Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-03-29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-03-29. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet. (3,091 bytes · 💬)

Post-publication update. As predicted, the "Civility in infobox discussions" case closed at 08:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC) with Cassianto placed on indefinite infobox probation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that the 1RR proposal didn't pass in the end. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
No mention of the now concluded joefromrandb case, I see. Perhaps in the next issue... TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite accurate to say the decision was overdue. The proposed decision was posted at the appropriate time. We never give deadlines for how long it will take to reach our final decision, however, as we want to take as much time as necessary to get it right. This one took a bit longer than average, but it hopefully has an end result that will make this topic area run smoothly again. ~ Rob13Talk 03:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I went from the apparent deadline, posted at the top of the case where it said and still says "Proposed decision to be posted by 7 Mar 2018". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The proposed decision was posted on that date. [1] ~ Rob13Talk 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, it's been a while since I wrote that ... I think I see the problem, though; maybe I was looking at this page where the proposed decision does not appear. Will try to be more accurate next time. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The difference is proposed decision vs. final decision. We set a deadline for when we'll release our proposed decision, but this is a starting point. We take as long as necessary to mold the proposed decision into our final decision, which is hopefully best suited to address the underlying issues. There's certainly legitimate criticisms about how long this case took, although I think it was probably always going to take a bit, since the infobox discussion topic area is difficult to wade through and figure out. I appreciate the good work being done to inform the community at large about the arbitration process. If you ever want to double-check something, feel free to message me on my talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs (346 bytes · 💬)

The amount of work that all of these articles represent is impressive. I still find it a strong witness of the health of the wikipedia project that so much Featured Articles are been written.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Humour: WikiWorld Reruns (909 bytes · 💬)

Greg Williams is truly an amazing talented Wikipedian. I have also checked some additional work from his User:Greg Williams page . Please do check the extensive archives through the same page. werldwayd (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My favorite's always been the one on the Wilhelm scream. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs) 19:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good (24,158 bytes · 💬)

Our future AI overlords

Wikipedia already has a policy in place that, if it doesn't already address the majority of concerns about AI-assisted or entirely AI-created content, would still be an excellent starting place: Wikipedia:Bot policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Bryan Dunsheng" guy in the comments of the SPLC article seems to have a... um... problematic history. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised at the depth of the SPLC story. Wikipedia criticism stories are usually more hyperbole than substance, but this author seems to have done their homework and it was a legitimately insightful article. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the Wired article on the how the photograph that appears in the Human infobox came to be. Thank you for sharing – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP, targeted by SPLC

After reading SPLC's article, what I found most disconcerting 🚩🚩 was their comment about WP's perceived vulnerability "to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views" and its juxtaposition to the comment by our own Doug Weller: "its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism". I'm of the mind that any extremist view, regardless of one's political or religious affiliation, can be problematic but our 3 core content policies serve as a preventative. What exactly is rightwing populism, and why was it singled out? I've also noticed that any RS that tends to lean right, even a little, is automatically considered by some to be unreliable whereas left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable, regardless of context or bias; and yes, there is clearly a double standard. I also saw nothing in the SPLC article about alt-left vandalism and bias, so are we to assume the left can do no wrong and the only bias that exists in WP is "right-wing bias"? 🚩🚩

WP doesn't "police" it's content, and SPLC's assumption of an "ever-present threat that an organized faction or a group of single-purpose editors working in concert can exploit Wikipedia’s mechanisms to tilt its point of view in favor of a fringe perspective" works both ways, so why does that article target only the right? Who exactly determines what constitutes a "fringe perspective"? That sounds more like what happens in "censored police states"...NOT in an encyclopedia that rejects censorship and is dedicated to freely sharing knowledge from a WP:NPOV. We review articles and collaborate to achieve NPOV, we don't "police" anything. WP must never lose sight of its mission, which is NOT to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX, or WP:ADVOCACY. In fact, our BLP, NPOV, OR and V policies are forthright, and while there may be a few ambiguities here and there, we've always managed to work through them. On the other hand, SPLC is a social justice advocacy that uses "litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy" to achieve their goals of "equal justice and equal opportunity"; a worthy cause indeed, but I wonder why SPLC decided to target WP? Was there a particular article that got their attention? Isn't it ironic that they would express their concerns over outside influences on WP content while they attempt to influence WP content?

WP is not about promoting worthy causes, so I'm a bit confused over what SPLC hopes to accomplish by revealing some of the pitfalls we encounter as editors. I doubt many will deny that litigation is a scary and expensive process that is best avoided, (hell, just the thought of being drug to AN/I, AE or ArbCom has a chilling effect), so I can only imagine how it must feel to find oneself hounded by or confronted by a large pool of lawyers with seemingly unlimited resources, who have all of a sudden determined for whatever reason that you're a racist, or you support a fringe ideology, or the church you once attended is a hate group, or you're pushing a view they've determined to be harmful to society. SPLC has become a formidable power, and as history has demonstrated time and again, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Let's hope that isn't the case here. When I read statements like "ideologically skewed content", and "manipulation by the alt-right and others", I usually step back and try to figure out exactly what such terminology means. Without diffs for support, how can one know the intended context? What on earth does "manipulation by the alt-right and others" actually mean? Who are others, and how does one come to know it's manipulation when we AFG? Whose POV determines that it's manipulation? Is it simply a matter of a liberal POV vs a conservative POV? Who says one is right and the other is wrong?

SPLC itself has not been free of controversy, especially considering some of the individuals/groups on their list of "Hate and Extremism"...like Ben Carson for example, which they eventually retracted. While I believe that advocating love for all humanity is a commendable and worthy cause, it is neither WP's obligation nor responsibility to advocate for or against it. Above all, I draw the line when hate and separatism are used as the means to justify the end. Atsme📞📧 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

" I've also noticed that any RS that tends to lean right, even a little, is automatically considered by some to be unreliable whereas left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable, regardless of context or bias" - this is simply not true. It's not even true if one accepts your extremely skewed view of what "lean right" and what "left-leaning" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
^^There you have it - predictable denial with a measure of snark. Atsme📞📧 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No snark. 100% serious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, as a wise man once said, that which is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. If you don't feel compelled to provide evidence for your sweeping assertions, then it's not fair to criticize people who fail to agree with them. MastCell Talk 19:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
MastCell, it isn't I who needs to provide evidence as I actually did provide links with regards to SPLC; therefore, I'm not quite sure as to what evidence you feel is needed. Please be more specific, and I will provide whatever is necessary to satisfy your hunger. Atsme📞📧 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here we go - I've included a few diffs that support my "sweeping assertions" - no sense in inundating you with more than that, unless you request it. You can also look at the Reference section of any Trump-related article to see how many right-leaning sources are cited. Racial views of Donald Trump is a good place to start (Fox was cited 4 times for 4 separate sentences). Following are 3 examples of how right-leaning (conservative) sources are thought of by some:
  1. RS/N FoxNews discussion,
  2. "fake news" list,
  3. The Daily Caller, discussion involves an article they published about Senator Menendez.
MastCell, You declared Daily Caller to be an unreliable source in that discussion. Based on what I gleaned after a quick review, TDC published unsupported allegations about Senator Menendez and his alleged involvement with prostitutes. WaPo provided a timeline. At the time you declared The Daily Caller unreliable you didn't think any reputable media would touch it "with a ten-foot pole because it was so obviously dubious and lacking credibility." If that's the basis for declaring a source unreliable, then do you consider Newsweek and WaPo unreliable because they published unsupported allegations about the infamous golden shower and Trump being with prostitutes in Russia? WP also published an entire article based on the unverified allegations in Trump-Russia dossier whereas Bob_Menendez#Attempted implication in prostitution scandal has one short paragraph, and it blames conservatives and the Daily Caller...quite a difference from the way the Trump allegations are being handled. I wonder...is the party that preaches "equal justice and equal opportunity" the same party that denies it to those they judge in their court of public opinion as undeserving? Atsme📞📧 04:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. The problem, for you, is that sources such as the Daily Caller are unreliable NOT because they're "right-wing". They're unreliable because they're simply garbage. Same goes for various fake news websites (and I have no idea how the link to Bull Rangifier's comment is suppose to show what you claim it shows - you're doing that thing again. The thing where you provide a diff, then claim it's something other than what it really is, and hope that no one actually checks). Likewise, there's plenty of trashy left leaning sources which are unreliable, such as the Intercept or Salon. There's stuff that's even comparable to Daily Caller, like AlterNet or whatever. And then there's stuff that's borderline like ThinkProgress. So you're completely wrong about your claim that "left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable". That's just false, you're making stuff up. The thing is, left leaning editors don't whine about not being able to use their shitty left leaning sources as much as right leaning editors whine about not being able to use their shitty right wing sources. So it doesn't come up as much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem, VM. You cherrypicked one sentence from my initial post, and are obsessing over it with troll-like behavior, complete with profanities. While such nonsense is predictable coming from you, it's disruptive. Surely you have better things to do. Atsme📞📧 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  

Edit break

It was investigative reporting, and quite spot on, when it comes to racialists and fringe science. It was not Wikipedia being "targeted by SPLC". The latter sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Investigative reporting, K.e? Are you referring to this NYTimes article? Oh, wait...that piece in the NYTimes article wasn't included. Perhaps you're referring to the journalistic opinions that were cherrypicked from certain RS that best fit the Racial views of Donald Trump (which are actually the views of everyone else and how they perceive his racial views)? Are you referring to this Fox News article (forgive me for using what some consider profanity) and the 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo? Oh, wait - that info wasn't included in the article, either. Hmmm...my apologies...what investigative reporting are you referring to? Let's see...should we go back in time to 1994? Interesting how that article doesn't quite corroborate with this article, or numerous other articles of late...but of course none of that matters as it pertains to the WP article about the Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucusarticle, right? Anyone who needs more RS, left or right leaning, can obtain them at the TP of that article, and form their own opinions. Oh, and please, if you get a chance, let me know how many center-right or even center RS are cited. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Investigative reporting, K.e? Are you referring to this NYTimes article? (I'm referring to VM's comment in response to my comment about "lean right", but the topic has taken a sharp left turn regarding the inclusion of NPOV info in general as it relates to racism). Oh, wait...that piece in the NYTimes article wasn't included in a "racial topic" involving Trump in WP. Perhaps you're referring to the journalistic opinions that were cherrypicked from certain RS that best fit the Racial views of Donald Trump (which are actually the views of everyone else, including SPLC, and how others perceive his racial views and conflate them with uprisings), particularly the sections titled "Impact" and "Effects on students"? Are you referring to this Fox News article (forgive me for using what some consider profanity [FBDB]) and the 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo? Oh, wait - that info wasn't included in the article, either. Hmmm...my apologies...what investigative reporting are you referring to? Let's see...should we go back in time to 1994? Interesting how that article doesn't quite corroborate with this article, or numerous other articles of late...but of course none of that matters as it pertains to the WP article about the Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus, right? Anyone who needs more RS, left or right leaning, can obtain them at the TP of that article, and form their own opinions. Oh, and please, if you get a chance, let me know how many center-right or even center RS are cited, not that it matters because some of the information that brings "balance" in left leaning sources is also excluded. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I thought the topic of this discussion (i.e. SPLC targeting WP) was about this recent piece:"Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". That's what I described as investigative reporting. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the ec, K.e. - but while the title of the SPLC article implies one thing, the article delves into greater depth. For example (my bold underline): "...the free encyclopedia’s openness and anonymity leave it vulnerable to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views. And there's also ...its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism in Europe and North America... which were the key phrases that got my attention. I take issue to the SPLC labeling "racist academics" because it's obviously a label that originates from their mistaken belief of right-wing being racist when in fact, history to the present proves otherwise. Atsme📞📧 00:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"History to the present proves otherwise"... Care to elaborate? 172.56.21.125 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I actually don't have time to elaborate on what history has already documented, so if I may suggest the following material to read: The Hill, the Chicago Tribune, and the Encyclopedia Britannica (not that the Britannica is any better than what WP offers, but they do have a commendable history). The aforementioned 3 articles speak volumes from which you can derive your own "elaboration". While I don't editorialize to fit any particular agenda, I have no problem deploying sound editorial judgement based on verifiable information derived from RS and statements of fact (much of which is influenced by common sense and hands-on experience). I do realize that while the "young and impressionable" editors are an asset to WP, I do not lose sight of the fact that veteran editors who have lived the various political experiences are equally as important. Atsme📞📧 22:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately I found what I expected to find from your sources (which are indeed HIGHLY editorialized). Brevity will do just fine here: "conservative" hasn't always meant Republican and "liberal" hasn't always referred to Democrats. To say so (ESPECIALLY in regards to race) displays a stunning lack of awareness about the history of American politics, but does proffer some interesting insight into your propensity for "alternative facts". 172.58.169.186 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A typical response in the absence of a supportive argument: blame the sources and attack the editor. True to form, IP. 😂 And what are you referencing with regards to your elementary comment about conservatives and liberals?Atsme📞📧 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, their "supportive argument" is the following phrase in their comment: " "conservative" hasn't always meant Republican and "liberal" hasn't always referred to Democrats. To say so (ESPECIALLY in regards to race) displays a stunning lack of awareness about the history of American politics". I mean... that's sort of basic. It's stuff you learn in third grade social studies class. Just because you either don't know American history, or you pretend you don't know American history, doesn't make it ok for you to dismiss an actual argument.
(and yeah those opinion columns were pretty idiotic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This is where I stop arguing and just let you be wrong. Atsme📞📧 07:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If there are similar problems with leftwing political activists recruiting eachother offline to try to influence wikipedia content by tendentiously selecting and representing different areas of knowledge, then that would be a good topic for another article. I have yet to see that sort of thing. But SPLC specifically works with monitoring activity of groups that promote hatred and hateful and discriminatory discourse as part of their political project. This is why it makes sense to see how such groups operate on wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

TechCrunch story removed

No idea why TechCrunch pulled their article on the end of Wikipedia Zero, but it's archived here. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter:, Thanks for catching that. I added the archive link. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments (849 bytes · 💬)

  • Thank you for that summary of upcoming major meetings and conferences. Very useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New administrators

And then, hours later Lourdes requested to be de-sysopped and hasn't performed an admin action since. This is the first time I recall such a thing ever happening. I cannot fathom choosing to pass an RfA without specifically intending to be an admin immediately thereafter. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed: Death knell sounding for The Signpost? (54,748 bytes · 💬)

Signing off of the The Signpost would be a shame. I have always enjoyed the materials in the Signpost. Once a month is about right. But if this cannot be applied, If need be, make it once every two months, but please don't cancel this highly informative and interesting feature. werldwayd (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I wrote for the ArbCom report for a good year and honestly while I would still like to contribute to the Signpost there's no real motivation to continue. At the very least finding something else to write about. GamerPro64 19:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
But, GamerPro64, it isn't just The Signpost, is it? You haven't been editing much at all for the last six months (though I hasten to add that no one is criticising you for it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

. I'm interested in contributing. How do I get involved? —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs) 19:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick link is "How to contribute". Further suggestions by current contributor Bri: Visit Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, watch the ongoing conversation and chip in. You could visit the archives since we just cleared the page after this month's issue. Copyediting new content might be a good way to get your feet wet. Op-eds and special content are welcome at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions (suggest a prior topic discussion first, but it is not mandatory). Also on the Newsroom page, near the bottom, there are a lot of blanks in the primary/backup publication and editing roles. – ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Next to the Signpost's "communication" task, I also find it very good in journalism (especially wrt self-critical re Wikipedia). The Signpost was the one and only place where I learned about things like: James Heilman being ousted from WMF board (2015/16); inexplicable (and ultimately rejected) application of a Silicon Valley king to the WMF (2016); the dewiki walkout of arb's (2017?). -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (edited re dewiki - DePiep (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC))
  • I'd suggest a once a month magazine style publication. Long form journalism and opinion. Lots of people around here like to write, have opinions, and can marshal facts to support their opinions. The sporadic/weekly format doesn't encourage that very well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just found signpost and read through 2 years worth in a couple of days - I wish I'd found it a few years ago when I went through my small bit (compared to the active editors round here) of editing on various bits. It would be a shame to see it disappear just now. I only found this via an ArbCom ruling - perhaps something could be done to let more editors who aren't so embedded or regularly active be aware of Signpost? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear Various forms of reaching out have been considered, such as a notice when an editor hits 500 (or another milestone of edits), and I completely agree with you that The Signpost is hard to find, but it seems no one with the ability/will to make that happen has come around. Eddie891's creature 22:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eddie891's creature - presumably some catch22 situation: the ability/will to manage such a push actually decreases as it is most needed, and vice-versa. Some pushing of it around the tea room etc could also be helpful. Having some interesting bits and updates about the site written in a much more communicable and friendly format than, say, the policies and guidelines, is a nice change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that new Signposts are much less frequent, I doubt there would be objections to a notification at the top of watchlists when one comes out. This should be tried. As I said in the original discussion, part of the problem is the lack of readers, as well as writers. And without new readers, new writers are unlikely to appear. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The one time I tried writing anything for the Signpost no one bothered to even see if they wanted to publish it, eventually I just deleted it myself. That was 2012 and it was markedly detached from its readership then, now it's even less engaged. Keeping it going if there's genuine interest is fine, but to keep on writing for the sake of the Signpost is just a paraphrase of After the Thrill is Gone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything Lane suggests, like this grant, is not helpful or effective. The bottom line is that creating and producing a publication like this takes a lot of free digital labor, and who has the time to do this on a sustained level? And who could do it to the level of competency that would require meeting the very high standards -- as well as nonsense -- of the Wikimedia communities. It totally makes sense the Signpost is in trouble. - Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought what Resident Mario said way back in 2016 rings true even today.

Risker brings up the elephant in the room, above, making a well-founded point (and one that I'd alluded to just before): that the chief issue facing the Signpost at the moment is a structural lack of writers. The editing members of the editorial board (AKA the people that feel they have an obligation to produce something at the end of the day) right now consists of, ask far as I can tell, of Pete and Tony. This situation fluctuates: things were worse two summers ago, when essentially all the content was being written by Ed, and they were a heck of a lot better a year or so ago, when the board had five or six active members.

The Signpost always prided itself on publishing weekly...until it didn't. The situation now is tenuous as always: if either Tony or Pete were to go, the Signpost might simply cease to exist. The descent from the weekly schedule and into publish-time uncertainty is a symptom of this fact, and so extensive changes to the way the Signpost operates, the technical forces for which now seem aligned, need to be evaluated against two key metrics: Things that will attract more net contributions. Things that will allow the Signpost to function with less overhead. I ran a first-ever analysis of the Signpost's actual (as opposed to perceived) traffic pattern almost a year ago now, the results of which you can read here. While it would be interesting to run an update, I am all too sure that my original conclusion still hold, chief among which was a substantiated impression that this focus on "weekliness" (as expressed by e.g. Risker above) is totally misleading. I have a college, and my college has a newspaper. I was an avid reader of the school broadsheet back in high school, but neither I nor seemingly anyone else really follows college news. The trouble is that the paper publishes too often: there are too many young journalism students who need CV material, and too much money circulating around, for them to stick to the most interesting stories and publish in a monthly format, like my high school paper did. I admit, "The Signpost is weekly!" is something that I admit I also once loved to brag about. After looking at the numbers, however, I realized that maintaining such a schedule encourages "shortcuts", flavor-of-the-week stories, and other such brief coverage of associated trivia that people don't actually want to read. It burns out editors who get tired of the commitment (as I inevitably did), and I believe that, just as in the case of the school newspaper, it burns out readers who may be interested in tuning into the "best" stories, but don't want to have to muck through weaker stuff to get to them. I think the Signpost ought to be a sleeker, more magazine-like, monthly publication. Instead of going wide but shallow, we should go narrow but deep. Yes this week's...month's...Signpost took a long time to arrive, but on the whole, the content was excellent. I like this new way of doing things. I think this is the future of the Signpost. We should keep doing things this way, and thinking along these lines.

All this is premised, of course, on having a strong, reliable infrastructure for sending out new issue notifications. This infrastructure is wanting, but, it appears, is a temporary hurdle. Not only is the bot hopefully going to get fixed, but there's also the prospect of the long-awaited Newsletter extension finally arriving and further streamlining the notification strategy. I'm particularly excited about this bit of code because if it's easy to use, and if we do a bit of lobbying to get people aware of its existence, the Signpost could easily double or triple its subscription base through sheer ease-of-use (this is another conversation we need to have).

Eddie891's creature 23:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How about a bi-monthly schedule? – Athaenara ✉ 01:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • To avoid news becoming 'old news' especially where many parts of the Wikipedia operate on a monthly schedule, I think perhaps a monthly issue would be the minimum sensible calendar.
I mentioned Bluerasberry's grant suggestion in my op-ed but I had not researched all the background here. Lane's suggestion is not without merit - he's one of our users who often comes up with ideas, I know him well personally and have nothing but admiration for his energy. However, there were some valid concerns expressed about the suggestion of WMF funding. While it would be an incentive to keep someone in the printing machine control room, IMHO I believe it would be important for the newspaper to remain independent of the Foundation. Having discussed late last night with Bri about trying to get this latest issue out, I'm not so sure that the tasks of 'publisher', while requiring perhaps somewhat more technical knowledge than mine for example, are so onerous that they merit a remunerated position. We're all volunteers and each one devotes as much time as they can to Wikipedia - what is needed just as urgently is also an enthusiastic and responsive editorial team. AFAICS, the current E-in-C is not the only Signpost 'staff' who has not edited in a long while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Signpost has been around since shortly before I became a Wikipedian. Yep, it appears the end is near for it. Even Sears/Kmart is nearing its end in the USA. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ha! I don't believe I discovered Signpost until I was mentioned in it. A long time ago... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I've been the subject of a few Arbitration report stories, over the years ;) GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
IMO every issue is the end and a new beginning. It's up to us to reinvent something that remains relevant. Call it Signpost 2.0 if you like. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One way of maintaining a flow of interesting content at least once a month might be to invite editors from some of the more active WikiProjects to report on progress or difficulties experienced. It would also help to have regular coverage (maybe once every three or four months) of other areas of general interest to English-speaking Wikimedians. For example, initiatives to support more female editors (not just for the English version of Wikipedia but in general), progress on Wiki Education Foundation initiatives in the universities, redefining acceptance criteria for articles about people in the developing countries, the impact of contests and challenges, improved user interfaces for Wikidata and Commons, modernizing the "look" of Wikipedia article pages, developing better tools for search/sourcing/referencing, etc., etc. If these could be posted on preparatory pages, editors could contribute to them as they wish. It might at least be worth a try.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The first quality for a journalist is to be pleasant to read, even if you disagree with what is written. And to be pleasant to read, you must have pleasure to write... to the point of publishing on a regular basis. Orthogonally, it often happens that an efficient journalist becomes an opinion maker. But self anointed opinion makers are rarely pleasant to read... and the potential readers are quick to draw their own conclusions. Pldx1 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As The Blade of the Northern Lights mentions, the Signpost at different times and on different occasions pissed off a large number of people who have no desire to contribute anymore. (My personal point of no return was when they asked a user who was and still is banned from the Wikivoyage to write a piece on the Wikivoyage, and then the editor-in-chief defended the piece and essentially said that whoever does not like it it is their problem). It might be a good idea for the current editor-in-chief to reflect on this and to assure the potential contributors that this policy has been discontinued and will never return. (And, well, to make sure it has indeed been discontinued).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing at Wikipedia for many years, and I also write for several news services on a regular basis. Bringing my experience from Wikipedia and news writing to bear, I have to say that the material about contributing is daunting and confusing, much like most of what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. I'm sure that these problems have been discussed at length regarding the encyclopedia overall (I long ago gave up trying to follow any sort of project talk pages because it's extremely time-intensive), but my sense is that barriers to editing the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" are amplified by the deadlines and standards in place for this newsletter. In short, everything takes a considerable investment in time to learn to do, and as someone with experience in both worlds I don't think I could find that time. Even with that experience, I'd be spending twice as much time on an article here than I do out in the world, and I'm getting paid for those. I hope a solution is found, but Wikipedia is the sort of environment where things get more complex and cumbersome with time, rather than simpler. Best of luck; I'll revisit this when I'm retired and see if I have enough remaining mental acuity to dig in.--~TPW 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I can't help but wonder if, given the important independent voice represented here, this might not be a suitable project to actually spend some of the foundation's vast resources, rather than putting it entirely on the shoulders of volunteers. Might be something worth considering during the next board election cycle. I'd vote for someone who had that as a plank in the platform.--~TPW 13:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The WMF should not fund Wiki content creation and editorial control - everyone agrees on this. I do think that the WMF should fund the tedious tasks which no volunteer finds enjoyable, but which when completed, amplify volunteer engagement. For various reasons, including 1990s software, the need for secretarial documentation and maintenance of a calendar, and demand for adherence to community values which are excessively time intensive for the niche purpose of running a newspaper, being the publisher of The Signpost is a lot of work. We can get a volunteer chief editor, and writers, and all the roles which are "journalism", but managing the very strange back end of publishing in Mediawiki software is tedious beyond anyone's willingness to volunteer. The least expensive way to manage administration is with payment to someone who will stay out of editorial decisions but facilitate what editors and writers submit.
The reason why we should maintain The Signpost is because it has been uniquely responsible for being the communication channel for resolving community discussions which have allocated millions of US$dollars of WMF funds in ways that would not have happened without community engagement in the community newspaper. Here are some options in front of us:
  1. Let The Signpost falter. If we do this, the WMF will invest US$millions in marketing research and strategic planning to come to conclusions which would have arisen spontaneously from volunteer engagement in The Signpost. The Signpost has already proven itself to be an amazing forum for reaching broad consensus in the English and international Wikimedia communities. It has some value and merits some amount of investment for this reason. It has already earned its funding by resolving problems which otherwise are unfathomably complicated, stressful, and high risk to resolve in any other way.
  2. Pay US$300,000 to a software developer to make The Signpost easier to publish. These software changes would still be a pain and go obsolete in 3 years because that is how Mediawiki development goes. Editing a newspaper is unlike publishing The Signpost. There is a bottleneck of ability to publish The Signpost and also the administrative support necessary to communicate in the normal way that any contemporary newspaper would operate is not available, because Mediawiki is not set up for this. Lots of people say "just fix the software, do not pay someone to be publisher", but it is crazy hard and crazy expensive to improve software as opposed to just paying someone outright to do the boring parts.
  3. Pay ~US$100 per issue to an individual for administering The Signpost. This solves the problem, is cheap, and the money can go to a Wikimedia chapter which needs to be developed. India and Bangladesh would be my first choices because those countries, for whatever reason, have a history of attracting journalists as Wikimedia editors. Also in those economies the money would go further, and the WMF already has plans to spend $1000s to recruit volunteers who will contribute labor that could be purchased outright for $100s. I know that the Wiki community places a taboo on buying labor, but for some tasks, paying someone outreach is a lot cheaper than funding the recruitment campaign that will identify and groom the volunteer who would do the task. Administering The Signpost is esoteric and provides no job training or relevance to actually doing journalism, and the fault is in Mediawiki and the Wiki community's overriding need to publish in Mediawiki.
I advocate for paying an individual to publish as the most practical, cheapest, and most likely path to success for getting The Signpost out. We have content submissions, excellent editorial oversight, and readership. It is annoying that the bottleneck is in administration of adapting weird obsolete software to journalism.
Anyone with ideas might also try to form a The Signpost user group - meta:Wikimedia user groups. This would establish a board to oversee The Signpost, appoint a chief editor, and protect the values of the publication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth should we pay someone to administer the Signpost? Why not just have a freer forum where editors write what news they want and there is basically no administration? Wnt (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Bri drafted almost the same proposal at meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Bri/Signpost publication manager. I have heard this idea from others who have not written a draft. I support Bri's proposal as nearly identical to the one I posted, and plan to collaborate with that user. Also, I do not claim credit for the idea, which has been perennial for years. The WMF spends at least US$300,000/year of the sort which wiki magic in The Signpost accomplishes almost for free. There has never been great wiki community loyalty to the corporate WMF social media accounts and newsletters, nor the editorial freedom and excitement of participation, which The Signpost is able to generate. Money from the same pool will go toward communication one way or the other, and I see great value in making the case that some portion of the available funds should go toward relieving the onerous burden of adminsitration and managing odd software to make community volunteer journalism, research, and editorial engagement the focus of the newspaper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Been an avid reader of The Signpost since early 2009, back when it was The Wikipedia Signpost. It's a great way to stay on top of any and all news about this encyclopedia and its project. I hope this is all just a bad dream, because I wouldn't know how to do without it, and I would think that many other readers feel the same way. How would we keep up with all the newsworthy info about Wikipedia? Death is change, so change it to make it better. The staff does important work – consider yourselves implored to continue!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps updating it on a monthly basis, will be possible. A weekly basis? doubt it. Those who kept it updated weekly, just aren't interested anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The staff does important work – consider yourselves implored to continue - the problem is that at the moment apart from the regular article contributors, there is no editorial 'staff'; some whose names are still listed in the masthead/imprint have actually retired from Wikipedia and are unresponsive to messages and emails, while the current E-in-C, for whatever legitimate reason, is not currently available. I always looked forward to every issue of The Signpost and found it hugely informative even if not every section appealed to my sphere of interest. Trying to find out what was wrong, I stumbled through its offices and felt as if I were wandering nostalgically through a disused factory, hearing in my mind's eye the bustle of activity and the noise of machinery of yesteryear. It was never my intention to get involved in The Signpost, but if the contributors of the regular columns can get their copy submitted on time, and if at least a couple of articles can be submitted, and if Bri can ink up, I'd probably lend a hand with some copy editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think The Signpost's structure is too confusing and difficult for random editors to jump into. I also think that if a few people do dominate The Signpost, and say they are failing to keep it going, and their proposed fix is to have WMF pay them to get back to publishing it, WMF would be foolhardy to do so. Whereas if they do fail, someone else can expand into the niche, perhaps even under the old name, and see if they can streamline whatever needs to be easier to do. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps The Signpost needs to be trimmed down. I'm guessing that most readers were primarily interested in the 'Arbitration report', 'In the Media' & 'Op-ed' sections. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is part of a larger problem prevalent here: if nobody wants to do it, it won't be done. Although "nobody" would be an exaggeration here, if there are no editors to write the Signpost, then there are no editors to write the Signpost. One possibility is to scrap the multiple-feature format and consolidate all sections of the Signpost into a single feature (bar opinion pieces and the occasional long piece), which requires less writing and makes organization easier. Although there would be less content, this format would prioritize the most important content first so the Signpost can focus on the more important topics and not the niche ones. Esquivalience (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Esquivalience and Wnt: If we lowered the barrier to the technical publishing then we would have more people do journalism. The Signpost lacks for volunteer labor unrelated to journalism. The Signpost has no shortage of volunteers in journalism.
There are lots of volunteers who want to do the fun part of a newspaper - story writing, being editor, doing interviews, and making decisions in journalism. What The Signpost lacks is volunteer labor to do the boring parts, like managing a 1990s software interface which never was intended for publishing newspapers and coordinating an archaic messaging and scheduling system which is both unlike routine Wikipedia conversation and unlike any other reasonable communication channel. When you say "no editors to write the Signpost", please recognize that we have people who are willing to do journalism but not people who are willing to do weird idiosyncratic software manipulation beyond the norm of Wikipedia which is already really weird. It is not normal to expect a newspaper editor to run the printing press, be the secretary managing the calendar and incoming messages for an archaic and inhuman messaging system, and provide therapy to writers who get scared of a ghastly software submission process. A newspaper editor makes editorial decisions, and there are volunteers willing to do that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do you need the bizarre software interface? I think you could just make a page WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-01, put a template at the top containing the text "this isn't published yet, check back later" followed by a noinclude tag, and have people edit various sections like in any other Wikipedia article. Readers could transclude WP:Current signpost in a section at the bottom of their talk page, and then one editor points it at the latest Signpost whenever it's finished, and finishing involves taking off the noinclude tag (though perhaps some minor sections would keep noinclude tags for brevity) Whatever on Earth is this hidden, obscure, apparently difficult to work with interface that you describe actually for? Wnt (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
For me this is the Signpost's main problem. The plan above sounds like a great idea. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a sign that the Signpost interface needs major restructuring to make it simpler. There is no need for complex templates because the Signpost is not a formal newspaper. It is a side project for editors to share opinions and to keep updated on recent developments. Esquivalience (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wnt and Esquivalience: I will not obligate either of you into anything, because I have just made the claim that publishing the newspaper is a lot more complicated than many people expect and that there is a history of reform proposals which have seemed worse than the present method. However, you both are imagining an easier interface for The Signpost, and I can support that. Neither I nor anyone else has any loyalty to the current interface, and if it were possible to get a similar publication in a quicker and easier way, then that would solve a lot of problems. Could either or both of you volunteer to publish the next few issues, or otherwise recruit someone who would? You establish the easier process that the other publishers failed to identify, then following that everyone can do things the easy way. To the limit of my understanding the current publishing process has ease of use and speed as a priority in its design, except that the speed and ease are only for the users who invest the time to understand the weird publishing interface. Maybe you have an idea which is quicker and easier for everyone and requires only the wiki editing skillset. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Getting déjà vu) Why does the Signpost need to be treated like a periodical with a masthead? What's stopping us from running it like ITN/DYK with every section run ad hoc (like the Top 25 Report) and individual news items queued by a coalition of the willing? When the issue fills up for irregular digest distribution, ship the completed work, blank the page, and start again. If no one works on a given section, that section won't run. For those who have contributed while we've been running at reduced capacity for the last year with no figureheads, is the problem the coordination for a single delivery date, or corralling final copy, or just that no one is interested in writing the content, no matter the form? (Are there any regular contributors left?) czar 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea of any stats concerning contributors so it would be irregular for me to comment with any authority beyond the op-ed I wrote, which has at least stimulated some important comment and suggestions. I had one article queued for publication and even I as a seasoned Wikipedia found the process rather confusing. When I realised how late the next issue was and with no signs of it being published any signs soon, Bri and I got together and got it out with my hurriedly authored op-ed. I don't believe there is actually any lack of article writers but if they see the process is as daunting as I did plus the fact there is not going to be an issue any time soon, it stands to reason they will lose interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that the op-ed has created this discussion. Overhauling and re-invention is great. I've written down some of my own ideas at the submissions desk.
I've thought about Wnt's suggestion. It's not something to dismiss. But it would change the nature of The Signpost quite a bit and we'd have to understand that. First, it may seem goofy, but the look-and-feel elements are important to establish an identity. But, substantively, there's another thing. The Signpost fills a unique niche as a periodical with editorial control and aspirations to periodical-hood. It's unclear to me with a free-wheeling "just contribute and stand back" approach how editorial control is possible. Which is fine; I'm all for self-organization. It's just that it wouldn't be a periodical anymore in the usual sense of the word. It would be more like a public-access television channel, or Reddit, or like Jimbo's talkpage, so one must ask why duplicate those outlets. As a matter of fact I've drawn some ideas from those in my own writeup.
Since working with Kudpung for issue 4 (the March issue), I've created a streamlined interface and instructions for contributors here. This is retaining the current publishing model but making modest improvements to ease-of-use for newcomers. If somebody wants to give it a whirl, I'd like to hear what you think. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This does indeed smell like an "editorial control" issue, but who does the editorial control, and why can't they do it in public by reviewing an ordinary Wikipedia page anyone can edit before a final draft is agreed upon and people change a template so it "goes live" and gets transcluded onto user talk pages? In any case, I'm even less enthusiastic about the notion of WMF paying somebody to do editorial control than paying them to use baroque software. The "fun part of writing a newspaper" may be work that allegedly a lot of people are willing to do, but I can't believe there is any shortage of aspirants to power. I know our whole society is structured around proles shovelling money into the snouts of an ever-decreasing number of Brahmins as some kind of a religious devotion, but I don't like it anyway. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As for the submissions script ... it still generates submissions. Why? It would seem more practical to have a simple noticeboard format like the Science Refdesk or ITN submissions, where people propose ideas and get comments in a public Wikipedia forum. The other structure seems more useful for burying news than writing about it. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
"WMF paying somebody to do editorial control" is not a proposal, nor would I support it. Neither of the two Signpost-related grant proposals I am aware of is for funding an editorial role. There would still be a separate editor-in-chief and volunteer editorial staff. If this isn't clear enough in the trial rapid grant proposal written my me, it needs to be clarified further. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Wnt, The proposed grant has nothing whatsoever to do with editorial control. Publishing the newspaper is a purely button mashing exercise - complex perhaps, but nothing more and nothing less than inking up; I don't recall anyone on the factory floor of a newspaper printing press, or even the type setters having much of a say in what gets printed.
The submissions script does not generate any content at all. Submissions are generated by their authors. The actual submission system is so complicate it even confused me enough for me to make a mess of it. The system almost certainly puts some people off wanting to submit an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I have to admit those proposals are at a much more definitive stage and far more non-editorial than I'd imagined. But if this is just button pushing, I still don't understand why you need any special buttons or button pressers. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's what would be lost if we jettisoned the current publishing apparatus documented here. Single-page edition; RSS feed (probably); at-a-glance readiness report for copyediting, article titles and "blurbs"; and the window dressing like links to previous/next issues. I think to some extent you're pushing 2-3 hours (maybe less if scripts work as expected) of work onto the publication manager to streamline the rest of the team, who do have the Newsroom status board, conventional section titles, etc. to work with. That status board IMO drives the team to completion and is where the team collaborates on tasks remaining for the issue, who's taking them, and when they are completed. Whatever the alternative is to be, don't we need a red light/green light status board for the E in C to decide "now's the time to declare victory and publish"? I'm not saying something else isn't workable, but am saying that we only have vague hand-waving as to what the alternative is at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Wnt, done manually , like Bri did, there is in fact a lot of button pushing, but it provides an insight into what the automated script actually does. I'd love to go through it and do it and help keep The Signpost up and running, but it has a steep learning curve and I'm more comfortable in other areas of Wikipedia that I've already taken years to get used to. Perhaps next time, Bri might take a chance at giving the script a whirl - if we can twist his arm to be the publisher again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This periodical serves a vital purpose. However, do the editors have to kill themselves to bring it out on a deadline? As en electronic medium, there's no reason it must be published on an artificial schedule dictated by guilt. Thank you all for your hard work! Bearian (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Every four weeks should be perfectly realisable considering we once used to have a news-packed periodical every 7 days. The problem with any magazine with news content is that if the space between issues is too long, while features may always be of interest, new news gets stale very quickly. And that's where The Signpost is important - it fills the gap between dedicated newsletters in our local dissemination of information. The features - the 'interest' stuff - make it readable, the news element tells us the 'need to know' now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think funding the Signpost would be contrary to our principles. Do we really want the newspaper of record of the volunteer Wikipedia to operate on payment? I would rather see the paper fold. At any rate, I do have an idea for an op-ed that I'd be willing to write if the Signpost wants it. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO the first thing to do for Signpost should be to pick a schedule (once a month seems to be a fair goal judging by recent publication times) and stick to it. From the readership standpoint, it's better to let the stories and work accumulate to produce a killer monthly edition on a good month, than to have a lukewarm monthly edition with lots of filler material in a bad month, and lukewarm weekly editions in a good month. Just because it's more frequent doesn't mean it will attract more readers. This will ease the workload, and obviously "moving the goalposts" never does any good for the motivation of the editors involved. Daß Wölf 00:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been editing WP regularly for almost five years, and I've literally never heard of The Signpost until today, when I saw it at the top of my Watchlist page. How were editors supposed to know this even existed? If you want readers for this thing, some steps need to be taken to create more visibility.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It's writers that are required. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, but if nobody knows about the Signpost, this also means that potential writers do not know about it. I came here to make the same point as

Bryanrutherford0; I am also a long-time editor who had never heard of the Signpost. Perhaps this new exposure will help things. KarlFrei (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Why not a format like the German Kurier: Long articles in one column, short notices in another, an admin to remove unsuitable stuff and vandalism, and articles older than a month flushed out. This way it would be shorter if there is less to write, and longer if there is a lot going on. From my personal perspective, I'm willing to occasionally contribute and have done so once, but the last thing I want is "we need something from you until Friday". --Pgallert (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Signpost is still a vital information source and I'd hate to see it fold. Even with frequent checks of VP and the various noticeboards, it is all too easy to miss important developments, and The Signpost helps ensure that nothing critical flies under the radar. 'Honestly, it still has a lot going for it. The content tends to be timely and interesting, with the columns Arbitration Report, Traffic Report, Technology Report, and In the Media providing a lot of worthwhile information that would otherwise escape most of us. (As long as the developers and office staff are assiduous about sharing important changes in advance, the Technology Report alone makes The Signpost worth seeking out every issue.)
Other things could be added to build readership. For instance, there could also be some sort of brief Community Report, some of its content cribbed from the Administrators' Newsletter, with the rest compiled by checking recent major RfCs, popular VP threads, and the like. A regular "Wikipedian of the month" feature might be a good idea. (It would be easy to compile—no real writing required, just Q&A interview format.) How about a Foundation report, submitted by someone from the WMF and covering any number of Foundation-related matters, from Wikimania and smaller gatherings to noteworthy board votes, office actions, new or planned wikis, various meta issues, and so on? And how about a very short column, "Wikipedia by the numbers", with statistics on number of new accounts, new articles, and the like. On a less serious note, there could be something lighthearted such as excerpts from particularly absurd or witty threads. Op-eds are already encouraged, but how about asking readers a question every month and then publishing the best responses? None of these added elements would be particularly time-consuming to put together, and they might well draw new readers who in turn might become valued contributors.
By all means, make it monthly, and set a publication week, rather than day, so that it's less likely to be late. Greater frequency has proven impossible to sustain, but twelve issues a year should promote contributor retention by demanding less frequent deadlines. If editor burnout is a problem, make the position last a standard interval of six months—renewable if everyone agrees but with no expectation of renewal. I don't like the idea of payment, but surely other enticements might be made available, from the sublime (all-expenses-paid trip to Wikimania) to the ridiculous (lousy t-shirt). Just a few ideas, anyway. Sorry for the long post. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rivertorch: Editor burnout is not the problem. Being editor is a lot of fun. The problem is publisher burnout. Publishing is unrelated to journalism and is the totally dumb technical process of getting the content into an issue. Wikipedia is not made for article publishing so this is complicated with any system devised. When editors here burnout, it is because the editor here has also been burdened with the unrelated duty of publishing. If there were a reliable publisher then the publication would reliably attract and retain editors, journalists, etc. All of your content ideas are great and people would do these things, except for the fact that at the end one person has to navigate the awful publishing system to get the issue out and we cannot retain one person to do this terrible, boring function with regularity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. To be fair, editors of various publications often have various technical and administrative duties that have nothing to do with editing per se, so the situation here isn't unique. If there's drudgery involved in getting the Signpost out, perhaps those tasks could be shared among several users who have been acquainted with the process. A roster could be compiled, a call for assistance put out, and whoever on the roster has the time and patience could do the dirty work for a given issue. That way, no one, including the editor, would be stuck with it each time. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that we need to clearly define what information is to be shared, then ascertain if The Signpost is the best method for achieving that. William Harris • (talk) • 09:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no rewards system, even something like virtual points, for contributing. Furthermore, since dissenting opinions are shut down, the assenting opinions just become state to both read and write. Give virtual carrots to editors. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Once a month or it's over

If we can't get any editors willing to update the Signpost (at least) once a month? then it's doomed. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My problem with signing up to contribute on a regular basis is that real life tends to get in the way unexpectedly. With the kind of editing I do, nobody misses me if I duck out for a few days or even weeks, but that wouldn't be the case if people were depending on me to contribute content by a certain date each month. I suspect that many active editors have similar concerns about becoming involved. Would sporadic, undependable contributions be better than no contributions at all? I have my doubts. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've had a wiki account for over a decade and this is the first time I've read The Signpost Pelirojopajaro (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Pelirojopajaro, with only 312 edits in 11 years it's understandable you may have missed it. This was the first time we put it on the watchlist. You may wish to subscribe to it and get your copy delivered regularly to your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I have almost 20,000 edits since late 2005. But I've been editing regularly since April 2006. I have never read The Signpost. Now what does that tell you? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!
I don't know what it tells you Fishhead2100. Either you didn't know it existed, or you didn't want to read it. Either way, your feedback would be most welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Don't assume I didn't know about it. On my watchlist page is exactly why I clicked on it. I never bothered to go out of my way to read. Is putting a link to the latest edition on watchlist pages really going to increase readership? I don't know. I have my doubts. There is so much other stuff to do on Wikipedia that a lot of editors don't go out of their way to read it. Hell, I don't always read the Wikiproject newsletters I may get. I guess it's worth a shot. But is linking it on watchlist pages a last ditch effort? There might be someone somewhere who wants to see it continue on. But if you need writers, you need to make it attractive to them to want to write. Has the recruitment process been ongoing? Lots of questions that need answers. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadline

  • Why follow deadlines at all? If I were the publisher, I'd try putting out Wikipedia news and topical op-eds as they came up. I'd see nothing untowards about an issue of Signpost with only one article, followed three days later by another short one, followed two months after that with yet another. Readers might even give them more heed. To keep a "periodical structure," if needed or wanted, there could be a tidy quarterly recap, perhaps with "special editorial features" or whatever. If the workload still loomed too high and heavy, no worries, such periodical recaps could rather be bi-yearly, even yearly (these much written and composed over long spans of time, as the short issues went out), or never. Either way, I'd bet thruppence Signpost won't go dark any time soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gwen Gale: You can be the publisher if you want. Yes, ideally, there would be regularly publication (weekly) with some issues being huge and some being smaller. The bottleneck is not in journalism - writing and editing - but in the publishing and administration. Administration is tedious. The journalism is fun. Journalism only gets to be disappointing when content creators cannot rely on regular publication. The Signpost has always had regular contributors, and has always struggled to keep any one person who will do the very boring work, totally outside the field of journalism, of publishing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: You talk about needing someone to do the publishing. Less talking and more doing. Don't just talk about it. Do it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up (406 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for this - as someone who has barely been contributing for the last two years it's amazing what I completely missed out, a wonderful nice and clear article. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Technology report: Timeless skin review (4,333 bytes · 💬)

  • I am surprised to be the first to comment. I don't much mess with skins, partly because I teach newbies and they oughtn't bother their pretty heads by seeing a strange screen on my laptop. However, Timeless managed to get onto Signpost, which might mean it's important. I put it in Simple English WP only, which is my usual testbed.
  • I too shall first say what's good, then make a longer list of disappointments. Yes, it is attractive on a small screen, in my case the 10 inch iPad. The switch between having and not having a left panel is useful when it is made at the right time, which is usually. As a heavy Watchlist user I was surprised to have to bring up a menu to see that, but after a couple days it doesn't seem so strange. However, when I reach the Watchlist, that's where the disappointments start.
  • First little item, I am accustomed when looking at the Diff list of an article, to see the bullets at the left in different colors depending on whether the change happened before or after my last view of the page. Now the bullets are all black.
  • Bigger problem, the right panel. When using Contr-scroll (Windows) to shrink the font and see more items, suddenly the Watchlist acquires a right panel. The panel has very few items, but it squeezes the list, thus defeating my purpose. I'd rather there were no right panel, ever. Well, I don't much mind the right panel squeezing the text when reading an article, but on the other hand I never think the right panel is doing me any good. Everything ought to be on the left panel or the top. Of course, this is not just a little bug like the difflist color problem; I appreciate that it's a carefully designed feature. Surely someone besides the industrious designer thinks it a good feature; for me it's just an irritant.
  • Biggest problem for my use in Commons, there is no Hotcat. That's deadly for me, in that particular wiki where I spend close to half my editorial time. I assume that's another bug, perhaps more difficult to fix than the one about the difflist colors.
So, that's it for this evening. Two items that I call bugs, and one design decision with which I firmly disagree. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the design of it, but there are some things that don't make any sense (perhaps an oversight). As an example, when on a user page there's no "User contributions" in either the left or right toolbar. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the article! I'm glad to see the skin being given some attention, since Timeless is by far my favorite skin among the Special:Preferences options and the one I use as my default. Overall, I have been very satisfied with the design (which I consider far more modern than Modern), though I have encountered some bugs with it. For example, sometimes the search prediction box overlay won't retract even when clicking off the search bar. Usually, however, deleting all text in the search bar solves that. Recently (and far more frustratingly), it appears that indenting for subsections in the table of contents on articles has disappeared entirely, at least for me, which has been a frequent annoyance that slows down navigation. I have even considered switching skins entirely due to this issue alone. Were it not for the fact that there is no clear and active place for me to report these issues, I would do so. They are basically my only complaints with an otherwise excellent skin. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have always used Monobook and when I venture out to test other skins they are extremely annoying and unsightly (at least to me). Many skins lose the Wikipedia symbol, others hide a great deal, and, of course, the mobile skins ban templates, categories, and other essential components of Wikipedia. Hard to fathom why Monobook isn't the default skin, but to each his own. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers (796 bytes · 💬)

Great job as always guys! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Amazing effort. Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Quite good. Not very NPOV, specially the thing about the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but the rest is fine. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2018-03-29&oldid=1125230720"