Changes to The Signpost

Changes to The Signpost

This week's issue of The Signpost is the eleventh and final publication that I will have the pleasure of editing; I am soon to start at the University of Oxford to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics, with its many new demands upon my time. It is therefore a useful juncture to update you, our readers, on how The Signpost has been evolving.

Ten-day visitor numbers for all major reports. The x-scale (from late 2007 to the present day) is heavily modified here to give an idea of trend; the full unadulterated dataset is available for all those interested.

Building on from the work of HaeB, The Signpost is looking to move beyond its core purpose as an informative news provider. I think we have largely cracked that nut – at least for news of interest to English Wikipedians – and I hope that you, our hundreds of readers, would agree with me on that. We cannot, however, rest on our laurels and during my short editorship I have been all too aware that we have no more readers now than we did two years ago.

My personal hypothesis is that while The Signpost is good at informing, it has struggled at times to entertain. For this reason I have used my editorship to support the reintroduction of the Opinion Desk, which I hope will provide a steady stream of interesting Op-Eds for you to enjoy (no opinion essay is included in this issue merely to keep the number of reports at a manageable level). If you feel strongly about an issue that you think deserves greater coverage, I invite you to contribute to that column. As for breaking it in, well, we've trialled a controversial narrative, a largely uncontroversial call-to-arms, and a humorous poem. All three I hope you will have found both entertaining and in some sense provocative.

Previous editors HaeB and Ragesoss commented on a need to remain independent and to "constructively criticise" the Foundation's actions where necessary. Although I have been unable to find a breakthrough in realising this vision more effectively, I have been able to start work on a common editorial policy that communicates this and the many other components of the broader Signpost vision to all new Signpost editors. In addition, I hope that it will also be able to describe current best practice when dealing with controversial areas, such as those where the Foundation and a local community are in conflict. I therefore welcome all your thoughts on what you think The Signpost does well, and what you think it could be doing better, in the comments section of this article. The plan is to agree on the content of the new document within the coming weeks, so keep an eye out for that.

In the meantime, I'm passing the baton on to a combined editorship, comprising User:SMasters and User:Skomorokh. Each future issue will be managed and directed by one of these two volunteers, whom I wish all the best.

Thank you for your continued support,
User:Jarry1250 (outgoing editor-in-chief)

In this issue

19 September 2011 (all comments)

From the editor

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Jarry, thanks for your work. Good luck with your studies.

I do want to express my concern about running editorials. I think the Signpost is strongest when reporting all sides of a story while remaining neutral. At its heart, the Signpost should be a community newspaper, and I think editorials, which explore only one view of a situation, don't jibe with that. While it was well-written, I don't feel Beeblebrox's recent op-ed was appropriate for the Signpost, because at its heart, it was one person's opinion on a controversial topic.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the Signpost's role should be to entertain other than to provide well-written articles. Perhaps the best way to do that is to go back to writing more articles about controversial topics, in the vein of the great Michael Snow articles of days past. My favorite article I ever wrote was this one, which covered a very touchy subject. But there are many more examples of good, short-to-medium length content that might make the Signpost more relevant.

I know how difficult it is to get writers of longer content; this was something I struggled with for my entire tenure (and was one of the factors that led to my retirement). But I think it really does improve the content dramatically. Ral315 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jarry, for performing the editorial work that you've done. I really enjoy the Signpost's "In the news" section, and read every one. And I really appreciate the people who produce the Signpost because, as a Wikipedian, I know the value and scarcity of good volunteer editing. So thanks very much. — ¾-10 02:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, firstly, I should point out that Op-Eds are not editorials. Secondly, I feel your second paragraph conflicts with your first, although you may not see it that way. Your "favorite article" is exactly the sort of thing that the new Opinion desk would cover. The new desk allows, just as you did there, for more controversial subjects to be covered in an isolated setting where they do not conflict with the objectivity of the rest of the newsletter. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you've done, Jarry, and thanks for introducing more focus on op-eds. Much more entertaining than the usual ArbCom report! /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see an attempt to re-invigorate opinion pieces in The Signpost. I disagree with Ral315 about the Beeblebrox piece; it was a really valuable perspective to have, and not something that could be easily replicated outside of an opinion piece. What it did was shed light not just on the history of one particular debate, but also on what it's like to try to spearhead an important community debate toward a final decision. It was clearly marked as what it was, and readers are savvy about these things. As long as The Signpost isn't trying to use the approval or rejection of opinion pieces to push the agendas of the editors, I look forward to more pieces like that.--ragesoss (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]