should also have something about Wikimania 2019 Stockholm - registration is now open. I could probably write 3 paragraphs on that if nobody else can.

Pythoncoder - will you be able to finish the discussion report? I can give a very short (2 paragraph) summary of the Azerbaijani mess that will at least let people know that there is a mess and a discussion about it. (unless you want to write that too!)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Will finish Monday or earlier. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm throwing together a basic edition of Recent Research, should have something by the deadline. (Unfortunately we weren't able to do much of our usual contributor outreach this time, and no-one has signed up for reviews.)
@Smallbones: I was going to cover the First Monday paper on Wikipedia and news, which I see you already mentioned in ITM. If you don't mind, I'll merge that over to RR and add some aspects - e.g., importantly, the author distanced herself from the "stealing" headline of the press release, in a Facebook discussion about the paper with Wikipedians. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@HaeB: - if you'd like to "merge the paragraph over to RR", fine, please do - I suspect my ITM paragraph is getting a bit out-of-date (except for the links!) and that the author was speaking very loosely about "stealing" - so at this point you can probably do it better. Please just remove the paragraph from ITM (but I'll check before publication just in case). Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

ITM anomaly

ITM is marked ready for publishing,but it ends with an ellipsis and looks like it's waiting for a response from a subject of media coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dead red link in WMF takes Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've filled in the last sentence to say that the Tigers have not yet responded to my e-mail request for their comment. I'll double check before giving final approval for publication for *the issue*. The red-link is just a link to the News from WMF, in the forthcoming issue. I hope - and it is just a hope - that the link I've put in will automatically link when the issue is published. Does anybody know how to do this with certainty? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
None that I know of, but usually one of the first readers will correct redlinks if they slip through. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

North Face

This just in ... too late for May issue maybe. North Face's ad agency "took pictures of athletes wearing the brand while trekking to famous locations around the world, including Brazil's Guarita State Park and Farol do Mampimptuba, Cuillin in Scotland and Peru’s Huayna Picchu. They then updated the Wikipedia images in the articles for those locations so that now, the brand would appear in the top of Google image search results when consumers researched any of those locations" (Ad Age, May 28). [6] Maybe it dovetails with an upcoming topic of paid editing on Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
See also this Facebook discussion, which has lots of context and relevant links: [7].
BTW, WP:POST/TIPS might be a better place to collect ideas like this. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Usually, yes, but I put it here due to time pressure to get noticed, and my insider knowledge of next month's issue's topic. Bri.public (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Big thanks to Ad Age for their assistance in the fight against paid editing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There will be a "From the editor" article about the North Face incident. If I go a bit past the publishing deadline, I hope everybody will understand. Also I'd like to replace the Essay article with an appropriate existing essay related to paid editing or advertising. Any suggestions? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:PEW or WP:PSCOI. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll suggest pulling some quotes from the actual paid operatives themselves. One of my favorites is: "[I]t's critical that you not only have a Wikipedia page ... you have to break the rules ... surreptitiously post on your page or other pages ... You have to control your page." I've collected some more at User:Bri/Paid operatives but without precise attribution for obvious reasons. Anyway I think it's important to keep pressing that UPE is not a benign activity that results in great WP articles, but surreptitious, and specifically and consciously designed to subvert and manipulate our usual process – in other words, maniuplative and inherently unethical in a way that is deeply incompatible with this community. Bri.public (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

North Face sources

Here are sources -

  • Diaz, Ann-Christine (28 May 2019). "The North Face used Wikipedia to climb to the top of Google search results". adage.com.
  • "Let's talk about The North Face defacing Wikipedia". Wikimedia Foundation. 29 May 2019.
  • Beschizza, Rob (30 May 2019). "The North Face boasts of defacing its Wikipedia article with advertising". Boing Boing.
  • Hern, Alex (30 May 2019). "North Face criticised for replacing Wikipedia pics with branded shots". The Guardian.
  • Lee, Dami (29 May 2019). "North Face tried to scam Wikipedia to get its products to the top of Google search". The Verge.
  • McCarthy, John (30 May 2019). "The North Face axes 'unethical' Wikipedia product placement campaign by Leo Burnett". The Drum.

There are also non-English publications.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Lots of work left to do

Can folks help with copyediting and making sure that their articles are complete. We may be ready by the stated deadline above, but I wouldn't be surprised if it takes 5 hours longer. @Bluerasberry, HaeB, Bri, Chris troutman, and Pythoncoder: Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like we'll be ready to publish on deadline, but a few issues remain
  • Copyediting - I can do it, but I hate to do the final copyediting myself on an article I wrote. The copyediting on the archive and essay articles should already essentially be done
  • Titles and blurbs - can somebody look through these and come up with something better. It is not my strength, particularly when it comes to the most viewed pages article.
  • Arbcom article - I assume @DannyS712: is finishing this.
  • @Chris troutman: - eta 1 hour. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Smallbones: I've written a lot, but don't have time in the next few hours to finish. I have all of the links there if you or someone else can take a stab at it, but unfortunately real life has me occupied for the next few hours. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bri: any chance you can do it - in the bottom half the links are there to the story to be summarized, but I haven't been thinking about arbcom for a long time (I try to avoid it!) Can't get my head around it right now. If not, I'll just delete the unfinished part and go with what we have. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

ready for publication

@Chris troutman: It's all ready to go. Ping me please if there are any publication problems (I'll take a 15 minute break). Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm on it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Actually, the automated process failed so I'm going manual. While I'm doing this the hard way, the "tips and tricks" piece wasn't on the articles table and was never copyedited; it may have been an oversight. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Also, if you haven't sent it yet, I noticed that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report wasn't moved with the rest of them, if you meant to include it (please do) DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I don't mind doing the job for which I signed up; I'm concerned that too many cooks in the kitchen may have caused an inadvertent failure of the script, which is what I would like examined. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, not all of them were moved, and I'm doing the rest manually now. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I never considered the tips and tricks article to be viable - it was left-over from last month and not cleaned up. The Special Report is similar. Perhaps we should get a clean up program for after publication each month. Please let me know if I can do anything, or (later) if I should change my writing/editing procedures. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Everything is done (publish, archive, massmessage, global massmessage, email, and tweet) for the May issue. I'd appreciate some accountability for the code failure. Someone edited something and I don't particularly like doing this manually. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: If you want some help next time, I can do lend a hand with the publish, archive, and enwiki mass message --DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks for taking care of all of this. Above and beyond the call of duty. As far as accountability, I'll have to plead almost complete ignorance - which could work either way. If the problem is putting the wrong material into the templates, that very well could be me. I've had to learn that from trial and error. I've edited a template bracket twice, involving fixing the "Unexpected < operator" (once this month). OTOH if the problem has anything to do with a bot - I'll plead innocent. I don't know enough about bots to even get close enough to break one. My feeling is that there is some shaky or just old, unmaintained programming around here; e.g. the deadline timers have different dates on different pages (that's *after* the cache has been purged). Please let me know if there is anything I need to do. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Its a script (User:Evad37/SPS) not a bot... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

June content

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report

This de-sysop is kind of a big deal as it involves a long-term admin abusively editing while logged out. Maybe starting now on how to present it in The Signpost would be a good idea. - Bri.public (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Followup at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Bri.public (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Record de-sysops

Someone claimed this month has had the most, or second-most, de-sysops ever, not including the purge of inactives. Might be worth looking into. Also, at least one resignation & one "office action" (?) de-sysop related to the Fram discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you're watching WP:BN, Bri? As we speak there are four admins there resigning their tools over this affair. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC).
Yes - Bri.public (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
By my counting, ten have resigned this month including a sysop+bureaucrat. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Recruiting in a crowded room

There is a controversy at WP:FRAM. I did not go there to share any particular position, and have no opinion to express here.

However, when there is a crowded forum of controversy, I think it is a good idea to go there and recruit writers for The Signpost. It is better for someone in that room to write the article summarizing it and they can report here.

Here is my recruitment pitch for this case - Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Request_for_volunteer_journalism_for_The_Signpost.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a former editor of the Signpost, I would hope that the current leadership is cognizant of the editorial distance a topic like this really needs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Starting research at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary, thanks @Seraphimblade, Starship.paint, and Swarm:, with special thanks to Starship for particularly responding to my request for someone to start a Signpost submission. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to share my work with the Signpost, though I won't be writing the submission. Do note that I'm still updating my summary (even the earlier writings). starship.paint (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks like someone copied an old version of what I wrote to that page. The up to date version is at User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No markup duplication anymore. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To the reporter(s) who will be writing this

I've been watching this story almost from the beginning but probably haven't read half of whats been written and still can't make heads or tails out of it. There are a lot of conspiracy theories being thrown about, but no proof of anything yet that I can see. There are 3 legitimate issues that I see (there may be more)

  • many members of the community are worried that the WMF has given itself the right to micromanage enWiki, cutting out ArbCom.
  • The issue of harassment and how we stop it, "unblockables" might be part of this
  • Accusations against Raystorm, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, of cronyism, general accusations of corruption at the WMF (nothing specified though)

Being at something of a loss of what's really going on here, I think we have to fall back on the basics and remember journalistic ethics.

  • Assume good faith for all participants, at least until something is proved against them
  • Just report straight facts, e.g. we can report a quote that somebody said something, but if it is an unproven accusation we should definitely ask them what type of proof they have, and note if there is no evidence. Or just leave it out if there is no evidence.
  • This might be reported as a conspiracy within the WMF to grab power from the enWiki community. We're not going to report that unless we have a detailed set of facts to support it.
  • Alternatively, it might be reported as another Wiki lynch mob getting riled up over nothing. We're not going to report that unless there are very hard facts that support that view.

The above will keep us constrained to reporting the news, but looks more like a list of what we can't do than what we should do. So we should:

  • get a list of at least 8 people, on all sides of the issue, and email them to see what the think is going on - and remember to ask for evidence.
  • Go over some of the history of office actions and get some numbers, type of cases and penalties.
  • There's likely a few other things that will come up as we proceed.
  • I'll suggest we gather info for a few days. We've got 2 weeks to deadline - we can write it all up next week

I won't be writing the article, but will keep in close contact with the editors.

Any volunteers?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on "Accusations against Raystorm" being a legitimate story topic. If the accusations against her die out over the next week because of a lack of evidence, then we probably should not report it. But if some credible evidence appears, then we almost have to report it - The Chair of the Board of Trustees does not get a special break from us, neither is she going to be made the target of an unsubstantiated smear here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I will probably be involved in some way. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Pythoncoder:. Are you willing to take the lead? make sure that a story worthy of The Signpost and our community is reported. Should we ask for another person to support you (or to take the lead)? Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
After discussion with the E in C, I started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report – but do not intend to make this a solo effort. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Due to busyness in real life, I have not been able to work on this as much as is ideal. I apologize for the inconvenience. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Basically done. I may have an hour or so to return to tidy things before publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: So I had started something about this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes - should I cut it? Just include a 1 paragraph "here is what happened action A B C, see discussion report for more"? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, it looks like the other timelines that have been written up. If you want me to include a link at the end of my article along with the others, would that be OK? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: no, I'll just remove it and do a 1 sentence summary; no need to have the timeline in N&N in addition. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • One thing I learnt as an editor and journalist is that you can't create a truly superb magazine without rattling someone's cage.The Signpost should not be afraid to express opinion; it is not under the obligations of Wikipedia articles to be neutral and unbiased. It should strive to offer compelling reading and good prose that are more than bland reporting of facts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, I thought about that a lot when I was writing up the Discussion report. I wanted it to be mostly factual, but more interesting than a plain timeline. Of course, in selecting stuff for a page or two, out of a novel's worth of words, it inherently takes the flavor of my own thinking. Which I'm OK with of course. Just hope I'm not straddling the fence too much. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion regarding the quote from Raystorm: I think her Gamergate comparison could use more context. Could you consider including more of Raystorm's statement, i.e. "She has since then been under relentless public examination, with a deep look at her past,... her personal relationships, and even people going through Commons and elsewhere to find pictures of her and pictures of me and posting them externally."[8]? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I intentionally left out the bits about the accused. Rehashing the he said/she said wasn't really meant to be the focus of this portion of the issue. Perhaps the E-in-C is working on something else that can bring that out more. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: Need to update re WJBscribe giving Fram admin rights again --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a fact that the public examination that Raystorm described actually occurred. I agree we should leave out the question of whether the examination dug up anything of relevance. But if we don't mention this fact somewhere, readers will be much less able to understand why Raystorm brought up Gamergate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

Now that I've written the meat of the piece, I have very few hours to polish. Can anybody provide constructive feedback on where I may have lost the reader? My train of thought was kind of scattered while reading the debates and writing notes; now it's hard to read it with fresh eyes. Also, can anyone confirm that GB fan retired as a result of it? I thought I had a reason for noting him or her and although the timing is right, can't seem to find it now. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bri, You've pulled off a Herculean task in getting this done!!! Thank you for stepping up and congratulations on surviving it. I will look at it for flow. I looked at GB fan's recent contributions in Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk, and User Talk spaces and couldn't find anything to indicate that he/she retired as a result of this issue. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Bri, I'm planning to make non-controversial copyedits directly to the draft, and bring up any more substantive issues here. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed differently. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I've done a round of copyediting and adding some clarifying details. A few things that jumped out at me are:
  • "Wheel war" as a section heading: This term is wiki-jargon and there are varying opinions on whether wheel warring actually occurred. Maybe retitle the section to something more descriptive, such as "Administrators and bureaucrats take action" or "WMF actions reversed"?
  • "Out of this crisis has emerged not just strikes...": This is the first mention of strikes, but is worded as if strikes had been discussed earlier in the article. I suggest replacing it with a summary of what did emerge, e.g. "Out of this crisis, several editors have chosen to protest the actions of the WMF or the community by going on strike, relinquishing their administrative or other rights, or retiring from Wikipedia."
  • Do we say "WMF has a unique role" or "The WMF has a unique role"? I think the latter sounds more correct and natural.
Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bri: re: special:permalink/903718002: there have been changes to the page WP:OFFICE since you've written your report (as it was erroneously tagged as a procedural policy as opposed to a WMF policy, which it arguably became in 2017). I'm not sure the best way forward; you may wish to use a permanent link or a link to meta:Office actions, instead. –xenotalk 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system consultation

Hello Smallbones and all, I would like to provide some more information about the invitations that I did to participate in the User reporting system consultation, so that the Signpost article can describe more accurately the broad range of users who were invited to participate. This is important because people are expressing a concern about not be aware, and I would like for people to have good information so that they can draw their own conclusions.

A summary of notifications: At the beginning of April an email was sent to Wikimedia-L, the main mailing list for the Wikimedia movement. Around the same time, a similar email was sent to local language Arbitration Committees (including ENWP ARBCOM), Stewards, English Wikipedia functionaries, Community health Strategy 2030 working group. Or relevant members were notified on wiki. Additionally, me and other members of Trust and Safety team contacted Wikimedia affiliates both on and off wiki (by email, social media, etc.) I also mentioned the URS consultation during when speaking to a Train the Trainer session and other meetings. I discussed the User reporting system with the media several times in recent months, including the University of Washington video and New York Times. These notification about the URS all happened during the last 3 months or so. Previously, the URS has been discussed at conferences and on pages about the Community health initiative's work.

Also for over an year, several pages on ENWP described the research the Anti-Harassment tools team has done about reporting harassment.

Next steps related to the User reporting system: As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the User reporting system consultation paused when the Anti-Harassment Tools team product manager left the Foundation. And shortly there after, the consultation was put on hold until the priorities of Foundation's Medium Term Plan were determined and a new timeline is set. While this is happening, I will work with other members of the Anti-Harassment Tools team to capture the ideas and questions written during the recent on wiki discussion about managing cases of harassment. And I'll continue to follow the ArbCom case (or RFC.)

I hope this information is helpful. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Press coverage

It might be too late for the deadline, but this new BuzzFeed News article covers this subject in detail:

Bernstein, Joseph (June 27, 2019). "The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved June 27, 2019. The once-derided open-source encyclopedia is the closest thing the internet has to an oasis of truth. Now a single-user ban has exposed the deep rifts between Wikipedia's libertarian origins and its egalitarian aspirations, and threatened that stability. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl= (help)

— Newslinger talk 00:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Seen it, the only thing I can think of doing with it at this late date is put it in ITM. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The BuzzFeed article is the best summary of events to date. Balanced, and compelling reading, it's a model of the kind of journalism that would sell The Signpost well, but only if the trolls could be made stay away from the comments sections, or if The Signpost like most other news media and blogs were to be selective of the posts and 'readers' letters' they publish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Clearly informed by insiders, it reads like a worked shoot to me. I find it disreputable to air grievances to our journalist friends simply to gain the upper hand in an argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I thoroughly concur with Kudpung. And it makes two important points. The accomplishment of anonymous volunteers was to produce the default global encyclopedic resource on any known topic, so impressive that numerous other for-profit sites feed off it. Then, despite the fact that 'Wikipedia has so far escaped the fate of the other user-generated content giants, now locked in public, years-long, brutally specific battles over content policies and moderation', 'with one decision, the Wikimedia Foundation seemed to have plunged the project into the familiar world of strikes and suspensions, martyrdom and harassment.' That is a remarkable accomplishment. If all this rumour-mongering about the putative 'toxic environment' occasionally seen over 18 years, on anecdotal evidence culled from a smidgeon of 82,778,598 registered users creating 5,870,000 articles, were true, Wikipedia would never have got off its feet. None of the other anxiously monitored social media, with their courtesy codes, ever got within a light-year's distance of that amount of done work, and now we are asked to radically alter a working culture that actually churns out information into primarily a comfort zone for sensitive people. I doubt whether the bureaucrats issuing the new ukaz stressing Höflichkeit über Alles have even had the time or curiosity to read Robert Hughes's Culture of Complaint where the idiocy of what he thought of as a 'peculiarly American habit' of obsessing with the formal proprieties by insisting on euphemism, was surgically dissected to bring out its pathologies. Here's one relevant quote

We want to create as sort of linguistic Lourdes, where evil and misfortune are dispelled by a dip in the waters of euphemism. . .Just as language grotesquely inflates in attack, so it timidly shrinks in approbation, seeking words that cannot possibly give any offence, however notional. We do not fail, we underachieve. We are not junkies, but substance abusers, not handicapped, but differently abled. And we are mealy-mouthed unto death; a corpse, the New England Journal of Medicine urged in 1988, should be referred to as a “non-living person.” By extension, a fat corpse is a differently sized nonliving person.' Robert Hughes Culture of Complaint, (1993) Harvill 1994 pp.20-21 Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a worked shoot... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF Executive Director comments

Obviously WP:FRAMBAN § Katherine Maher tweet merits inclusion, but I'm out of time to contribute. If anybody active here wants to add it and add their name as co-author to Discussion Report, I don't object. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's an important development but this current issue needs to be published. At some point we have to stop adding new details in the interests of not being late. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, agree, I'm not proposing any more schedule changes. The column is done for my part, just added one closing quote this morning. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maher has also started replying on their ENWP talkpage [9]. Unless I'm very mistaken, this is their first post to ENWP since 2016. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

News

New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this week's newest Wikimedia movement affiliate, the Wikimedians in Thailand User Group as a chapter 'Wikimedia Thailand', on 24 June. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Acknowledged, meta:Wikimedia Thailand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please be ready to publish on time

... or with a slight delay. This is a very challenging issue. Could somebody help polishing and copyediting the Discussion report? @Bluerasberry: will your report be ready? I'll be working on a Special report that still needs a lot of work, so any copyediting, help with ITM, etc. would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear - since the deadline clock is again giving different dates on different pages - copy deadline 23:59 Friday UTC June 28. Publication deadline a day later. So please follow the clock on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Signpost draft doesn't track with Template:Signpost/Deadline. I don't know why. I'm standing by. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I worked on News & Notes (brief summary of FRAM, admin changes) but likely won't be able to work significantly on Tech Report if that was expected of me --DannyS712 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If  Doing... the tech report now - it'll be a rush job with TechNews and bots, further contributions are welcome DannyS712 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Are we doing this on time? If not I would appreciate having till 29 June Saturday 23 UTC, which is one additional day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

copy deadline 23:59 UTC Saturday June 29

I'm running behind myself (very much). Let's try for 11:59 UTC Sunday for publication, i.e. only a 12 hour delay there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows: the writing deadline is in one hour, and we are about to be in the final copyedit push for publication. Publication deadline is one minute before 5, 6, 7 or 8 AM Sunday in continental U.S. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Request assistance - election reports

As previously mentioned, I have these election reports to share.

I am done with them and will be doing some review and copyedit of the other parts. I would appreciate anyone who can review and position these for publication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I am a bit anxious about not having these inserted into the publishing staging platform. I expect you know how to do that, but I am not quite sure how that works or if there is other labor I could do. I think these are orderly. I know we are at the last hour - I have done some copyediting of other content this morning but was about to go for coffee break. If there is more that I can do or if you note an issue then ping me. You have my support in all decisions you make. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To editors Smallbones and Bluerasberry: It looks like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed was never copyedited nor marked for approval. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: What do you think should happen in response to that? I might be able to do something. I can acknowledge a lack of process here otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I checked it and copyedited User:Bluerasberry/2019 ASBS results last night but forgot to move it to OP-Ed. The other one User:Bluerasberry/2019 ASBS results I just missed entirely. If it is ok with everybody let's just do the first one (which is approved) and leave the second one out. @Bluerasberry and Chris troutman:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Okay, I can make the second one a submission proposal for next month's issue. Let's just do the one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks BR. Everything should be ready to go as far as I see. Let's boogie! @Bluerasberry and Chris troutman: Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Community view

I re-did the community view piece to retain history (WP:Cut and paste move repair). Pagemovers can do this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In The Media

breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/28/wikipedia-editors-revolt-over-sites-ban-of-veteran-administrator/ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech report

Request that this be added – "Introducing Wikimedia Space: A platform for movement news and conversations" [10]. Open since June 25, registration via Phabricator account, appears to be public alpha. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This could be a big issue

In a couple places there are people mentioning the upcoming issue of The Signpost in reference to the Fram reports. I also expect that our writing has had the WMF board's attention already. We should try to make this as professional as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You won't. There isn't time. There is just too much going on now that it's spilled over on to Maher's talk page and forced her to reply. Best just give it a brief mention and do a proper article for next month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
As professional as possible given the time constraints, then. I agree, the ED comments are crucial and our lack of reporting on them at all doesn't look good. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: I have trimmed my summary of Fram in News&Notes to just the bare basic facts, to avoid any bias in what is included. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm waiting to pull the string, one way or another. Publish as scheduled above (in about 12 hours?) or wait one more day. We can't wait forever and waiting trows off people's schedules etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Is everybody ready?

Well no, not yet, but I think we can beat the 11:59 UTC schedule (in about 8.5 hours) @Chris troutman: will you be ready? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the anticipation! I'm looking forward to seeing how you frame recent events. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft Fram article issues

  • Five of these respondents complained to T&S about him, or informally informed Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. - this is vague. It would be better to split these categories apart if your sources allowed you to. starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fram then answered complaints he believed might have been made by ten named editors. - what does this mean? Fram came up with a list of ten editors which Fram believed complained to T&S? Then Fram came up with (and rebutted) supposed complaints from these ten editors? starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The short answer to your last 2 questions is "yes". This email, which Fram sent to me (a copy of his text, not the emails to Fram from T&S) and released for publication here with some conditions, is IMHO bizarre. So imagine T&S, which has some "regulatory authority" here, sends you an email saying essentially "We've had some complaints about your editing in certain areas. Sorry we can't give you specific names of the complainants". What would you do? Most people would likely respond something like "Sorry for that, I'll try to do better in the future." Fram somehow came up with a list of ten names and then started attacking most of them. It almost seems like a confession. If his goal was to assure T&S that he was not harassing editors, he must have failed miserably. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that User:Winged Blades of Godric has removed (twice) something he doesn't like in the draft of Smallbone's article. My only contact with this editor (I presume an admin) occurred when he bullied me a few weeks ago. Just what authority does he have to censor the Signpost without even raising the matter with SP staff? It undermines the whole notion of independent journalism. Tony (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    Which editor, me? I don't recall any contacts with you, months ago (my emphasis). But I might have forgotten something, care to link, kindly? ∯WBGconverse 09:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) As far as I know, the Signpost is yet to be the new ArbCom to document private evidence. Thus, stuff like these, which cast completely opaque and un-evidenced aspersions on Fram, by accusing him of having helped someone in propagation of sexual harassment, lie firmly in the territory of gossip-journalism. If you wish to insert it, please vet it via functionaries/ArbCom and obtain their consent, as to the accuracy. Also, WP:LIBEL is a policy with legal considerations.∯WBGconverse 09:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We're on deadline and I'm on my final rounds as editor-in-chief making approvals. At this stage this is exclusively the decision of the editor-in-chief whether to publish. If you'd like to take this to ArbCom after we publish that's up to you. But if you censor this article, be prepared to see it all over the news on the internet. It is after all licensed CC By-SA and there are plenty of copies around. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Smallbones: - what's the point of posting a preview/draft if you won't answer any queries? Yger posted it on WP:FRAM, so I assumed you were looking for feedback, actually. starship.paint (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The draft is meant as a place for staff to work on the article. Having people coming in censoring on the deadline is not part of it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Smallbones: - I have two questions at the start of this section. Could they be answered after you publish? starship.paint (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    It'll take a bit to get back to you. Give me 10-15 minutes but 1) there are borderline cases (e.g. perhaps both) - the details don't matter for the overall sense - vauge is just as good. 2) that really is something bizarre Fram responding that way isn't it? But it means what it says. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Smallbones: - okay on issue (2). Issue (1) does have ramifications when you keep it vague versus specific. Let's say, there were 4 editors who went to T&S, and 1 to ArbCom. One can conclude that it seems that T&S is the much preferred route for editors to take (maybe even that community processes have failed to inspire confidence). Let's look at it the other way, there are 4 editors who went to ArbCom, and 1 to T&S - then someone might question with so many editors going to ArbCom, why wasn't action taken? We could have 3 categories to be specific: 1 is T&S, 1 is ArbCom, 1 is both. starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Signpost staff, EiC, blah blah. You are taking your position a bit too seriously and inflatedly. If I don't get to hear from you, this is going the AN way.∯WBGconverse 12:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Please be aware that I had extensive correspondence with Fram on this article and he had several chances to reply to the contents. He did not express any strong feelings on the essentially complete version that he saw yesterday. In particular there was one response from him, our final correspondence on the article yesterday "feel free to post it". Now if Fram doesn't object to the article being published and has said absolutely nothing to me about WP:LIBEL, then I don't think anybody should presume to take his place here. (updated) Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll reprint what I said in my first "From the editor column" in April. Note that I'd consider censorship of The Signpost a "constitutional issue" for us, so I'd prefer that any complaints go to ArbCom. Also I am the main (but not exclusive) contributor to this article so there should be no question of any complaints are against me User:Smallbones, not The Signpost in general. We're publishing the story. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"An important part of the EiC job is to ensure that The Signpost follows Wikipedia's rules and to read every word in every article to make sure violations of our policies and guidelines do not happen. If you believe there is a violation, please politely inform us on the article's talk page. I'll take every such report seriously, even if I disagree with you. If there is no satisfactory response, please email me directly and I'll try my best to make sure that any violations are corrected. This promise is not a guarantee that I'll take the actions you request. I will not censor a contributor's opinion simply because you disagree with it.

"All Wikipedia users have the right to take any further complaints to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents or the arbitration committee, but please remember that your complaint will be against me, since I am in charge of compliance with Wikipedia's rules, and not against our writers, staff or other contributors."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Last minute problem

To editors Smallbones, HaeB and FULBERT: At the bottom of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research there's "Expression error: Unexpected < operator". Can we troubleshoot that? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record: it looks like this edit fixed it, so it seems to have been a problem with this template (happened in previous months too). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To editors Smallbones and Evad37: The Dry-run has repeatedly failed. I'm troubleshooting. I may have to do this manually. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Very sorry to hear that. We obviously have to spend some time after this to make sure it doesn't happen again, but I'm sure that that review will take some time. Whatever you can do now is very greatly appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Do you want help? I'm creating a new main page now in case you say "yes"...I'll push "save" if you say so. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't bother. I'm halfway down the list already. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30 main page if you want it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! That saved me a fair bit of effort. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

June done

I confirm that the publication is done, mass messages sent, email to listserv sent, and two tweets sent to arouse attention. This is the second month I had to do this manually. I am not pleased. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chris, speaking for the rest of the contributors, we appreciate your extra effort on this issue. Let's hope the script gets repaired – having manually published a few issues myself, I sympathize; it is not something humans ought to have to deal with. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, and Bri and everybody who contributed. Are we all ready for our special edition (Extra! Extra! Read all about it!) on Wednesday? (Just kidding). Thank you all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July's "On the bright side"

@Smallbones: would you please set up a page for "On the bright side" in the July issue? Please {{ping}} me when you have done that. Thanks. --Pine (✉) 22:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Added to table for you. Looks like you already noticed it ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bri. --Pine (✉) 23:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bug?

Since all the recent changes to formatting and whatever else, thereware some odd things going on. For instance please see this edit of mine which shows i the history but does not display in the ;Comments' section. Perhaps Bri can look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a barnstar but not a ribbon?

Imagine if this was converted into a 930 x 330 pixel rectangle.

I noticed that this WikiProject's barnstar doesn't have a ribbon. Were it up to me, I'd post a request to WP:RB. Since this is a WikiProject I wanted to get our volunteers' opinions, first. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

NPR (again)

One year ago in the July 2018 issue, The Signpost reported that exactly one year ago the New Page Review backlog had been cleared to around 300 - less than a day's intake of articles. Today, exactly a year later, it is back at 7,000. What goes on at NPP? Why so many fluctuations? Kudpung has some possible answers, but are his contributions and comments still welcome at The Signpost? Users <redacted> and <redacted> (both former newsroom members) don't seem to think so.

Perhaps the newspaper - if it ever appears again - will, under community pressure, be reduced to a simple multi-page newsletter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF's new web site

I see the WMF has posted a completely new website in the past couple of days . IMO a vast improvement on that God awful Wordpress siteful of navel-gazing and self aggrandising. I wonder, just wonder, if it had anything to do with the scathing comments I've been making since the WordPress thing was rolled out, or has the WMF just finally come to its senses?: 23:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]

PS: This comes just eleven months after the criticism in The Signpost in August last year, by Kudpung. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Midpoint report for Wikimedia Wishlist 2019

We are due for a report on the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019 in which 1000+ editors voted for their favorite development requests. I asked for an update on the talk page and want to report back here what they say, and also remind people to think about submissions for 2020. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, The core New Page Review team were the unabashed victors of the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019. Perhaps they are the best source for comment. A milestone in Community-WMF technical collaboration, it proved that enormous pressure from the volunteers can sometimes force the WMF's hand. The work began very slowly, but since April appears to be making progress as NKohli (WMF) has reported at WT:NPR, but she seems also to be one of the 'managers' involved in the contentious Anti-Harassment team, but I'm not sure how professional competency and work time can sensibly overlap those two departments]] . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Like Kudpung notes, we are making good progress on the NPP improvements project. We are running on a delay this year because of some projects from last year taking much longer than expected to complete (Who Wrote That aka Blame tool is in progress as we speak) and also because of staffing changes to the team - another product manager on the team left and I also had to split my time to take care of Anti-Harassment Tools team. Over the last week I have been transitioning to taking over Anti-Harassment tools team full time and handing over Community Tech to a new Product manager who will be overseeing future projects. I'll make it a point to ask them to publish a report once they have some time on their hands. My apologies for all the inconvenience. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF): Thanks for the reply. Whatever the situation, please try to get some kind of midpoint report out by end of August so that in September by just before October 2019 we can do a wishlist 2020 story with some updates on 2019. Everyone here is an advocate for your team to get funded and resourced to accomplish the wishlist thoroughly and on time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Request review of submission - election commentary

On the submissions pages I proposed an editorial about the recent WMF election on the submissions page per routine protocol.

Assuming that this proposal is eligible for submission, we have a few weeks to work details and clear confusion.

@Qgil-WMF: someone told me that you wanted to comment on your team's participation in the election process. If you do, then speaking in this article to be published in 3 weeks could be a great venue for you to say anything. Also, can you get me the accounting of the election costs? I anticipate that you are expecting to provide this because this was a commitment your team made before becoming involved.

I would be grateful if you and your team had anything to say about your participation in the election. I am ready to change any part of this article and I want your team correctly represented in the media to make the most positive and encouraging story for everyone involved. I am accustomed to on-wiki conversation. I hope that works for you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF staff

I used to be extremely wary and critical of the WMF's boast of 300 employees. What do they all actually do? How much are they paid? I now learn that in recent days the the payroll has been suddenly increased by 17% to a staggering 350. Where will it end? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that 350 is not enough to stop discriminating against legally-protected groups such as the blind.[11][12]
I would very much like to update WP:CANCER to document the increase in employees during the same time periods where I documented spending increases. Would anyone be willing to gather the data and sources so that I can do that? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I appreciate what you do but I hesitate to support your editorial tone. I wish that someone could break down the accounting and report it without commentary. I do support your interpretation and commentary, but I wish that the numbers and accounting could be in one place and then commentary could be in another. The way your original story is published makes it challenging for people to have conversations based on your numbers without their follow up being colored by your position.
Guy, I would support you making some requests for WMF staff to report various accounting practices. It is fairly easy to ask big questions which have no obvious answers, like "what is the regional spending allocation of WMF funds", "separate WMF expenses, versus WMF expenses for community benefit, versus money in the movement allocated to community control". Just coming up with the accounting questions might be useful.
Asking WMF to respond to criticism is dicey, but asking them to better explain the finances could be productive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the accounting report without commentary, I will make the following promise: if someone is willing to dig up the figures for employees (and, I would hope, contractors, consultants, and other people who might have done work and recieved a paycheck without being reported in the employee numbers) I will create a second version of WP:CANCER containing zero editorial opinion -- just financial data -- and will allow you to vet it for neutrality before publishing it.
As for making requests for something smaller, more specific, and easier and easier to answer, you are not the first to come up with that suggestion. Four years ago I asked a very specific and very easy for the WMF to answer question, and repeatedly asked it on over a dozen Wikipedia and WMF pages. The WMF stonewalled me and I have never gotten anyone at the WMF to even acknowledge that the question was ever asked. Here, once again, is that FUQ (Frequently Unanswered Question):
  • Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[13] That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that.
I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely.
If I can't get an itemized list of where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was computer equipment and how much was office furniture? A little bit of financial transparency would go a long way here. --Guy Macon (talk)
Go ahead. Try to get an answer to the above question. Ask it anywhere where you think it might get an answer. See if anyone at the WMF responds. Once you get them to answer, I will believe that "asking them to better explain the finances could be productive". That has not been my experience. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a FUQ? The concept of such a thing has a lot of wikiness to it. If there are miscellaneous floating questions on various boards which have gone unanswered, then maybe that is bad or maybe that does not mean anything in particular. If you want to curate a list of financial questions and ask for answers, then sure, that seems wiki aligned. Your example question of reporting hardware or equipment seems reasonable especially in light of that specifically being a category which the WMF designates as distinct in community requests through the grants process.
I do not want to push you into committing to research some exhaustive narrative but if you would be willing to pitch into to regular parts reporting with your own occasional commentary, then that seems useful to me. If you start a FUQ, then I will add to it a request for a budget breakdown by region. The WMF already is trying to report "global north versus global south", so there is some regional analysis. I think there is community appetite for more facts. I will not predict that the WMF will respond to every request, but I do think that by asking publicly that even declined requests are insightful information to report.
Sorting out the resources is a long game which takes perspective from many interests and demographics. I appreciate that you do this, I appreciate that you have the idea to take this into The Signpost and make way for others to do the same, and I appreciate whatever you can do to separate the community-moderated collection of factual information from the field of various commentaries in which all sorts of people interpret the facts we have in common. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I am unwilling to devote any more effort until I get some indication that someone in the WMF has actually read the financial question that I have repeatedly asked. Until then I will continue to keep asking the same question that I asked above (cutting and pasting is easy). If the WMF can't or won't even answer the "how much was computer equipment and how much was office furniture?" question, I am not going to waste my time shouting into an empty hall by asking any other questions.
I have been involved with enough organizations to be able to take an educated guess what the WMF is refusing to reveal. Somewhere along the line someone said something like "We need to install sinks in the new bathroom" or "we need another redundant server to avoid outages" -- perfectly reasonable expenditures -- and were told "just charge it to the computer equipment and office furniture account". I am pretty sure that nobody is actually stealing from the WMF but rather did some accounting handwaving that makes it look like we spent twelve thousand dollars per employee per year giving them a computer and some office furniture when we were actually buying bathroom fixtures, servers, and who knows what else. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
And maybe we needed some bathroom fixtures. But to be clear, I'd like to know what exactly we spent our money on. --valereee (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Budget visualization

Wikidata has lots of visualization tools. It does not yet have one which is good for showcasing budgets. Here is an example of a contemporary visualization which is good for explaining budgets in various ways -

It is a bit premature to start putting financials into Wikidata but as anyone makes requests for clarification, consider that in the free and open space there are tools which we could reasonably use to meaningfully convey massive amounts of financial data to audiences who never before have reviewed accounted. Guy Macon, if you start requesting financials, I think you would be on the side of reason to start requesting a few high level breakdowns in an onion like this. As time goes on we can determine how many onion layers we need, and how many different schemas we need. Possible accounting formats are by expense type, by region, by strategic program, or by department. I am not even sure of the present data landscape of all these things. Eventually I expect that more of this will go into sunbursts for broad consumption. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

...Or they could just tell someone in accounting to go to Wikipedia page X and answer reasonable questions like "how much did we spend on furniture in 2003?" with an answer like "seven chairs and desks for seven new employee at $XXXX each..." and so on. It isn't hard to be financially transparent. The volume of questions from geeks like me is never very large. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see a straight story on accounting for WMF's cash inflows and outflows. In fact I believe there was a new document (IRS form 990) released last month, so that could set the stage for an explanation of where the money comes from and goes to. I'd like to have that written by somebody with some experience reading accounting statements and/or financial analysis. I don't think we should start by assuming our conclusion. Calling the article "Cancer" would do that. Whoever wants to do this please start with links to the appropriate accounting statements - https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ I don't think I'd be able to do this in 2 weeks - I got a lot else on my plate right now. How about for the August 30ish issue we aim for a) a neutral news article on WMF finances, an interview with the CFO, and, if needed, a pro&con type "In Focus" op-ed. (updated) Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't assume my conclusion before I wrote WP:CANCER. I carefully looked at the data, and I based my opinion on the fact that ever-increasing spending really is a lot like cancer. The revenue will not keep increasing forever. You may disagree with my conclusion or the way I presented it, but you can't say that my conclusion isn't based upon the available data. Feel free to start with the same data and present it with whatever conclusion you like, worded in any way that you like. I hear and understand your opinion about my essay. You don't have to keep repeating it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The WMF is extremely cagey about their expenditure because they have too much to hide. One of the things that interests me most is the cost of staff junkets. Telecommuting may seem like a very economical plan, but if you are flying staff across the US to weekly or monthly meetings, where is the break-point? It seems to me that the WMF deliberately organises events all over the world for privileged attendees, just to satisfy their own hunger for travel away from the SF office. Also, what is the difference between contractors and employees? This is a concept that needs explaining to us non-USA individuals. How many of the bloated 350-strong payroll are part-time? How is the work load vs hourly rate logged?
I will not let my conjectures and opinions be muzzled until we get some answers. I thoroughly agree with Guy, and The Signpost is the one single medium that can indeed be as critical as it can be laudatory, and most certainly should have enough freedom to be like the de.Wiki Kurier: nicht unbedingt neutral, nicht enzyklopädisch without treading on the toes of those who examine every written word in the hope of finding the merest nuance of something which they can claim to be offensive and then harass and pillory the editorial staff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Replying at Kudpung's talkpage just on the contractor/employee question. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, chiming in here from the harass-and-pillory squad, I think it's a good idea to push the WMF towards more financial transparency and I am glad you are looking into these things. Haukur (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, scandals follow scandals. Like the one a few years ago where a senior department head deliberately, rudely, and arrogantly, refused the advice of volunteers and caused - or more correctly 'allowed' to happen - a good faith project that became embroiled in scam and corruption, causing the waste of several million $$, and of course a bunch of WMFers bounding onto a Boeing for a junket to an exotic clime. The community of en.Wiki volunteers was left cleaning up the mess, while that senior WMF executive instead of being fired, was given a huge grant to fork off and start his own semi-independent affilate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_5&oldid=1166463681"