Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

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

The Signpost feedback

Please use this page for general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints.

  • For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions.
  • For article-specific comments, please add them to that article's talk page.
  • For proposals for a feature, see the Newsroom.
  • For discussion of the next issue, see the Newsroom talk page.

Subscriptions to inactive users with Template:Not around added to their talk pages[edit]

Does the subscription service take into account Template:Not around? Perhaps these inactive users should not necessarily have their subscriptions cancelled, but if the subscription bot/service sees {{Not around}} it should skip them until that template is removed. -- œ 08:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@OlEnglish: The signpost is delivered with the mass message extension, which excludes people who opt-in to a specific category (Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery). I think that the only way to skip people who are not around would be to have the template automatically opt users into that category, but I'm not sure that's wise. Just my 2 cents. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion debate concerning a Signpost article[edit]

A published Signpost article which concerns personal pronouns has been put up for deletion with over 40 !votes already. To my knowledge this is the first time this has been seriously proposed in the history of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I recommend doing what most editors would do in this situation: retract the article, blank the page, mark it as historical, with an apology for having published it in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I second this. This article is an embarrassment to the project. Bradv🍁 05:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You already said that at the other place. Let 's keep discussion there OK? This was intended to notify people unaware of the proposed action, not to open a second venue. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm just suggesting that if you retract and blank the article the deletion won't be necessary. Bradv🍁 06:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I said it in many places, because this is the first time I hear the editorial staff reply to the idea, rather than cast aspersions, bully, or intimidate its critics. That the reply about a retraction still dodges the problem is discouraging. If the community is forced to delete the article because the Signpost refuses to take responsability for it and make amends for the hurt it caused, that would be a sad, sad outcome indeed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a shocking and monumental failure by the Signpost editorial staff, Bri. Either you withdraw this trash and apologize, or I will be sure that the community will debate more serious consequences for the editorial staff. This is a debacle. Deal with it now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Now you've really done it. You got Cullen of all people to blow up (on multiple pages)? This is really really bad. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Bri, at the cost of sounding rude, I may gently suggest that it might be time to seriously introspect into whether you and Kudpung are guys are the perfect fit for editorial duties of The Signpost.
Or I guess, there needs to be a discussion to prevent this monthly theater. WBGconverse 11:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The E-in-C position is open to anybody who wants it. I've only ever referred to myself as de facto or acting E-in-C. In fact if you haven't heard we've been advertising for help for a while now. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
And that kinda gets to the point of it: it's easy to cry that one's offended and therefore demand apologies and resignations but when volunteers provide a service gratis, there's a lack of recognition that the customers who paid nothing can take their eyeballs elsewhere. The Signpost has, even recently, posted content that I didn't like. I did what any reader should do: I left a comment on the talk page about my disapproval. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
This is a shocking and monumental failure of all the templating people. Plural_they have so important things to say about what others have writen, that plural_they have no time left to write by plural_them-selves. What about a template atop each article ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
As you travel through life you will encounter attempts at humor that you find to be offensive. See [1], which documents and complains about some very offensive material that is for some reason widely accepted as being OK. Go ahead and flame the "comic", boycott its sponsors/advertisers, etc., but do not attempt to censor. Besides being morally repugnant (who are you to tell me what I am allowed to see?) you are extremely likely to end up experiencing the Streisand effect up close and personal.
I have further advice for the censors. Don't read things that you find to be offensive. Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to The Signpost. Simply stop clicking on the links marked "editorial" or "humor". The fact that you have a choice about what you read means that if you encounter something that you are offended by you only have yourself to blame.
If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away its keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Three quick points:
  1. WP:NOTCENSORED is about encyclopedic content, not personal interactions between editors; what you should be linking to is Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech.
  2. Nobody is censoring anything, we are opposed to retaining inappropriate material. It is not censorship to remove unhelpful and inappropriate material any more than it is censorship to remove unsourced or attack BLPs.
  3. There is a reasonable expectation that material in a newspaper which states its purpose as informing, entertaining, and publishing would do one of those things. It is reasonable to expect something with this imprimatur not to actively offend or be hurtful.
Had the authors written an essay using policy and encyclopedic guidelines to disagree with the current policies or guidelines around pronoun usage, nobody would be upset and none of this would have happened. It is the manner and tone in which this was presented that has upset a great many of us. ~ Amory (utc) 15:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Too many semantics here imho. Yes WP is not free speech forum, nevertheless WP projects pages are supposed to be a place for the frank and contrarian exchange of opinions between Wikipedians as well.
Your first point correctly points out that Signpost is not the ANR (hence different policies may apply) and yet in your second point you make an analogy to ANR as an argument, that is a bit inconsistent and soft of exactly that misunderstanding of policy you were complaining about in your first point.
One of the 3 expectations for newspaper article you cite above seems clearly fullfilled, that is "satire" is "entertainment". Moreover a discussion on the use of pronoun (and related language issues/problems) in WP seems a fair subject for debate.
To which degree that "satire" is actually "actively" hurtful is unclear to me and seems to be a bit in the eye of the beholder. Now there is apparently are larger number of editors that found this satire offensive, but that on its own doesn't necessarily imply that the text itself surpasses the threshold for the policy violations claimed here or in the associated deletion discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It's actually irony. It's more gentle than satire. – Athaenara 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Political correctness is gone too far. It's making me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake anyone? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe this discussion belongs on the WP:Will these kids get off my lawn noticeboard. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: you may have intended to make a witty rejoinder by mentioning "Generation Snowflake", but I looked at that article and it only made me think of our wise sage User:Kudpung. For example, the article you mention says that people of that generation are sterotypically considered "more prone to taking offence and having less psychological resilience than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own". It saddens me that Kudpung has recently been poorly, but I am sure he will soon be back to his former self. MPS1992 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't normal (reflection/brainstorming ideas)[edit]

Premise: The current situation is not normal (or should not be). There shouldn't be drama blowing up following the publication of each issue. We shouldn't get dozens of readers telling something shouldn't have been published, or shouldn't have been covered in that way, every month.

I think it is time to reflect on the current structure and process, and whether they are serving us well. Some brainstorming ideas / points for discussion (not in any particular order, just stuff that's been going through my head)

  • It would be good to have more eyes on draft articles pre-publication. Maybe set up a mass-message list? – assuming that people would actually want to help out per WP:SOFIXIT
  • Should the community have some way to halt publication of a piece if there are multiple strong objections? – maybe somewhat along the lines of how voluntary admin recall works
  • Should the EIC(s) be subject to recall, or have time-limited terms? Should the position(s) be filled by voting/election? – rather than whoever has the job gets to keep it until they decide to give it up
  • How can we ensure that controversial subjects / minority viewpoints can still be appropriately covered? – that there isn't too much of a chilling effect preventing good-faith attempts to discuss difficult topics
  • Would it help to have a larger editorial board be in charge of approving articles, rather than just one person or two people? How many people? How difficult would it be to actually fill such a board?

That's what I've got to start off this discussion, feel free to raise more ideas or points for discussion below - Evad37 [talk] 07:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Evad, I think something needs to change for sure. That thing is not really the structure or having more eyes on drafts. I showed up hear, made my comments on the humor article, and then felt they were dismissed. That should not be the case. We shouldn't have done that. What we need is to change the culture of participation around here. I felt like I was made to choose between the Signpost and my objections on the humor article. However, there should be nothing wrong with editors giving feedback on articles ever. That really needs to stop. If I can't express my thoughts on a submission, then why should I even bother participating. Also, I have added myself as outreach manager now.MattLongCT -Talk- 20:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(+1) to what MattLongCT says. MattLongCT and Headbomb criticized the piece aprior to publication but were inappropriately shut down by a single sysop (who has since then evaded all responsibility for this saga) using an array of ridiculous arguments.
This has become a pattern of the Signpost under the Bri/Kudpung era. Anybody who criticizes the writeup(s) are branded as trolls who hates Kudpung/Signpost/Wikipedia/whatever and these dramatic episodes keep on happening without them learning anything from the sagas. Even more, you can be reverse-targeted of intentionally harassing these people and subjected to wild threats (vide Kudpung's warnings on Headbomb's t/p, Kudpung's outright chilling threats to sink a steward reconfirmation over Ajraddatz's t/p et al).
The first step towards the change will be to snap any links between The Signpost and the aforementioned two, who have taken charge of the publication. None seems any willing to accept any criticism and this is fundamentally contrary to the wiki-way. WBGconverse 08:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The only pattern I see, Winged Blades of Godric, is that you have a propensity to frequent drama and drama boards, pontificating everywhere as if you were an admin, and making a lot of comments around Wikipedia that are borderline PA, taking things wildly out of context to satisfy your need for saga, and stalking my edits (diffs available) - and it's been noticed. That is what is fundamentally contrary to the wiki-way, so don't mention the word 'harrass' too casually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't much care about the patterns you see and at any case, I won't reply to some unsubstantiated aspersions which are not any related to the substance of the thread. FWIW, it's the third time that you accuse me of stalking you and I will repeat for the third time that (as someone who is an admin) you ought to know where the recourse lies. WBGconverse 10:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have to say, the response to the concerns raised by MattLongCT and Headbomb was highly unconstructive and frankly anti-collegiate. It does not make editors feel welcome at the Signpost, rather the opposite. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
DuncanHill, would you mind elaborating a bit on that point? ―MattLongCT -Talk- 15:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait, I thought you were saying the concerns were highly unconstructive. My bad. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The concerns were constructive, the response was not. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would advise the editors to take these concerns seriously and work towards creating some sort of accountability to the community which you represent. It is inappropriate for self-appointed editors to deem themselves exempt from scrutiny because of editorial independence and nobody else being willing to do the job. If you want to be treated as newspaper editors and exercise editorial discretion, then you need to make sure that your actions are acceptable to your publisher. I think we would all rather see a self-policing system than have articles taken to MfD or editors topic-banned from the publication (hasn't happened yet, but it could).
Pre-publication community review brings the risk of vocal groups of editors shutting down perfectly reasonable articles that they disagree with. To prevent this, you could come up with a community-approved set of guidelines so that the review process would be based on policy instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This would also give others the opportunity to help with things like basic fact-checking.
A community approval process for editor positions would certainly help with accountability. At the very least, the ability for the community to remove individuals from the position would be essential.
To address a point that has been raised several times: A bad Signpost is worse than no Signpost at all. –dlthewave 17:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is like NGOs complaining to the WMF about its coverage, opining that a bad Wikipedia is worse than no Wikipedia, at all. If there's consensus against Bri as EiC, take it to WP:AN. Otherwise, be prepared to accept the sort of product provided by volunteers. You get what you paid for. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While I do not contribute to The Signpost anymore, I will happily look over pieces before publication as Evad37 suggests. Further, I would be on an editorial board if people need spots to be filled, as I think I have a relatively good sense of what should and shouldn't be published. I don't really think anybody on The Signpost's staff is at fault for the humour section of last issue, but feel the concerns raised by various editors before publication should have been listened to. assume good faith even if it kills you. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I took some time to think about it, and I greatly support setting up some additional structure. Things like voting EICs in and out (although time limiting terms would probably not be a great idea), instituting clear official policies, and expanding an editorial board would help a lot. I also think we could do with a voting system to decide between multiple submissions for a column. However, I think it's going to be difficult to institute significant changes with so few contributors. In fact, I think quite a few of our problems are due to having so few people on the team. Correct me if I'm way off, but I think I only ever see about 10 people helping with each issue of the Signpost. The whole debacle with the humor piece kind of distracted from the fact that the rest of the issue was falling apart at the seams. How many times have we had to cut segments, not because there was no content to write, but because there was nobody to write it? We should definitely refine our process and make it more efficient, but we should also see if we can get more contributors on board since we're spread pretty thin right now. These problems go hand in hand. Let me know if I need to clarify anything; I'm being constantly interrupted as I type this so my phrasing is bound to be a bit rough. AcoriSage 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Acorri: Your first three sentences are discredited by everything else you said. Everyone wants to fault the Signpost contributors but calling for more participation doesn't work when we have a hard time scraping up volunteers. You seem too confident offering advice when you, yourself, are a relatively new editor. Either you want to step up and replace those persons you fault (which you're not, in my opinion, qualified to do) or you need to just keeping rowing on your small task on the team and leave it to more-informed editors to fix the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Chris troutman and Acorri: With all due respect, I feel there is a certainly something missing here. Chris, who do you consider to be a signpost contributor? Like, get a list out beyond those listed here. Who has contributed any amount to the Singpost but is not listed there? That might be a good place to start... or maybe not. Up to you! :) –MJLTalk 20:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: I don't understand; please explain. (Also, I don't think there's any problem that needs to be solved, hence I don't offer a solution.) Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Chris troutman, my apologies. On the note of retention and recruitment, do we have a list of Wikipedians who have contributed to the last few issues? My thoughts are maybe that we could reach out to them to get them on the team more formally. –MJLTalk 21:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Chris troutman I am still hoping for a response... –MJLTalk 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I'm not really trying to "fault" anyone. I just see that there are problems and I'm offering my thoughts to the discussion. I'm not trying to claim to have all the answers or overstep my knowledge. Clearly, I wouldn't be the right person to write policy, but I can see it needs to be done, and I would be ready and willing to help with the process in any way I can. Also, I didn't mean to downplay the difficulty of actually getting more people to help, although upon rereading my writing I can definitely see how it would come across that way. I was not so much trying to assert a solution as I was trying to bring up angle on the problem that hadn't been covered yet. I hope that makes sense, I know my phrasing is a bit discordant today. AcoriSage 23:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been a reporter for small newspapers my entire adult life. Attacks by some readers and disagreement among some staffers happens at every single publication of any worth; you have to expect that some people will be pissed by some articles or else you're generating pablum. If you produce any kind of informative publication, then quarreling and outrage and cries of bias isn't a bug, it's a feature. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, Considering the fact a good amount of Signpost editors disagreed with the humor article, and we did not have any recourse, would you say that is a legitimate concern? Also, I don't see your name listed as a contributing writer... would you consider writing for the "In the media" section? –MJLTalk 00:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the piece was within legitimate boundaries for disagreement; in other words, publishing it was fine even if I don't agree with it. And while I appreciate the need, reporting for Signpost would be exactly like my job and as I'm sure you understand, when I'm not working I like to do something that's not like my job! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Dang, well it was worth a shot! Side note: I keep thinking about David Brooks everytime I read your name. I am sure you get that often, though.MJLTalk 15:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It's why I put the "W" in my wikipedia name - not that it worked. If I was doing it over, I'd use my initials. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
DWB, best decision I've ever made! –MJLTalk 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Back in 2003 when I joined, I figured wikipedia would fizzle and die in a year or two. Never thought it would haunt - er, I mean, be a joyful part of my life for so long. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the current situation is a bit more than "some people ... pissed by some articles". Controversy and passionate disagreements and arguments on a talk page is one thing, having a broad base of readers wanting something expunged from the record with drama spilling over into AN/ANI/Arbcom/elsewhere, is something else. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but surely there is something we can try besides take it to AN/Arbcom or accept things the way they are – hence this reflection/brainstorming section. - Evad37 [talk] 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The solution is relatively simple, The Signpost must retract this piece, and apologize for it. Because as it stands, the community told The Signpost that publishing what is effectively an attack piece against a marginalized community is not acceptable, and The Signpost has yet to acklowledge that and its editors must self-introspect accordingly. Fucking up happens. People have blindspots. But burying one's head in the sand, or pretending the problem lies with the readership and hoping things die down isn't the way forward. But this is a good roadmap.
  1. Retract the article, clearly and unambiguously
  2. Admit the fuckups (and there are multiple ones here, from failures to hear warnings ahead of time, to actually publishing of the piece, to harrasment of Signpost readers), acknowledge their root causes, both human and procedural, as The Signpost sees them, as well as clashes with The Signpost's mission and responsability towards the community
  3. Apologize, unambiguously, resolve to do better in the future, with specific details on what The Signpost will do on a go-forward basis to prevent these things
Otherwise, the Signpost's readership and writership will dwindle, likely with several people boycotting the publication out of principle, and refusing to be associated with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'll admit my part in getting it wrong with this comment. But when I was referring to "solution", I meant more generally, as in what we should be doing differently in the future; i.e. this section is meant to be discussing the root causes and what The Signpost will do on a go-forward basis to prevent these things. I agree that burying heads in sand isn't helpful – that also applies to those readers who would boycott the publication. This is after all a wiki where if you don't like the way things are, you can (try to) change them through discussions/proposals. - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Evad, I really appreciate that comment. I'm glad to know we still have people both willing to admit their shortcomings but also trying to find equitable solutions. It ain't easy running this thing. –MJLTalk 17:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I don't think that piece was the unambiguous attack that you imagine. Your demands for nonsensical denouncements with the looming threat of lost readers only indicates to me that your minority opinion has left you dis-attached from objective reality. I hope that you follow-through on your rant and become disassociated with The Signpost and perhaps WIkipedia, as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"If you got a problem with that, boycott us, because we don't care, The Signpost and Wikipedia is better off without you anyway." Do you even hear yourself? "I hope you leave Wikipedia?" Really? REALLY? That's the response you have for criticism? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I've said; proof that my bluntness is required sometimes to get the point across when others prefer mealy-mouthed equivocation in the face of unreasonable behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris, are you naturally this nasty or did it take a lot of practice? DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris, you have been already censured by the community, a year back, for your incivility. Try to not behave like a jerk. WBGconverse 06:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Unless those with pompous sounding job titles Editor in chief participate to explain whether they actually have a role in publishing reviewed content, then this situation can happen at any time. Apart from threats to the editor above I see no meaningful participation from either of the notional E-in-Cs. Either there is a E-in-C function or there isn't. If there is, the purpose needs to be clarified. The existing activity is no where near what a true E-in-C would do in practice. It looks like self-aggrandisement. People cannot just claim titles and avoid scrutiny when, through their lack of intervention, an ongoing shambles including Arbcom. is created. So clarification on that role is needed, please. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I've said a lot about this over at the Arbcom case already so I'll try not to repeat myself (too much). What happened here was really not a failure of the publication's structure, as far as I can tell. It was a failure in response to criticism. Someone above said (paraphrased) that you're publishing junk if you're not generating some discussion and controversy. So you published something that, retrospectively, crossed the line out of provocative and into pointlessly offensive. You missed the mark, that's all; it happens. Like (I think) Headbomb said up the thread, we all have blind spots. And Headbomb also laid out a pretty reasonable roadmap for how you should respond when it happens again, and it will, 'cause ain't none of us perfect. It's when you go on the offensive that the trouble starts. Telling offended readers that they're wrong and that they have no right to be offended is a really effective recipe for maximum drama. Go read the ANI report or the MfD comments or the arbitration request all related to this incident if you're not convinced. It makes it look like you want to offend. And being journalistically provocative is a long way off from being deliberately offensive.
Most reasonable editors are going to forgive you for being human, and admitting that you fucked up. Because we've all fucked up, unless you've never done anything. For what it's worth I only really started reading The Signpost after whatever it was with Kudpung last summer. The newsletter is fine, really. You just had a bad day. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. Holding the title of Editor in Chief either means something or it doesn't, responsibility-wise. At least it sets an expectation of accountability. Lose the fancy Dan title and describe themselves as simply content aggregator (no editorial resp. for content) I am fine with that. But if you go by E-in-C, that means something, even in an in-house rag such as SP. Dump the titles. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The EIC role is described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination, and includes responsibility for the Signpost, and giving the final OK (or not OK) to draft articles. That an individual EIC makes mistakes doesn't mean that the role is simply one of content aggregation. - Evad37 [talk] 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Leaky, I don't think we actually disagree. I don't think I said anywhere that Signpost authors and their (nominal?) editors shouldn't be accountable for the material they publish, in fact I think what I wrote here is the opposite of that. Maybe our definitions of accountability differ? I don't think accountability means that you must lose your job immediately when you fuck up, and especially not when the people you work with fuck up, even if their job falls within your area of management (I'm applying professional metaphors to a volunteer-run organization, but IMO this is a valid comparison). Accountability, in my opinion, means that when you fuck up, you admit it, own it, and work to remedy the underlying situation so that you don't fuck up again. I guess I can't say that's happened here, but I also would not say that Bri (as current EiC) is at fault for this incident, certainly not all on her own, and I'm pretty confident that dismissing her would not actually solve any problems. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing script[edit]

Rather than posting on @Evad37's about this, I thought I should post here. Currently, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Publication says that the publishing script does not automate requesting a watchlist notification. It should be fairly easy to add that functionality - this script makes it really easy to add a new section to the current page, and I could configure it to allow use on any page. Should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'ld rather use the mw.Api module directly, as per the rest of the editing the script does, instead of requiring the loading of another script. It's not hard to specify appending a new section - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: that's what I meant - I can rewrite my script to always add to that specific page, and you can copy it. My suggestion wasn't the importation, but rather automating the request for a watchlist notification. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, does sound like a sensible idea. If you want to code something up I'll take a look. Feel free to make a sandbox copy of the publishing script and edit that, if you want to. - Evad37 [talk] 01:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: User:DannyS712 test/sps.js is a fork of the script, with the added step 14 of requesting the mass message. See the changes I made at I ran it a couple of times in dry-run, and it seems to work fine --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If that works, I'll start working on the other on-wiki step that isn't automated (Cleanup the newsroom). That one should be pretty straight forward. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done I just made a couple of minor changes (specify the month name in the section title, fixing some of my mistakes in comments, etc) - Evad37 [talk] 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: Okay. After the next release, if everything works according to plan, I'll send you a version that automates the newsroom cleanup. Until then, you should probably remove me from the list of approved users - I don't have the rights, nor the community support --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

Hello Signpost readers and editors, I've been reading about the lack of volunteer work at the Signpost, and also noticed a page very similar in purpose to The Signpost, Wikipedia:Goings-on. To better coordinate efforts between the (admittedly few) editors of that page and the Signpost, and to combine wiki news into one outlet as opposed to several uncoordinated pages (G.O. doesn't get much traffic), I propose WP:Goings-on be merged into The Signpost. Thanks, PrussianOwl (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

One problem I see with this is that The Signpost is monthly, while Goings-On is weekly. Not saying it couldn’t work, just something to consider. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Too different. The purpose of the Signpost goes beyond mere notices. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This issues humour page becomes Signpost's most viewed article ever?[edit]

I would just like to make a small point that this issues humour page has become The Signpost's most viewed article since the beginning of 2018 at least, currently with over 7800 views (in only 7 days). The second most viewed article is far behind at only 5240 views. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The deletion page for the article has over 14,500 views so far. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If the deletion discussion ever has more !votes than the article which is its subject has views, that is likely to be indicative of a problem with the discussion process. MPS1992 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It had 154 distinct editors, well below the multiple thousand views the article had. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I will honor the decision -- for the time being, anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't you mean, since the beginning of 2019? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
GoodDay, since the beginning of 2018 (at least). I had done an article in 2018 related to Signpost stats, so that's why I said 2018. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice to see some positive fallout from all this drama: educating some participants on the Streisand effect… — JFG talk 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope. They appear to be ineducable, flatly denying that the Streisand effect could possibly apply to their attempts at censorship. See the section below this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Any sort of "Streisand effect" is really immaterial to anything here, and you're also conflating correlation with causation. You argue, without evidence, or much internal logic, that the MFD and the mess is what caused outrage/drove the view count up, therefore leading to more damage/negative impact than otherwise. But there's an alternative scenario here: the outrage is what drove the viewcount up, and caused the MFD and all the mess, and would have happened anyway. In all scenarios, the root cause is having published a piece so outrageous that it exploded all over Wikipedia because the Signpost needed to hear that punching down on marginalized communities, many of whom edit with us, is not acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Streisand effect[edit]

  • As I correctly predicted, had Headbomb and Fæ had simply ignored the page, it would have had comparatively few readers (most people who get the signpost notifications don't bother reading the subpages), but by attempting to remove that which they found offensive, they triggered the Streisand effect and insured that before this is over tens of thousands of people will have read the page. On the Internet, attempts at censorship almost always backfire, generate a ton of free publicity, and result in the material being reproduced on dozens of websites and in hundreds of online discussions. See AACS encryption key controversy for another example of attempted censorship having the opposite effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Stupid Rosa Parks. Had she stayed at the back of the bus, and kept her mouth shut, none of those race riots would have happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It's so transparently dumb, here, to use the "Streisand Effect" for pretty much anything except to stress one's agenda. It does not matter, at all. Never on Wikipedia is the issue that you are free to publish something and have people see it, somewhere, the issue is always whether this vehicle for publication is the right one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: You are not Rosa Parks. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

— [2]
If only I was a dead black woman, I could have spoken up! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Plus the fact that it eventually was censored (blanking is as good as deleting to the lay reader) just confirms the whole Streisand Effect theory but I fear it is going to lead to a slippery slope where risque humour is no longer allowed on Wikipedia. I hope I am wrong. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It is fundamentally improbable (aka bollocks) to suggest that blind eyes might / could / should have been turned. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Guy, come on here with that. You must know that is an exaggerated number. It also does not necessarily prove the claim you are trying to make. (1) There's no control for this sort of thing. We don't have a second Wikipedia where these two specific editors didn't bring attention to this issue. (2) As I said here about half of all web traffic is just bots. This number has shown itself to be growing over time (sources in diff). (3) Something something.. Correlation is not causation. (4) The page is blanked, so people who head to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour are not exactly reading the article unless they actually view the history which we have no method of measuring as far as I am aware. (5) This conversation is really not going to get anywhere. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 18:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The statistical theory that you are proposing is easy to test. Just compare the views of this Signpost humor piece with a couple of others. There is your scientific control. Bots, for example, are unlikely to just happen to visit the page that has the censorship attept more than the others. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
So Guy is blaming the people who responded to a really shitty piece of work, instead of blaming the author. "With friends like these, the Signpost does not need enemies". DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
So DuncanHill is blaming Barbra Streisand, who sued a photographer remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion that, until she did that was viewed by four people -- none of whom had any way of telling that it was her home. That convinces me! I now realizes that it was the photographer who somehow magically made the image appear in newspapers and on Wikipedia. Barbara's actions had nothing to do with it. With enemies like Barbra Streisand, the photographer doesn't need friends. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh Guy, poor you. Hopefully Nurse will be along soon to tuck you in. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Uh, more people seeing it was sort of the point? The problem wasn't "we have to pretend this doesn't exist!" it was "this existing in our internal newsletter is embarrassing as hell, no matter how many people see it". So more people saw it, and saw the reaction to it. This is good, because they saw the strong backlash to insensitive content. So I have no idea what you're crowing about. Parabolist (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Headbomb and Fæ were quite clear that they thought that the content was hurtful to transgendered people. A point which, BTW, I never disputed. The were also crystal clear about wanting to remove the content so that these individuals would not see it and thus be harmed. Nowhere did anyone arguing for deletion even hint that they wanted it widely disseminated.
Imagine that you agreed with Barbra Streisand about aerial images of her house being an invasion of her privacy. Imagine further that you knew what the results of her sueing the photographer would be. Would you have advised her to do it, just to embarrass the photographer? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess if you completely ignore all the objections that people made that aren’t the one that proves your weird point, you ARE right! It’s blanked, everyone is mostly satisfied, you should really let it go. This whole section is embarrassing. Parabolist (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is like a joke![edit]

  • WP:SP - Leads to Wikipedia:Subpages, now you are having a laugh right?
  • WP:SIGN - Leading to: Wikipedia:Signatures, That one seems to make more sense. Signatures, sig... wait a minute... say that again, signature... sig... sig,n... siggin? Siggin! That's it. WP:SIGN. That's right. Barmy. Well, I should bleeding cocoa too then, ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 18:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    RTG, It does seem like the 'Post seems to be relegated to the WP:POST shortcut Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    I just created WP:PSST ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 18:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)