Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

20:11 Disinformation report

Should I/Bluerasberry move this from drafts to next issue? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to support User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/sandbox/Draft:Disinformation_report but would like anyone else to add their support to publication following any review, critique, or request for additional care if needed. The piece is submitted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Disinformation_Report_Take_2.

I think this is one of the most interesting pieces ever submitted to Signpost in terms of this being an evidence-supported narrative of how shenanigans significantly contributed to the establishment of United States legislation, court precedent, medical policy, and political platforms. As this is a transgender political piece, getting this out now in election season would be timely. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My disinfo report I talked about above is ready. It's in my standard disinfo report style, so I'd usually put in here. But it looks like Special report is open, I'll post it there and let other people switch things around if necessary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Last issue published, I staged this at next issue in User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/sandbox/Draft:Disinformation_report.

Anyone with comments or feedback please ping submitted Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Bluerasberry (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones since you normally handle the disinfo report, could you please review this piece? Would love to hear your feedback! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

20:12 News and notes

Going to ping @Trappist the monk, AManWithNoPlan, JLaTondre, and Nemo bis: for comments/sanity check on the above piece/section. Did I get anything wrong/forget something/someone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine for the JCW compilation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

CSD C4

Worth noting: WP:CSD#C4, via [1] ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

20:12 Serendipity

I plan to eventually finish writing User:Clovermoss/Wikimania 2024. A snazzier title would probably be something like "what it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year". It's been awhile since I've written anything for the Signpost but I figured this would probably be welcome once I'm actually done writing the thing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. jp×g 🗯️ 00:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Would you be alright with waiting to copyedit until I'm actually done? I'm not even halfway through and I plan on rewriting certain things. It just seems like a lot of effort for a process that only needs to be done once at the end, y'know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course! My apologies! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not mad, I just didn't want you to have to spend more time on it than you had to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, submit it on the submissions page when you're ready for it to be copyedited. Then the copyeditors know for sure you've finished. Svampesky (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Hi, how is the article shaping up? Don't forget we can give you support to complete it and double-check it, if needed! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not concerned. It's not too detailed yet but it's high on the list of priorities to finish within the next few days. I took notes at wikimania so I already have somewhat of a rough draft. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky and Oltrepier: I haven't finished it yet but it's coming along nicely and I should be finished before the September 1 deadline. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I look forward to reading it. Svampesky (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Same as per @Svampesky, I can't wait! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky and Oltrepier: I have finished pretty much everything I set out to do. Let me know what you think. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thank you! I think some parts might need to be trimmed, specifically the August 8 section, but apart from that, the article looks good! If you don't mind, I've done a little bit of copy-editing myself at the top of the page. @Shushugah: If you want to finish the job, go ahead! Oltrepier (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: Why do you think parts of August 8 need to be trimmed? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Because it looked much longer than the other sections, but thinking twice, I understand it was a very eventful day for you, so it's probably fine. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, Svampesky, and Clovermoss: By the way, where should we place this article? I think it would be a nice feature for the "Serendipity" section! Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything else I'm supposed to do? I'm a bit anxious that this piece does not appear to be anywhere at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you need to do no. It just needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Signpost/Next issue/Something, and then it'll appear in the preview. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, basically -- the process is automatic, so long as the page is in the /Next issue/ namespace. By default it updates every day, but you can make it update manually by clicking on this link from the next issue page. jp×g 🗯️ 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still in my userspace for now. You're free to move it wherever you think it should be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be good for 'Featured content'. Svampesky (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky Actually, "Featured content" is usually reserved to FAs, FPs and FLs, so I don't think it would be the most appropriate section in this case... and obviously, since I'm an idiot, I only realized it after I had already moved Hannah's draft over there.

So, for now you can find the draft over at the "Serendipity" section, which should be a more fitting place. @Clovermoss I hope it still sounds good!

P.S. @JPxG, can you help me clean up the mess I've made with the "Featured content" article space, please? Oltrepier (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I will unarseways everything when I prep it, no need to worry. jp×g 🗯️ 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Serendipity. P.S. you're the first person to call me Hannah on-wiki. Congrats. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Wait, really? That's astounding! : D Oltrepier (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

20:12 In the media

Hello everyone! Just so you know, I've moved Bri's report on the Portland case to the top of the page, since this "part 2" might be worth a full blurb, as well. Unfortunately, I won't be able to write any of those this time, due to personal time constraints and total unfamiliarity with the subject; however, I did take care of the whole "In brief" section!

By the way, I apologize for being basically "ghost-like" in the last few months: aside of focusing on other tasks on Wikipedia, I also had (and I still have) to prioritize my real-life schedule, and it was likely the right choice. I hope I'll manage to contribute more in the last quarter of this year! Oltrepier (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Separately, it might be the case that Clovermoss wasn't actually interviewed for that local media piece, so we may want to change wording. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Ooh, good catch! I'll re-tool that blurb as soon as possible! Oltrepier (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones: On a side note, is it OK if I merge the New Yorker article you provided with another one I've found on El País? Since I actually have time to write a full blurb, and I noticed these two articles both talk about Wikipedia and AI, I think we could kill two birds with one stone here! Oltrepier (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

3 things @Clovermoss, Oltrepier, Pine, HaeB, and JPxG:

Should somebody somewhere mention that Clovermoss wrote at least 4 articles for The Signpost with Pine in "On the bright side" starting about January 2020? I thought there were more but could not find any more. Clovermoss probably knows how many and the dates and whether she thinks they are important enough to mention.
Oltrepier. I've seen that El Pais article somewhere before, maybe in the last issue, or maybe we just skipped over it (so far) in this issue. I don't think it fits with the New Yorker article, which is about the beginning of Chat GTP and features 4 or 5 "Wikipedia articles", El Pais is about AI and and the current Wikipedia. I sent JPxG a copy of the article, but I'm not sure he received it. I'm technically a bit over my head on this. HaeB, can you do this? Basically I don't even know what a transformer is, but I can summarize almost anything and hope it makes sense!
As far as the Portland article, I'd rather not participate, except perhaps for the section title. I don't understand the meaning of the current "Portland pol possible problems post paid" means but I do suggest "Portland pol's publicly-paid profile: Part II" (Perhaps I have a special talent for P-alliteration?). I'll suggest for the section: first identify who is the subject of the section. Second: link to the articles in the usual way and use the quotes as part of the text. 3rd: make sure that they are in the proper order - that they flow correctly - and cover everything you want to cover. Then, maybe summarize, and connect the major points. This article is just not attractive to me this month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks for the ping, I edited the coverage of the New Yorker article a bit, it looks fine to me now.

I've got to say that as someone who never watched Jumanji, that pop culture reference went over my head.vAlso, what's the deal with that "Anti Feminism" photo?

Regarding AI, there was also this interview with two WMF staff which would be great to cover. I might take a stab at that soon but am also still working on getting a publishable version of RR ready, so others should feel free to call dibs on it.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Done now. @Oltrepier: It might be my imperfect Spanish, but I can't see where the El Pais article says anything like following: As García and Albon suggest, the overall effectiveness of the plans set by the WMF to regulate the use of AI on Wikimedia projects will likely play a key role in shaping Wikipedia's future .... And the claim seems quite surprising - the Foundation usually stays clear from setting such editorial policies, and leaves their development to the volunteer communities of the individual Wikimedia projects (which several of them have done by now). I have removed it for now from the draft, but feel free to add it back in case I overlooked something. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones Actually, I intended to include the New Yorker article as a premise for the rest of article, which will be mainly built on the El Pais piece: I'll try to post my draft blurb as soon as possible, so you can have a look and see if it might still be suitable! Oltrepier (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Everything I ever wrote for the Signpost is linked on my userpage. Maybe what you're remembering is the work Pine did before I joined him? It was already a Signpost feature before we started working on it together. We both became inactive around the same time and it's never really been revived since (I think I've seen one person re-use the name for a piece?) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think mentioning the essay I published in the Signpost in January 2023 would be the most relevant because one of the things I was recognized for in the award was my feedback in regards to mobile editing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Thank you, I've just added a quick reference to the short blurb on the Thorold Today article. Oltrepier (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones: By the way, I've just posted a blurb that incorporates both the New Yorker article and the El País one (it hasn't been mentioned before), hopefully it's good enough. Apologies in advance for any linguistic or technical blunders!

@Bri: On a side note, I wonder if we could ask AI to create a Jumanji-inspired pic for that article, but I'm afraid the outcome could be terrifying... Oltrepier (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't remember seeing a piece of WP news-coverage I thought was more stupid than this one:Wikipedia users mind-blown after finding hidden function they never knew about. I checked 3 times, it's not The Onion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, Smallbones, and JPxG: I just wanted to note that the blurb involving the latest updates on the Portland case (suggested by Bri) still need to be expanded, should anybody wish/be able to do so! Like I said, I can't do it myself, because I'm just not familiar enough with the subject... Oltrepier (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

20:12 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fourteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Might still edit it a bit further, but this should be publishable already. I'll add an image in a moment and then look at ITM next, per below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

COI declaration

Hi there! I added two texts to the Signpost yesterday, about MCDC and WLM, but was not aware I am not allowed to write about what I am involved in. Headbomb already rephrased some of my texts (thanks!), but I wanted to be transparent about the involvement just in case. Ciell (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean you're not allowed to write about what you're involved in? People who are involved with things are usually the ones that can write the best about them! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I am misinterpreting: The Signpost contributors must declare any conflict of interest in the text of any article or editorial that they write. Ciell (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

People who are involved with things are usually the ones that can write the best about them! - sure, that is a bedrock principle of journalism! The best newspapers are those that are entirely written by PR representatives!</sarcasm>

Apropos, Headbomb, it's a bit odd that the lead story in N&N right now is not only yet another one in a line of many extolling one of your projects (I think it is fair to say that these form the vast majority of your writing contributions to the Signpost), but this time you are also praising yourself in the third person (Thanks to editors Headbomb and Trappist the monk for their efforts). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Giving credit is hardly praise. As for it being the lead story, ~~Oletrepied~~ Oltrepier is the one that made is so [2], JPxG is free to change the order or pick a different one to lead. that is a bedrock principle of journalism, ever heard of "write what you know"? Merely being involved with something is not a conflict of interest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb and HaeB: Um... "Oletrepied"? Sounds like a very cozy French town, and I'd love to visit it! : D

But all jokes and arguments aside, yep, it was me who wrote the headline. Back to the topic, I think Ciell should be mostly fine, especially now that we've copy-edited his contributions, right? Oltrepier (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

(her contributions) Ciell (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell Oh dear, I didn't realize that... My apologies! Oltrepier (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Ciell (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell, Headbomb, HaeB, and JPxG: Yes, if you are writing about yourself, you definitely need to let our readers know about it. There are several ways to do this. Writing under the Opinion or Op-ed rubrics usually works pretty well. Starting out with "I've been working on this special project for the last 8 months" might do it in many cases. "Traffic report" falls in a category of it's own. Ciell, perhaps "I am reporting this as a member of MCDC". See what you are comfortable with. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Morning, as it were.

Two hours as-the-template-flies seems overly optimistic, as there comes a time in every man's life when he must do what is right, and nap. But the issue is looking good so far, and I do not see anything that looks like it would require highly extensive dicking around with, so this is looking to be pleasantly on schedule, for the most part. My house did not burn down, just the job market, I guess. jp×g 🗯️ 20:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG I should address that this article is the only one who still needs to be expanded at "In the media" (I didn't have time, nor the expertise to do it myself), but indeed everything else should be alright. Oltrepier (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and signed it, it's probably good enough to publish now. Not sure if there's more to do there without starting to cast my own slant onto what is basically a local campaign finance (corruption?) story. Mentioning 2020 Oregon Ballot Measure 107 would probably have been WP:OR if not published in The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

~~I've finished with the gallery, but I'm not sure how to create interlanguage links to the articles. When I try, it doesn't render. Svampesky (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)~~

~~I worked out how to do it. Svampesky (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)~~

~~This is strange. It renders in the preview: Cleopatra [cs] Svampesky (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)~~

~~But doesn't render on the pages, Special:Diff/1243695691 Svampesky (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)~~ Solved Svampesky (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be escaped with the colon, same as files and categories. Exemplis grata [[Category:Moths of Madagascar]] will just add the page to that cat, but "[[:Category:Moths of Madagascar]]" gives "Category:Moths of Madagascar". jp×g 🗯️ 03:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, the goose is on the roost, this issue's out. I am running Wegweiser right now so the single talk should be ready in a few minutes. jp×g 🗯️ 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: You didn't publish the Gallery (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery), was this intentional? It was ready to be published. I thought it would make a cohesive issue as three other pieces are AI-related. Svampesky (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Same for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Any update on this? I'm working my way through writing for each column, and I have an idea for a humor piece in the next issue (if I can make it funny), so it would be great if the Gallery can be included in this issue. I think the global subscribers not receiving it will be an inconvenience, but as the enwiki ones are transcluded, it's not the end of the world. Svampesky (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

20:12 Wikimania

The article is about Wikimania "last month" and has a day-by-day account of events (day 1, day 2, etc.) but never mentions the actual dates. In fact I can't find the word "August" in the article. Is this intentional? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Bri, sorry! I added the dates earlier today, I missed that. I hope that this makes sense now, but if not, please feel free to change the text. Nadzik (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey request in News and Notes

@Headbomb I wonder if you could add this research request we are doing, in the News and Notes or a relevant area:

The Campaigns teams would like to learn more about how your communities do online collaboration such as WikiProjects, please take this Google Form survey or share examples of successful collaborations on Meta Wiki.

We published it as part of the Wikimedia Foundation bulletin: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Wikimedia_Foundation_Bulletin_August_Issue_2 -- but this is a very experienced editor oriented request, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't see why not, I'll add a note. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I've tweaked the wording a bit. How does that look to you? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect thanks! @Headbomb Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Error on main Signpost page

@JPxG: The link to Traffic Report is missing and (near the bottom of the page) a short comment by John Forrest (dated August 3) is perhaps in the place of the Traffic report. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks OK to me... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, the traffic report has always been there. And there is this image.I guess somebody wanted to do that - it just looks odd. See on the page Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Improving The Signpost

Firstly, regarding deadlines, I believe a significant shortcoming of The Signpost is that the editors themselves set the deadlines. There is a reason why teachers set the deadlines for students. It would be preferable if an uninvolved editor were responsible for setting these deadlines. I'm looking forward to contributing to future issues, and my hope is that The Signpost becomes a periodical, published on a regular schedule (such as on the 1st and 15th of each month). Readers know when to expect the new issue, and subscribers can look forward to their subscription template being updated on those two days. Contributors will also know these deadlines and work to them for their submissions.

Secondly, we should take further measures to boost morale. I suggest featuring a piece on the Main page (possibly a big suggestion, but I'm throwing it out there). This can be a new one or one from the archives. I don't know how the main page works (at all), I strongly oppose the idea of editors nominating their own articles, or anyone affiliated with The Signpost getting involved in this. Svampesky (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's say you are in charge of 'the deadine'. What happens if the DEADLINE arrives, and half the articles aren't copy edited? Do you publish anyway? Do you sack the writers and hire new ones at the very competitive rate of 0$/hour? Do you demote them?

We're volunteers here, the Signpost isn't an assignment.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not much of a critic, but it was more about boosting morale. During my time as a reader, I wasn't particularly aware of The Signpost. I try to write my pieces for those outside the Wikipedia community. If we, as a community, collaborate to showcase our work, it may encourage others to participate for the deadlines. Perhaps I'm being overly ambitious... I think the Main page integration is something we should work towards. Svampesky (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, it seems that The Signpost used to be published on a regular schedule. What was the atmosphere like back then? In 2019, for example, it was published on the last day of each month. Svampesky (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It kind of was, and it kind of wasn't. I am glad you mentioned this, because otherwise it would be another useless piece of information stuck in my head and of no use to anybody, which may be of some interest now. Some months ago I was going through the old revisions of the main Signpost page (to extract the subheadings out and store them in the module, which had previously just been lost forever after the page was overwritten each issue). Well, I figured I could just get a list of publication dates, then take the largest diff for each day, and then that would be that day's issue -- but not in the slightest. In reality, they seem to have almost all been somewhat late, ranging from one day to several days (the "date" of publication, i.e. the part of the URL that has the datestamp in it, only occasionally being the actual day on which an issue was published back in the days before SPS.js). jp×g 🗯️ 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I would be curious about the details of this data analysis, do have this posted somewhere? It does not match my recollection and certainly not the results of a quick-and-dirty data analysis I did myself a long time ago for 2009-2011, which indicated that during that timespan, publication delays of more than 24 hours were rare. Also, while I really do not want to be one of those former editors-in-chiefs (they exist) who go on and on about how everything was great at the Signpost during their own tenure and has gone terribly downhill since then, allow me for once to point out that I published over 60 weekly issues myself back then, the vast majority of them on time (i.e. at or slightly before the publication deadline). Similarly, while they likewise don't usually mention it, some other team members who have also weighed in in the various discussions on this page over the last two years or so trying to convince you of the importance of taking the stated publication deadlines more seriously (like Smallbones in this section) also have ample previous experience as editor-in-chief. This is to make you aware that they might find the multitude of explanations/rationales/excuses that have been offered in those discussions on why publishing on time is impossible/supremely difficult/a great hardship/unimportant etc. a bit less convincing than you might think. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, my memory of being EIC for the weekly editions in 2012–14 is that we were often late by a day or two but we made a strong effort to not fall farther beyond that. As far as I remember, we never moved the URLs for the new date and that would have fed into the issue JPxG mentioned. (I'm sure we skipped an issue + date here or there too.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just add that I edited about 36 monthly issues. I believe one was cancelled, and most of the rest went to the publisher 30-60 minutes after the deadline (remember this was Sunday night). There were a couple delayed by about 12 hours, maybe 1 of two days. The reason I was basically on time all the time was because I thought that this was my job - getting out an issue up to our standards on time. That's how newspapers work. There's enough chaos in this type of work that everybody else needs to have one fixed point that they can count on. It's the time that everybody can coordinate around. If somebody really needs to be an hour late - we can do it -as long as everybody else is on time and not 3 or 5 hours late. It's also good for the readers to know when we are coming out. As far as former editors saying how great things were back in the day - I don't think I'd say that. We had our challenges. But I don't think I have could handled those challenges if everything else was changing at the same time, as happens when the deadline is missed. I do think missing a deadline is understandable in case of wildfires, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, a family down with COVID, etc. but I did manage one of those without missing the deadline. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a little harsh considering JPxG was recently in a wildfire. I think The Signpost should aim for publication on 1st and 15th. Svampesky (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write this down anywhere, so my memory may be incorrect, but I recall it being the first couple years when subheadings were used on the main Signpost page, so some time in the early 2010s. For example, this diff is of an issue being published on 2014-08-31, but the articles are all dated /2014-08-27/ (and looking at a random userpage where that issue got delivered, the MassMessage is timestamped August 31). Looking through that page it also seems to happen a lot in 2007 (e.g. 2007-12-10 was delivered on 2007-12-12), but also randomly throughout the years: 2012-01-23 on 01-26, 2013-05-27 on 05-31, etc. jp×g 🗯️ 07:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering two of those were during my time, I suspect my memory was a bit rosy when I said "often late by a day or two"... :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On the broader issue of publishing intervals, I wrote about it at some length in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_team; there's even a big graph of publication intervals over time. Basically, there was a weekly publication schedule from '05 through '16 or so. During 2016, publication slowed down a bit, and in 2017 it ate shit entirely for several months (there was nothing at all between February and June). The current schedule of publishing every three weeks is, depending on perspective, either a bold step up from running once a month or a cravenly retreat back from running once every two weeks (which we did a fairly adequate job of through '23 and part of '24). I must say, though, publishing every two weeks was quite arduous -- like Headbomb says, it would often be the case that we'd hit deadline and not have any articles. (not just that there was a bunch of stuff that needed copyedit/expansion, there would be straight-up nothing in some of the drafts besides lipsum).

At any rate, on the bright side, I think this is one of the fullest issues we've had in a while, in no small part due to some of the more recent additions. I think that if this energy can be sustained, it bodes well for the paper. jp×g 🗯️ 13:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll look at all of this later. I'm pleased that these suggestions (including blue-green user links) have not been perceived as the difficult-newbie telling everyone what to do, but I'm still not going to self-declare myself as the Peculiarity writer on the about page. I have several ideas prepared for upcoming issues. If I can write something good, my next piece will focus on the UK politics. An election is happening today, and I plan to write all my political pieces after. I'm not much of a critic, but I can provide suggestions. I have some notes with ideas that could help with engagement. I don't think anyone at The Signpost should get involved with Main page space; instead, we should continue our efforts and wait for an someone uninvolved to suggest it. I can also offer a non-Wikipedian-reader perspective, as I was only mildly aware that The Signpost existed. Are you able to see the page views from logged-out vs logged-in? Svampesky (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just hard to reconcile with the day job sometimes. We all have to juggle work and other commitments along with Signpost deadlines. I actually think we are muddling through quite well at the moment.

Andreas JN 466 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm consolidating all my thoughts here: User:Svampesky/Ideas/Signpost. Please feel free to add it to your watchlist. I prefer not to make too many suggestions outside my userspace. My knowledge is limited on technical restrictions and the time required for implementation. Svampesky (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's get serious about the deadline

We have to have a real deadline in order to

let readers know when we a coming out. People want to know when there is new material to read, without checking 2 or 3 times a month
let authors know when to actually submit their work. If you don't have a real deadline, people will often wait until just before the time when they think you'll actually publish. In my experience, having a deadline is the only way that newspaper production is organized. It's a waste of contributors' time not having a deadline. If JPxG is going to show up for the first time after the deadline, so too will the submissions, but there won't be any any copyeditors around, or any chance to get early feedback on an article. In short it isn't a production process, it is just chaos. "News" is time dependent. If we want to have news in our newspaper, the news writers have to know when it is going to be published. (I'll have more tomorrow or Wednesday)
Just a suggestion, if the eic consistently is 2 days late in publishing, he should just show up 2 days earlier.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support to light a fire under JPxG, who is a very competent EiC. I support The Signpost's mission of being the Wikimedia movement's online newspaper. While JPxG performs admirably to support and enhance this mission when active, his first appearance being after the deadline undermines the credibility of The Signpost and its mission. Svampesky (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Quick comment (as an alum from long ago): You can choose to have releases on a fixed schedule rather than to fixed quality. Then every issue is guaranteed to have a few easy-to-compile beats, basic stats, and a reminder of where and how to submit or discuss the next issue. In that case it's fine to have shorter issues published by a broader range of editors comfortable w/ the mechanics of publishing, even if the EiC isn't available. Experience running the shorter routine issues can be a way to get experience editing. Complex stories that would benefit from more review can still get pushed to a later issue. Since the wiki is not paper you can even include teasers pointing readers to drafts in progress if you want public input.

And you could choose to, say, color the archives [or even the headers of the updates posted to talk pages :) ] to distinguish routine vs major issues, special editions, &c. – SJ + 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Same. One of the things that has been a problem is that deadline will roll around and there will not be a whole lot ready -- but as Sj says, it's not really the end of the world to put out an issue that doesn't have every possible thing in it. Probably Smallbones is right too, and consistently doing this for a while will stop people from thinking that it will be fine to get stuff in late anyway, and this chicken-egg thing will resolve itself. Well, at any rate: I'll be there. jp×g 🗯️ 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, on this note, we went out merely one day late this time, albeit at the cost of not publishing some of the stuff that rolled in after the writing deadline. This of course feels bad, because there is a bunch of crap left over for the next issue that probably could have been ready with a couple hours of editing and checking, but on the plus side it was a hell of a lot less stressful than the typical process, and it was almost not published late to boot. jp×g 🗯️ 10:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
In case there are anyone here who don't know what Douglas Adams said about deadlines, it's on Wikiquote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only a simple caveman, and your electronic boxes with words and sounds frighten and confuse me, but perhaps it would make more sense to publish stories as they are ready, and simply send out a digest of completed articles every month? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Epic hrrmery -- some five hours to publication

I have been looking over the stuff in the newsroom every few hours: I note we are missing a couple of things, particularly the discussion report. @Svampesky: any update on that?

At any rate, I have stuff I would like to write, and will not get to -- so it goes. I plan to run it with whatever we've got in those few hours, and if the issue ends up being very thin gruel, I suppose it can just be the thin-gruel issue. jp×g 🗯️ 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I finished it yesterday, but didn't want any inaccuracies in the page history. It will be published by the deadline. See Special:Diff/1235504982. I do all my Wikipedia writing at roughly the same time in the evening (which is now). Svampesky (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Reminder for folks who would like to help out with copyediting that you can go through the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status and look for those that are marked "Ready for copyedit".

The top story in News and notes still looks very drafty - @Bri, Jayen466, and Bluerasberry: is any of you planning to wrap it up before the deadline? (to ping the three folks currently listed as authors there)

As usual, I'm aiming to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the top story in form which appears publishable but anyone else can edit it further. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump_raised_fist_photo @JPxG Svampesky (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, it's almost midnight here so I guess this is a tomorrow task. Imagine being only one day late. jp×g 🗯️ 06:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

20:13 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fourteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 Gallery

I'll take it a bit easy for the next issue and do the Gallery, as I want commit my time to creating a few more mainspace articles, as my two previous pieces consumed all of my 'Wikipedia-time'. The Trump piece was last-minute because I wasn't anticipating an assassination attempt, and the Twitter one was rushed since the move was relisted, and I wanted to use that headline. Svampesky (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Still ploughing though Commons with this. It will be completed well before publication deadline, and won't need much copyediting. Svampesky (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fleshing out my draft (User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Luddaites). Is there a reason why paintings are used in medical articles on enwiki? I can't find anything in the policy or guidelines about it. Svampesky (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they're used A. for things where a photograph wouldn't do much. A painting of Narcissus at least says something about the origin of the word narcissism. A photograph might risk the old 2000s trend of some person becoming connected with an emotion or thing. (Y'know, Overly Attached Girlfriend, etc.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

On the AI image article

I think this one is a cell that the AI gave its own personalised red tumour. That's... just not how cells grow. Or how cancer looks. Cancer cells don't have their own tiny tumours, for easy identification. As far as I can tell, this is based on images of cancer cells with an immune system cell attacking them (which would be the red thing - except that got turned into a tumor on the cell, because T-cells... well, just look up T-cells attacking cancer on Google images. You'll see: They just do not look like that).

This tumour-on-a-cell was in a freaking article! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 10:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Adam Cuerden, I'll include it. Svampesky (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I added a little context to the other awful cellular images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The section titled AI-generated images on Wikipedia articles in non-AI contexts mentions that "policies vary between different language versions of Wikipedia." However, I believe this section misrepresents the policies of several wikis, as many of them rely on Wikidata to automatically display images. These changes occur outside of local projects, so editors often don't notice them. For instance, on Arabic Wikipedia, the image for "Dystopia" was promptly removed once I became aware of it. - Anwon (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this, I wasn't aware that this took place. I've edited the report Special:Diff/1247372792. Svampesky (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the reference altogether Special:Diff/1247373545, as the Spanish Wikipedia one is still live. Svampesky (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: I sent you a message, but will ping you here as well: do we know what the situation is with the two drafts? jp×g 🗯️ 12:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG: I received your message and addressed the concerns you raised. I sent over some notes about the 'In the media' column. Mainly that it's approved for publication, but it's unfinished. It currently reads closed the discussion and authored the consensus statement. In that statement, they ... (more in a bit), but there isn't any more of it in the report. Svampesky (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Svampesky: Sorry, this question got moved to #20:13. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 Traffic report

@Igordebraga Is it OK if I expand the write-ups for Linkin Park myself? I feel like the controversy currently surrounding the band also played a part in boosting pageviews for them and Armstrong, so I wanted to address that, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead, remember to put your name in the authors and remove the byline where I note the short write-ups. (almost considered adding a mention of the discussion raised by putting a female singer; but as made clear, I hate this band and wanted to say as little as possible) igordebraga ≠ 12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Igordebraga Er, unfortunately, the controversy I was referring to is much more serious than that...

Anyway, thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Expansion

This is not a criticism, just pointing it out so the Signposters are aware. There has been what I'd call noticeable expansion of the draft Traffic report, such that our published version really doesn't match the TOP25 report. The addition in that one edit was almost 10% of the original size of the Traffic report – maybe to the point where the Signpost editor should be added to the byline. We don't usually work it this way, so I'm bringing it up in case it needs discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bri That's on me, sorry for that...

Aside of the two write-ups on Linkin Park, where I felt like the current controversy surrounding the band was just too notable to get left on the cutting room floor (for further context, look how big is the talk page discussion about it, already), I was just trying to focus on copy-edit the blurbs and add some minor details, so I did not expect my changes to be this evident.

@Igordebraga allowed me to add my name to the credit list, though, so I don't think this is going to be a big deal. Oltrepier (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've just clarified my involvement in editing both the reports on the article's page. Oltrepier (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier Just in future cases, you could've added your commentary to the WP:TOP25 as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio You're right, I'll keep that in my mind for future occasions. Oltrepier (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to leave this here, I often put what the Signpost corrects or suggests on the Top 25 Report, but again, I preferred to talk little on the subject Oltrepier offered to write about (if you can't say anything nice...), and asked him to put a credit to note his additions. Now, all I want is to see this published. igordebraga ≠ 05:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Political concern

This column has had trouble in the past IMHO concerning political views, but I usually let it slide. This time I think there's a real problem that could call The Signpost into question as a source of disinformation. The blurb for the Democrat U.S. presidential candidate includes the statement below:

[H]er rival talked about immigrants in Ohio abducting and eating dogs and cats, as well as transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.

The first claim was debunked almost as soon as it was spoken. The problem for us is that the second half of the sentence, lumped in with the first as if it were equally absurd, is taken by many to reflect the opponent's true characterization of her position in the record. This fact is even elaborated in the last sentence at the section Political positions of Kamala Harris#Immigration, including sourcing to CNN. Just for context, here is Susan Glasser being fact checked on equating the veracity of precisely these two statements made in the debate.

We should carefully consider how we may appear to take sides in this. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bri, the closest thing I can find is WP:SYNTH, is there anything closer to what you're describing? I also think there needs to be a broader discussion on how The Signpost handles WP:NPOV, which is a Wikipedia policy. I've probably violated this somewhere in my Signpost reports, but a discussion would be useful. Svampesky (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we have treated Traffic report somewhat like an op-ed in that there's a great deal of latitude for the authors' opinions and commentary. It would be a pretty dry report without that aspect, and I support making it more interesting and readable, including not following NPOV for this feature. We've hashed this out in the Newsroom before, and I was OK with the outcome. My significant objections in the past came up with some stuff that had let's say a preference for one nationality or one national view of the world. But this one seems different in that it clearly supports one particular candidate in an ongoing election process, and does so with debunked information from their opponent/s. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We can start by adding the "This report contains the opinions of its writers" disclaimer, and that should address most of my concerns. In terms of making it interesting and readable, the report should aim for a 1:1 ratio of commentary about each candidate. The article about the debate reads Harris also made some misleading and false claims during the debate, including that Trump left the succeeding administration with "the worst unemployment since the Great Depression." Harris also falsely stated that "there is not one member of the United States military who is an active duty in a combat zone", with the United States military's Central Command shortly thereafter issuing a statement that it had engaged various Houthi targets in Yemen within the past 24 hours. It could balance out the report by including something about that, where WP:DUE. Svampesky (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I generally do a "tourist view" of this column, just looking for things like this. The idea is that it always hurt my ability to copy edit when I sometimes see something that just sticks out and would have people staring at it, as well as might be against Wikipedia rules or journalistic standards. Ultimately, this job belongs to the EiC, but I just got used to doing it. I'd say it's important every 2-3 issues, so it needs to be done every issue. I'll take a look. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well the tourist view of just the Harris and Trump blurbs looks ok to me - for the the part about the pets is just fine. Yes people will just stare with their jaws dropping, but it's just the way it is, sorta like the first time you see the Statue of Liberty, or something else truly amazing. A+ reporting there. The second part is problematic. Is there a grain of truth to what DT said? If so somebody who knows more than I do about the topic should rewrite it, or just take it out. It'll leave more space for the tourists. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and thank User:Bri for raising it. We should take the second bit out or rewrite it; Trump was essentially right there. [3] (I am "old enough" to remember the Signpost's 2016 Trump debacle ...) Andreas JN 466 21:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I take a bit of a severe position with respect to election stuff on Wikipedia as a whole. It is kind of like that old saying -- "if you owe the bank $1,000 you have a problem, if you owe the bank $1,000,000 you have a big problem, if you owe the bank $1,000,000,000 they have a big problem". That is to say, in a political event with as much nonstop wall-to-wall coverage as the US presidential election, the actual influence exerted by Wikipedians making editorializing remarks about the candidates is close to zero, and if there is any reputation being tarnished by our doing so sloppily, it is our own. In this case (and especially given we are a few weeks from the paraoxysm itself) I think it would just be better to, if the ceteris is paribus, stick to saying things that are objective and verifiably true, unless we have some specific reason to do otherwise. That is, if there's an actual journalistic interest being served by getting into contentious political topics, by all means we should do so, but we should try to avoid doing this merely to say that we've got a freakin' cheeto/waffle cone/coconut/etc in the white house. jp×g 🗯️ 12:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edits here are in line with what I would consider good practice for The Signpost. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

And as a general principle: While we are not bound to mainspace policies like NPOV and NOR, and give quite a bit of leeway to opinions and investigative findings in the Signpost, we should confine that liberty to stuff that is on topic for the Signpost.

Meaning that there is certainly room for politically sensitive content that may rile up various partisans in culture wars and geopolitical conflicts - but only as long as it pertains to relevant Wikipedia/Wikimedia topics. As soon as contributors start to mistake the Signpost as a forum for venting their general political views on (as hypothetical examples) the misdeeds of Trump/the woke mind virus/"support for genocide" by entity X/"support for terrorism" or antisemitism by entity Y etc. etc., we need to put our foot down. That's not just in the interest of keeping the Signpost's content relevant and avoiding to lose readers unnecessarily, but also important for conserving our energies so we can defend controversial coverage in cases that actually matter.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 In the media

This might be worth a mention [4]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Actually, I've already added it to the "In the media" section, but thank you for flagging it... and congratulations for featuring in the article! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We almost covered it twice! I added it too without realizing your link was to the same piece. Has been removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bri No worries! By the way, I did manage to write a short draft for this story, but I don't know if I'll have enough time to complete it; plus, as a Gen Z user myself, it would feel a bit strange, and maybe even braggadocious to report on an article praising young contributors...

Everyone who wants to help expand the blurb is more than welcome! Oltrepier (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

People who use the word "braggadocious" automatically raise suspicions. Just kidding!!! I'll try to weave some non-gen-Z perspective into it later. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Zionism

Just wanted to flag he rewrite of the Zionism article is creating a bunch of angry emails to VRT. Probable due to articles such as https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-defines-zionism-as-colonialism-sparking-outrage/. I think it is worth a mentionsomewhere this upcoming publication. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to the existing Bias in religion/ethnicity related articles? bullet at In brief. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The historian Simon Sebag Montefiore has also criticised the changes to the Zionism article in a tweet; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 36 § Suggestion by Ham II (2024-09-17). Talk:Zionism § Bat Signal has a link to another piece of news coverage, in The Jewish Press. With this much coverage I don't think the accusations of anti-Semitism/anti-Israeli bias should be lumped together with the Indian article and the one about Buddhism in a "Bias in religion/ethnicity related articles?" bullet point. Ham II (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 News and notes

Henna Virkkunen set to serve in the EU Commission

Hello! Sorry for this very belated message, but I just wanted to let you know that Finnish MEP Henna Virkkunen is officially the candidate to serve as the Executive Vice-President for Tech-Sovereignty, Security and Democracy in the upcoming European Commission. I think this might be interesting for us, considering that Virkkunen followed the development of the Digital Services Act for the EPP. It should be noted, though, that her appointment is still subject to official hearings and approval by the European Parliament.

Do you think it would be worth it to squeeze a brief blurb in the N&N section (also considering there are three lead stories already), or should we wait until she finally gets the green light?

I'm tagging Jayen466 and HaeB, since they previously wrote about the DSA. Oltrepier (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to wait so we can include the perspective of Wikimedia Europe's policy monitoring report (cf. the comments in their July issue about other EU personnel changes). In any case, as those reports show, there is usually a lot going on in EU policy that is relevant from a Wikimedia perspective, and we only cover a fraction of it in the Signpost, so highlighting a particular still speculative appointment would seem a bit uneven. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB Right, thank you for the feedback! Oltrepier (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Global bans

On the 1st Global ban reported, there is a link to a proposed WikiNews article. It's a good article, but has not been approved for publication by Wikinews. I don't think that we can link to it. Just like people shouldn't link to, quote or republish our draft articles, we can't scoop Wikinews by linking to their own drafts. "Not published" means that it couldn't possibly be a reliable source and a global ban is a serious matter. I'd say that if the authors want to submit it here, that would be another matter, but they haven't submitted it here and stealing an article from another publication is also a serious matter, so everything would have to be done by the book. I'll write something short using SCMP and Hong Kong Journalist Association Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI: There was a English version press release by HKJA. SCP-2000 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones I just wanted to let you know that I've written a short blurb for you about Flamelai's glock, hopefully it's good enough. Oltrepier (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for review - sensitive - Kolkata

See

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media

I drafted the section, "India high court demands name removal". Part of what I wrote is more objective. Check that out. In the collapsed section, I attempted to summarize pro/con arguments, and while I tried to present both sides in a neutral way, any summary is subjective and to some extent, a matter of opinion. I am submitting this to "in the media" as neutral media coverage and necessary context to understand what is happening, but I would appreciate other people reading this and editing it to make it more neutral if anything stands out as misguided.

Other details here: Supreme Court of India involved, major media issue in India, this is likely to be a case study in Wikipedia/Wikimedia history, the case itself is shocking as an incident and shocking as one instance of a trend of violence, and that there are claims in play about Wikipedia's effect on the offline safety of article subjects and Wikipedia editors. I also posted this with a trigger warning, which I feel is a best practice to separate content about sexual assault from readers who do not wish to expose themselves to this kind of media and information. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I just saw it before coming here. In general I approve. I may go back and shave a bit off (vs. copy editing), but you are very close to a proper, but delicate, balance. Keep up the good work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the trigger warning (WP:TRIGGER is an essay, not a guideline or policy) but otherwise seems OK to me. I suppose we could pre-emptively apply Template:Censor to the talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support hatnote, but oppose collapsed section. In mainspace articles, readers know what to expect based on the title, so a warning isn't necessary. This isn't the case for the Signpost and hatnotes are also common in online news reports. Svampesky (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Invited Signpost contributions from talk page - Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#The_Signpost,_Wikipedia's_own_newsletter Bluerasberry (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- See my comment at "20-13 opinion" below, starting "Let's not try to preempt the discussion on the talk page." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry I have to say that I really like the "India high court demands name disclosure/India high court demands name removal" headings. Some related discussion at Jimbotalk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

😃

For Signpost team - I am out till Monday and cannot update the piece before scheduled publication. If Signpost has not gone out, will update Monday. The needed addition is the close of the RfC. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, should we move all of your work into the 'Community view' column? The story is significant enough to justify a split, particularly if the RfC close is going to be included. I'm unsure about the correct way to copy it over with the correct attribution. Svampesky (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: I am supportive of anyone else doing that editorial labor but I am spent and do not have much more to give. I cannot set that up and time is running out for anyone else to do so.

I have links including permalinks in the text. Attribution can be done by name-dropping and linking to anyone quoted.

I agree that this is longer than a typical "in the media" column, and also it contains more commentary than is usual, and that having another column including my commentary and the text of the closing statement is a reasonable thing to do. I just do not have the capacity to organize this right now. News and publishing comes fast! Bluerasberry (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 Opinion

I wanted to clarify that this column is already reserved. I've reached out to an editor to write for it, and I'll wait for them to submit it, if they choose to do so. It's unrelated to the Kolkata discussion. Svampesky (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not try to preempt the discussion on the talk page. The WMF has asked (on that talk page) for some kind of reading on the community view. We shouldn't have a one-sided opinion piece in that case, we may not be able to get the other side for another month. Maybe somebody involved could present why they agree in part with both sides. Maybe we could use the Op-ed page to present a second view if this page is strongly in favor of one side. Having readers think that The Signpost favors one view is exactly the wrong thing to do right now. BTW, my reading of the talk page discussion is that almost everybody has a very strong view one way or the other, but that the outcome will be "no consensus". This one is not for us to chime in on. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The opinion piece for the next issue is Asilvering's RfA debriefing. Svampesky (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13 Community view

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view

Per the WMF statement: It will never be sufficient to just say, "Wikipedia is not censored"... We therefore encourage you to explain clearly why you feel the balance of interests lies one way or the other, in order to reach consensus accordingly. Not only does this enrich and support the functioning and content of the projects, but it allows the Foundation to support and explain those decisions to the extent possible, and to ensure that authorities and Wikipedia readers at large take into consideration the function and purpose of the encyclopedia when they have concerns about content. We should all collaborate on the explanation of our decision in some form. This section serves as a suggestion of how we might respond.

I'm not creating the page because there is currently not a consensus that the community will respond in this way. I also don't want to imply that there's a rush to close the discussion, so the header of this section can be changed to 20:14 Community view or we can push the deadline back a few days to accommodate. Svampesky (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Chaotic Enby, per Special:Diff/1246457628, to notify them of this section. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to just copy-and-paste your comment over. Svampesky (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post a slightly edited version of it, thanks! (I should probably write more but it's 4am right now where I live so I might do it tomorrow) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I've now BOLDly created the page, feel free to make your edits there. The page is currently for drafting and is not intended to rush the closure of the discussion, as consensus still needs to be formed on what our response should be. Publishing it in the Signpost, is still only a suggestion. Svampesky (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the RfC, I support making it clear that, if the closing decision is to oppose inclusion, it will have very much been due to consensus supported by multiple policies and guidelines (WP:BLPNAME, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS have all been mentioned), and that pressure from the Indian government didn't play a role.

Whatever its result, this RfC is explicitly not an invitation for India's Supreme Court to use legal pressure to influence Wikipedia's contents. Although, of course, individual members are welcome to participate in our consensus-building discussions like anyone else. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby as long as they don't imply nor pursue WP:LEGAL THREATS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

20:13

The issue is ready to publish now; I am awaiting clarification on the Gallery (there are two different drafts with different content in them). Apart from that I am ready to push the button and will come back in a couple hours (if I don't hear anything further I will merge the two draft versions and go with what comes from that). jp×g 🗯️ 12:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review be included this time? Perhaps with an editor's note saying this should have been a few issues ago? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb I was about to address the same, since that article is basically ready to go, too...

@JPxG and Smallbones: I'm tagging both of you just to flag this discussion. Oltrepier (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

this should have been a few issues ago - why should it have been a few issues ago? To catch the book's pre-order marketing window?

As a reminder, we also have another review of the same book that had been submitted first. The author of the above linked review then tried to to muscle that earlier review aside in favor of his own, citing unspecified concerns (possibly that it was a bit less positive than his own). This situation calls for an editorial decision on whether to run one or both, (and which one/in which order). It looks like this hasn't been made yet.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HaeB:. I hope we can agree to disagree on this, in an agreeable manner. I submitted an article that I though would be better than the alternative, that's all. As far as I know, we've never had a rule that somebody cannot submit an article. It's up to the E-i-C what to do with it. Can we agree on that? Let @JPxG: deal with it. If anybody wants an easy way out of the situation, I'll just say that it would be fine with me to publish both reviews as, say, "Book review 1" and "Book review 2" with mine as number 2 (or even number 1 if people prefer that but in general I'd say that wouldn't help things), either on separate pages or on the same page. I'll also say that I don't see the point in writing "this should have been a few issues ago". If that doesn't help, then I'd rather not discuss it now. Ultimately, it's up to JPxG. Can we agree on that? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that there is a rule that somebody cannot submit an article. I explained earlier in detail what I found problematic about your actions instead. But we don't need to rehash that here (hopefully you can still take at least some of that feedback into account for the future).

And I'm not opposed to running your review now that the book has been published. Rather, my points above were 1) that that suggested "editor's note" does not make sense (it seems you agree), and 2) that, as you say yourself, an editorial decision needs to be made about how to handle these two submissions (your suggestions sound fine to me).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: Thank you very much for this note. I've always thought you were a wonderful colleague and it distressed me to see that we disagreed, even though I don't feel that you did anything wrong. On a similar note about "thanks". In In the media How to give away 25 million euros. I like the simple "Thanks Marlene!" much better than "Still:Thanks, Marlene". The "Still:" might be viewed as if we see that she did something wrong, something like "Thanks, but you could have done better". I doubt you meant that, but some people might read it that way. The comma after "Thanks," is also a bit odd, but I don't know the grammatical rule. It looks to me like "Thanks, Marlene!" is what Marlene would write to us in a letter thanking us! But it's us thanking her, so no comma seems more natural.

Thanks,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course I have great appreciation for lots of your Signpost contributions myself.

I don't feel strongly about that wording, but since you bring it up: I had added that "still" because the angle of the Wikipedia-relevant part of this New Yorker article is actually a little negative ("Wikipedia" having been the most controversial among the many donation recipients and receiving only a fraction of what others got). Besides, that expression of gratitude also feels a bit odd because a major angle of her unusual action seems to be that she feels that she does not legitimately own that money, and purposefully did not make this particular donation decision herself. So it's possible that in the unlikely case that she reads this Signpost article, she might be less receptive to such messaging than the average multimillionaire philanthropist. (I also just added some Wikipedia-relevant context to the story which also might illuminate that kind of difference a little.) Anyway though, it's not a big deal. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both reviews should be published, IMO. As for 'a few issues ago', it's because it Sgerbic's dates from early June 2024, and Smallbones' from mid July. I thought only one of the reviews had been published, hence why an editor's note would clarify things, but since neither have been published, they can both be published alongside each other. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: I noticed you basically wrapped up by 2000 UTC. Would you say that Gallery is done now? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I was just adding some more images I found on Commons before it got published. I'm expecting it to be published tomorrow (UTC), so I added a hatnote to the section as it won't need to be updated post-publication. Svampesky (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay then @JPxG: I think everything is ready for publication now. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Can I just say, as a lurker looking in from the sidelines - this issue looks like it will be great! :) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Josve05a Thank you, I think we all hope so! : )

I'm particularly curious to see how the ITM column will perform, and especially the lead story about Harrison and his view on Gen Z Wikipedians. Oltrepier (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: What happened with the book reviews? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is in bed. Good job, everybody! ☆ Bri (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I just spot checked delivery to 3-4 subscribers, it looks good. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably not worth a mention, but

I thought this video [5] was a little funny since he's showing how to avoid the sponsored links from his own newsorg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well, ITM is never too tight for this kind of news! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 looks kind of light

Only four columns have been started, and we are about 76 hours from our writing deadline. Just putting this out there in case more starts are on the way. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri: I didn't come across your own thread, so sorry for that... I've also noticed that the upcoming issue is currently a bit thin on contributions, and the main columns (especially N&N) still need a lot of work.

Maybe we could postpone the deadline to two-three days later, so we could solve these issues without having to rush it.

@JPxG: How do you feel about it? Oltrepier (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow we posted 1 minute apart! Was it an edit conflict? Great minds think alike. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri I don't really see myself as a "great mind", especially after my mistake, but this is definitely astounding! : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

gone for 1.5 days

I'll be out of touch for most of the next 2 days. @JPxG: don't forget the book reviews! 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In the media warning (Google News glitch)

A couple of times now I've added items to In the media, that were not recent. They popped up in Google News tagged as recent: in the latest case, Google News said a nine year old item was from 2 days ago. Just a caution to others not to get caught by this like I was. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Google News has been completely cooked the last couple years or so. They have been messing with it for unclear reasons -- if you search for a string with quotation marks in it, it will now just start returning completely random dog shit: blogs, tiktoks, facebook posts, formatted like news sites. Their documentation gives no explanation for this other than the implied "get bent". I basically stopped writing articles about recent events because it's been made unusable, although it is not as bad now as it was a year or two ago (some genius decided that it should just return tiktoks for every search whatsoever). jp×g 🗯️ 20:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A book that plagiarized Wikipedia

Hi fellows. I think that this book chapter deserves a mention in Signpost. Its available from WPLibrary. I tried to summarize the findings from chapter 4, that deals with our entries. Learn about it after this excerpt in Retraction Watch: "A look at plagiarism at the Pontifical Gregorian University".

A recent book by Brill Publishers on research integrity reports several plagiarism cases in publications by Pontifical Gregorian University.^[1] Entitled “Shake-and-Paste Plagiarism from Internet Sources”, Dougherty's chapter four analyzes a 2012 book about Zera Yacob^[2] that, without attribution, copied and mixed texts from our 2010 versions of Philosophical methodology, Dialectic, Nature and Nature (philosophy). (p.181)

References

^ Michael V. Dougherty (21 May 2024). New Techniques for Proving Plagiarism: Case Studies from the Sacred Disciplines at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Leiden, Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/9789004699854. ISBN 978-90-04-69985-4. LCCN 2024015877. Wikidata Q126371346.
^ Kidane Dawit Worku (2012). The Ethics of Zär'a Ya'eqob: A reply to the historical and religious violence in the seventeenth century Ethiopia. Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Filosofia 30. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. ISBN 978-88-7839-222-9. OL 43974394M. Wikidata Q126414328.

Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 In the media

Signatures at the In brief section

I noticed this month several bulleted items at In brief have writer's signatures. It doesn't particularly bother me, but to my recollection we don't think we usually do it that way. Should they be retained, and if so, should we add them to the remainder of the items? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I added them, since it was the practice the last few times I was a co-writer (see User:Josve05a/The Signpost). Sorry if not the standard any more - feel free to remove if that would be better. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri @Josve05a Sorry, I'm reading this just now, but I wanted to let you know that I've boldly removed any signature from the section. Oltrepier (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Under the radar"

I found this great illustration of literal "under the radar" flight, but decided not to use it becuase considering the background of world events, maybe we want to un-link this commentary from literal military activities. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism in 2009 book

I added some brief coverage of that new plagiarism case. This could still benefit from some more detail; perhaps we can add a bit of Wikipedia-specific perspective to the general news media reporting on the issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a very important item and I'm glad you included it. The Wikipedia plagiarism specifically is now mentioned at The Telegraph, The Times of India and other first-tier international newspapers, as well as US cable news media. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth including plagiarism today's fuller analysis, seeing as this was the dude quoted by NYT and he describes that the NYT had not given all the passages over. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 News and notes

I just wanted to let you know that João Alexandre Peschanski, the executive director of the Wiki Movement Brazil User Group, has co-signed a collective op-ed involving more than 150 international researchers and calling for more support and protection to those who study disinformation and its perceived impact on public opinion.

Do you think this might be notable enough for N&N, or should we just mention it on the ITM column? Oltrepier (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems more fitting in News and notes than ITM to me, given that it isn't really originating from a news outlet. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator elections

Enforcing "no declarations of support or opposition"

Each candidate's page has this notice:

Please do not cast votes or issue any declarations of support/opposition here. This section is for neutral discussion. Voting will take place using SecurePoll from 25 October.

I'm wondering how this will be enforced, and if we should mention either the notice, or the intended enforcement, at this issue's News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Election guides

I suppose we aren't going to link to election guides prepared by members of the community, but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

Maybe worth a mention? Maybe afterwards? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Yes, we could write about those afterwards! Oltrepier (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 Contest

The article contains a big pile of MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE violations. However a) I know that The Signpost doesn't necessarily follow formatting rules employed in the rest the encyclopedia article space and b) I might be going out on a limb already in aggressively addressing this in beauty pageant articles so I will stop with this comment. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you @Bri & @Smallbones for helping copyedit. that section of the article is a copy-paste of a talk page comment not written by me, and i have no opinion on whether the flagicons stay or go - it's not in mainspace, so i think it's up to our preference more than anything in the MOS. courtesy pinging @GreenLipstickLesbian in case she has any thoughts. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good title and image? I'll try but please replace as needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fourteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this missed the writing deadline, in fact it is now 3 hours past the publishing deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, the paper I was writing up during the time I had earlier today turned out to be a bit trickier to review than expected. I'm back at this now, but am also not offended if the issue goes out without it in the meantime. (That said, several other sections also still look unfinished at this point or are at least marked as needing copyedits.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there somewhere the intermediate versions of the column are kept? It may help things out for others to be able to contribute to it during the writing process. jp×g 🗯️ 01:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure this is what you mean, but the Etherpad has starting ideas and can be used for drafting. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I always post the Etherpad link here inviting people to contribute, which also helps to keep track of which papers are being worked on (and which are not). As for posting partial drafts and unfinished notes on-wiki, we don't do that for most other Signpost stories either, and I'm generally unconvinced that it would speed up the process (in fact it might well slow it down). That said, I did in fact post an intermediate version yesterday after seeing JPxG's question (and knowing that I would not be able to resume work on it for a bit), with remaining to-do items marked - but except for one typo fix (thanks Smallbones!) this doesn't seem to have had an effect. (Btw for context about this particular review and its timing: This is about a very recent paper which I had tweeted about on Monday based on a quick skim only - as we usually do on the WikiResearch feed -, and which has received quite a bit of attention since, e.g. [6]. After reading the paper more fully, I think it would be valuable for us to provide timely context in form of a full review; in the "Wikimedia AI" Telegram group, folks raised questions about the paper's results too.)

I'm back at this now and should have RR publishable within less than two hours from now.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14

Setting this forward -- I have some stuff from WCNA and am contemplating an interview/letter. jp×g 🗯️ 14:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from my computer with IRL stuff. Another book review has been submitted, so I think we should publish them in the in the 'Book review' column with the earliest on top. I can write a humor piece that pokes fun at how we've mentioned this book in every of the past few issues. To make it clear, I support the book reviews being published, so the humor column will be self-deprecating. Does anybody have objections? Svampesky (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky Sounds good!

By the way, sorry for my very limited contributions this time around... Oltrepier (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Forward again to be on the safe side rather than over publication deadline. jp×g 🗯️ 23:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the deadline updated. We have been running a bit late with the preparations for RR, but I should have some time later today to get it in a publishable form before the deadline. I see there is also work still to do in N&N and ITM - I might be able to pitch in there too, but probably not before the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Who wrote the bit about the latest WikiConference North America over at ITM? Somebody forgot to add their signature, but I couldn't find any information from the talk page...

@Bri @HaeB @Josve05a @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Robertsky Oltrepier (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Found it [7], added attribution to @Smallbones. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Help copyediting?

Spamming everyone listed as copyeditors on our staff page, @Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, and Adam Cuerden: – both In the media and News and notes still need to be signed off, if you can help. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a late submission, and a bunch of stuff still needing to get done; I have somewhere to be tonight, so I guess I will just put the damn thing forward another day. jp×g 🗯️ 01:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

😿 jp×g 🗯️ 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri @JPxG Just so you know, I've managed to go through both ITM and N&N and do some more copy-editing myself: I hope this makes up for my deeply underwhelming contributions this time around...

On a side note, I must say I'm impressed with how the In the media column has turned out: it sounds like a very rich and interesting read! Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Oltrepier! Just to clarify for others reading along who might be inclined to help out too: Both ITM and N&N are still not yet marked as copyedited - see the Article status list - and (more importantly) still contain several open to-do items, look for the yellow markings. (I resolved one in N&N while also correcting a mistake, and may be able to help out with more, but will focus on getting RR publishable first.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the outstanding highligted to-dos in News and notes and it is ready for (another?) copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, things are shaping up a little better, I will have another go at it shortly. jp×g 🗯️ 19:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably idiotic disclosure

I started an article on The Editors, duly logged with my other September creations, and it got deleted. IMHO this has nothing to do with anything, but there it is on the record. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ready when you are!

@HaeB, JPxG, and Bri: With a few exceptions, I think this issue is ready to go!

HaeB, I know you want to complete Recent research, but your review is pretty good already.
JxPG The tripartite book review needs to be copyedited (bottom 2 reviews only IMHO). Also we need to let the reader know that 3 reviews are coming about the same book. Otherwise they might be surprised. So a Simple 3 line editor's introduction up top would be enough, explaining why we have 3 reviews (without overwhelming the reader). Yeah, there might be a few things with pics, titles, etc.
Bri Just 'cause I always ping you when something needs to get done.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

taking a nap and waiting on a final submission and will then be ready jp×g 🗯️ 07:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to hold up publication for a bit and reconsider. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

oh? D: ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Because of humour, or something else? I got part way through the book review copyedit but didn't finish. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've been drafting it off-wiki with JPxG's approval to make sure everything is appropriate and kept general. Svampesky (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri @JPxG @Smallbones I've managed to go through the Book review column, hopefully it helps! Oltrepier (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what this was in response to. I wasn't aware of any reasons to object to the humor column. My Yes was based on thinking that Because of humour, or something else? was a response to JPxG's waiting on a final submission. Per the request of JPxG, it was reviewed offline to determine if it was suitable for hosting on Wikipedia and publishing in The Signpost. I haven't been communicated any reasons to not run it.

The joke is that it's in the style of an opinion piece from the misinformed-view that The Signpost must adhere to mainspace article policy and guidelines; published in The Signpost, lambasting The Signpost. What's the issue with this? Svampesky (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's now over two days since that nap began, and over six days since the originally planned publication deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"No ping" template

Some of us are using Template:No ping in articles whenever mentioning and linking a user's account, in order to prevent the user being pinged. Note that this is not necessary: the notification system is only triggered by signed posts (i.e., signed using the four tildes). See Template:No ping#Purpose and WP:Ping. Best, Andreas JN 466 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say I don't actually know when or how it was decided that we should use the noping templates. It doesn't seem like a very good idea (indeed, I haven't used them in a very long time). If we're writing about someone, if anything, we ought to go out of our way to ping them so they can see it. If they have anything to say, at least in my experience, every time it is to make a correction and say "actually that was on the 12th not the 13th" or something of that nature. A couple months ago there was a brief discussion on this topic, I believe because Piotrus had been mentioned in some article and said he'd have preferred a ping when it was being drafted -- this was when I found out that just linking a username in an edit didn't ping, only if you signed it... jp×g 🗯️ 09:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

About when "noping" began. I don't know, except that when I started as E-i-C it was one of the first strange things I noticed. Strange to me - that is. I starting out wondering what the verb nope-ing meant. It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what it is, and most of what it doesn't do. In any case it was here in spades, and I figured "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but be consistent about it.

Something else similar - I noticed then that some people used "The Signpost" and some used the "Signpost". I didn't have time to get into an argument about it, so I decided I'd use "The Signpost" for myself wherever it was comfortable to use until I could decide. It would be easier to switch to "Signpost" from "The Signpost" than vice versa. It became quite comfortable after 2 or 3 months. End of my knowledge of copy editing history.

I almost forgot JPxG, Jayen466, HaeB and Bri

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Two issues a) I think it's good practice to use the full name of The Signpost at least on first mention b) I don't see why using {{noping}} is an issue. At worst it's unnecessary, but harmless. I use it myself while I'm typing so I can clear a mental flag "do I need to remember whether or not I'm signing what I'm writing right now", because I often don't want to ping editors in other contexts such as sockpuppet investigations. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

20:14 Humour

@JPxG, Svampesky, Bri, HaeB, and Jayen466: Until the last edit at "Humour" the main issue was that it is not funny, there's no humour in it. Please see this essay that's linked to our Humour resources here. It's not humour mainly because it's just whingeing. There's no surprise or misdirection. Just constant complaint. Not funny! Other important issues with it are supposedly linking to research papers which are not there and impugning the honesty and credibility of The Signpost and all its staff. We have a reputation to protect and having a staff member write that The Signpost is total garbage is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

There's another issue that goes beyond that: you've continued to edit the "humour" after publication without checking with anybody here and just making things much worse. Before adding to an article - it's not just copy editing - at a minimum you need to get JPxG's approval. Everything that's published must be approved by the editor-in-chief. The additions just look like provocations. The worst by far is that last edit. It looks like you are accusing me and others of paid editing. Anybody who wants to accuse me of paid editing, can make that accusation where I can be expected to see it, say it to my face. And then I can give you a proper response.

I'll suggest that somebody should delete that last line until JPxG can decide what he wants to do, then we should not respond, either here or at the article talk but just leave that garbage alone, only reverting future edits to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've speedily removed that line. The line was added by JPxG at Special:Diff/1252023940. The reason I changed the word 'docked' to 'deduced' at Special:Diff/1252273371 is because the word 'docked' is a close-homophone to 'doxxed'. Svampesky (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

i think the word you were looking for is "reduced"; to deduce is "to arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion." (Oxford) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The word I meant to use was 'deducted'. So I apologize for any implications that my error caused. Svampesky (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Other than my error (changing a word on a line that was added by JPxG), I don't see the any issue with the content. In fact, a commenter on the book review column (Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-10-19/Book review) actually agrees with sentiments of the humor column, that The Signpost has launched an "outrageous promotional campaign" for this book. Svampesky (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If so, then I don't think the Signpost humour column is the right place to critique that. Andreas JN 466 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

20:15 Special report

I’ve mentioned this briefly above, but I recommend amending all text about reliable sources as a factual statement in the upcoming issue, unless it's clear that these sources are only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia is determined by its contributors, so just because the community decides a source is 'reliable', it doesn't mean it's objectively reliable outside of Wikipedia.
The Special report currently reads, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in reliable sources., and should be changed to something like, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in sources the Wikipedia community deems reliable. Svampesky (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: Perhaps, I am open to change, but I am generally resistant to the idea that Wikipedia's editorial process is fringe or that it needs explanation or justification. My belief is that there is a shared objective truth on what constitutes reliability. While there are exceptions and edge cases to anything, Wikipedia's process is not the underdog and there is no need to defend what we do. When the Wikipedia community deems something reliable, that is a reflection of normal global human consensus. BBC is among the challenged sources here, and the other sources seem aligned with BBC reporting. If someone wants to challenge whether BBC is reliable or legitimate journalism, then they are the ones that need to speak up. Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism.

These are not sources "only considered reliable by the Wikipedia community". These sources are the best the world has to offer in terms of journalism, and they are aligned with third party journalism reviews like Poynter Institute evaluation. Right? Am I addressing you entirely and directly? Please tell me more. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not need to qualify itself for summarizing BBC journalism is a stance which I respectfully oppose. From a Google search of 'BBC bias' there are reports being published today—from other sources Wikipedia deems reliable—reporting on accusations of it having a pro-Israel bias. No source is absolutely reliable, and should not be labelled as 'reliable' as a fact. Svampesky (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: I am comfortable with anyone saying that BBC is biased, and that BBC is a bad source. It is still objectively among the very best journalism sources that humanity has produced, and for that reason, it is reliable. Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". No one should expect the term to indicate Platonic ideal or divine transcendence. Yes, BBC is absolutely reliable. It is reliable even if other, similarly reputable reliable sources publish contrary or conflicting claims. Journalism is among the humanities and as such, is achievable. No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement. BBC is objectively reliable journalism because it goes through all the processes and culture of journalism, regardless of any bias it has or its relative quality to any other journalism. Similarly, The Signpost is free to do journalism at the level that Wikipedia volunteers can achieve, because journalism's definition is a social construct designed to be achievable by typical humans doing things. The Signpost has a right to exist as reliable journalism without being a billion-dollar media house like BBC, because journalism is a thing that people do.

Your concerns are valid and I respect you answering the question, but life is for humans to do human activities. The words we use describe human levels of quality and human expectations. I think that you are missing the mark to expect more than more than the human culture of collaboration. I am not willing to take a defensive stand from low-effort, fringe actors saying that the BBC is not legitimate journalism. Without a thorough explanation from the underdog, dismissing BBC and similar is insincere trolling. I commend you for probing this but I think I am solidly aligned with other Wikipedia editors when I say that we are comfortable identifying, summarizing, and citing reliable sources, and there is a shared understanding of what this means that goes beyond only Wikipedia editorial culture. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement that a source is reliable, in a factual tone, does suggest it is absolutely reliable. I agree with No reasonable person should have any expectation that the output of journalism must exceed the norms of routine human achievement, which is why The Signpost shouldn't state that sources are 'reliable' in a definitive tone.
If The Signpost is to have a broad reach, it shouldn't write in a tone that would only be understood by Wikipedians, and Reliable in Wikipedia often means "best in the world, best that humanity has to offer". needs to be clarified in the report to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I am persuaded. Let me ponder and revise. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: The article is getting long but I added more at special:diff/1255019412/1255027861. Good journalism is short and concise journalism. I am not achieving that, but there is discussion of reliability in Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"The odd part"

I'm not a lawyer, but The odd part from a Wikipedia editor perspective is that Asian News International seems more interested in challenging Wikipedia's way of summarizing and citing information from other sources, than it is in challenging the original journalists and news agencies misinterprets how damages would work in a legal setting. There would be more damage from alleged defamatory statements being permanently (re-)published on one of the most-visited websites—as a Wikipedia article serves as a go-to document for the general public about an organization—and less damage from it being published in a news report that people would likely forget by the next day. There is nothing odd about this, and to label it odd is entirely subjective for a news report, and misses this vital context. Svampesky (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: thanks and revised special:diff/1254207882/1254999540 yes, that wording was a poor choice. I also tried to incorporation your reasoning on why this is happening Bluerasberry (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider removing Wikipedia editors do not do original research, but instead they summarize reliable sources while citing those sources, as this is a false statement? Wikipedia editors have, on many occasions, done original research. Svampesky (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I revised special:diff/1255014430/1255019412 I could go further. I linked to WP:NOR and made the statement less absolute, which is more correct as you say. Speak up if you want me to try to soften more. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Signpost standardization proposal: Newsroom timezone

Proposal: The Signpost newsroom standardizes its timezone to UTC.
When editors post comments saying I'll do x in the morning, it leaves it to others to work out when this morning is. If we standardize to UTC, it would mean that only the person posting would need to check the timezones once, rather than leaving it up to each and every reader of the comment to figure out when things will be done. This can be done either by changing language of the morning task to, for example I'll do x in the evening, or saying I'll do x in the morning (15:00 UTC). Svampesky (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, as proposer. Svampesky (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have considered doing a timezone thing in the template before to show what time it is in various zones, so this would not be hard to do if people wanted it. jp×g 🗯️ 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost timezone is UTC+0, like every else on Wikipedia. If someone says "I'll do it in the morning", expect it to be done within more or less 24h, like everywhere else on Wikipedia. We're an international volunteer collaboration, we don't need this level of bureaucracy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

When I attach a day to a statement I usually specify Pacific time – is the conversion back to UTC onerous? In other words, is conversion from my local time zone an imposition on the reader? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

20:15 In the media

I've been checking with an editor over email before posting this because I don't want to waste time with non-issues. I'm raising a concern that using the term Musky as a play on the name of a living person in a disparaging/negative way—I've read as childish-namecalling synonymous with smelly or fishy—might violate the WP:BLP, which applies to all Wikipedia pages. I know I might come across as overly cautious, but this will be an important Signpost issue, especially since the one covers the case in India. I would advise reviewing this. Consider opting for Musk's priorities, as it's more neutral because these BLP and namecalling concerns. Svampesky (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do some actual copy editing. JPxG can decide on this as he wishes. But we have an issue to get out. At this point I don't think raising fairly theoretical issues helps toward reaching that goal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

[1] Michael V. Dougherty (21 May 2024). New Techniques for Proving Plagiarism: Case Studies from the Sacred Disciplines at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Leiden, Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/9789004699854. ISBN 978-90-04-69985-4. LCCN 2024015877. Wikidata Q126371346.

[2] Kidane Dawit Worku (2012). The Ethics of Zär'a Ya'eqob: A reply to the historical and religious violence in the seventeenth century Ethiopia. Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Filosofia 30. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. ISBN 978-88-7839-222-9. OL 43974394M. Wikidata Q126414328.

[1]

[2]