Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions
(Redirected from Wikipedia:OPED)
 (talk · chat) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent changes: main · talk |
|
|
| Submissions archives |
|---|
|
|
Settings: |
Submission desk
[edit]Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.
The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.
Submission
[edit]
- Submission: User:Schierbecker/Wikiality
- Column: Humour
- Author: Schierbecker
- Discussion:
On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.
- Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Submission
[edit]- Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
- Column: TDB
- Author: OpenSexism
- Discussion:
This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Submission(crossword)
[edit]- Submission:User:Spongebob796
- Column:Crosssword
- Author:Spongebob796
- Discussion:
I'm, uh not an WP Signpost writer nor editor, but I'm interested to make an Wikipedia crossword, which will have relevant information from the articles I have come across. This will also have Wikipedia terms, obviously, and words that are related to intresting information.Spongebob796 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Report: The Big Ones
[edit]- Submission: —
- Column: WikiProject Report
- Author: Joe Roe
- Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.
- I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Wikipedia. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers is one measure of the biggest. Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are not so well known. Besides the ones you named,Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies have their influence.
- Among all of these, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Highlights from the fiscal year 2023-2024 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports
[edit]- Submission: User:ELappen_(WMF)/Sandbox/2023-2024_audit_reports
- Column: News from the WMF
- Author: ELappen (WMF)
- Discussion:
This piece will present comprehensive highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports for fiscal year 2023-2024 to give insight into how funds were raised and used during this timeframe. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @JPxG: just flagging that this piece is now ready for review. Thanks! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like this is basically identical to this recent Diff post, something that should be disclosed both as part of a submission and in the version published here. Basically every publication that solicits submissions will want to know whether they are getting original content or a syndication of something previously published elsewhere. I would think that most communications professionals know this, but perhaps it is worth clarifying it in this page's header (which currently already strongly hints that republication of finished pieces from elsewhere is not the norm, e.g.
We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story
etc). - I'm still curious how the "News from the WMF" slot transformed from something for which the Signpost's editorial team would independently select a post from the WMF's Diff blog for republication to something that the WMF apparently sees as their prerogative to fill proactively. Having said that, the current submission does cover an important topic, and given that the Signpost's independent coverage of these audit reports by User:Jayen466 has often been highly negative, I totally understand the desire to get ahead of it this time.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping, HaeB. I don't think I have any concerns at the moment: we finally have public, audited accounts for the Endowment, and all the fundraising banners I have read this year seemed on the right side of the red line. (The emails are still a bit pushy, but then that is a slightly different audience.) So as things stand right now, I don't see a reason for writing a critical piece. The 990 forms next May might be more deserving of a standalone piece by the Signpost team. Regards, Andreas JN466 18:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like this is basically identical to this recent Diff post, something that should be disclosed both as part of a submission and in the version published here. Basically every publication that solicits submissions will want to know whether they are getting original content or a syndication of something previously published elsewhere. I would think that most communications professionals know this, but perhaps it is worth clarifying it in this page's header (which currently already strongly hints that republication of finished pieces from elsewhere is not the norm, e.g.
- Hey @JPxG: just flagging that this piece is now ready for review. Thanks! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?
[edit]- Submission: User:PAC2/Signpost Opinion1
- Column: In focus
- Author: PAC2
- Discussion: An essay on how to measure imbalances between mentions of people from Europe and North America and people from the rest of the world in Wikipedia articles. PAC2 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-12/In focus
Filipino girl group Bini goes to Wikipedia
[edit]- Submission: User:Royiswariii/Signpost Opinion1
- Column: Opinion
- Author: Royiswariii
- Discussion:
This is my first opinion here on The SignPost, I wrote this to express my feelings how they are recognizable now, this includes on being number 1 most popular Wikipedia article in Filipino musicians in 2024. I added who they are, how they formed, the rising of girl group, controversy and my final thoughts or my "real" commentary. Royiswariii Talk! 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)