The Signpost needs your help

Contributing to the Signpost can be one of the most rewarding things an editor can do. The genre is refreshingly different from that of Wikipedia articles, and can allow writers to use a different range of skills. Our circulation is ever-increasing, including more than 6000 readers for our October investigation into Wiki-PR; we reach far beyond the English Wikipedia, speaking to Wikimedians from many language Wikipedias and sister projects. Page-view counts show that readers still visit some pages up to months after publication. The need for an independent, volunteer-run Signpost continues to grow, given the increasing complexity and financial expenditures of the global Wikimedia movement, not to mention the increasing popularity of the English Wikipedia.

That said, writers for the Signpost are sorely needed. Our expectations have grown over the last several years: it takes more time to prepare each edition. As an extreme example, the Wiki-PR story took nearly a week. Yet at the same time, the number of contributors has been slowly shrinking, and there are precious few for nearly all of the regular beats. We are currently looking for editors interested in:

• "In the media"—a weekly review of news reports about Wikimedia-related projects
• "Featured content"—a weekly roundup of the English Wikipedia's newest featured content
• "Technology report"—a fortnightly beat covering the operation of Wikimedia sites and MediaWiki, the platform that Wikimedians use to collaborate, including bugs and new features

Please don't be discouraged if your desired beat already has editors listed as working on it—having a large number of contributors is ideal, as in the best of times, they lessen the burden and allow one writer at a time required to author an in-depth feature. In the worst, they provide a buffer if the others go on vacation.

Those who are interested can simply leave a comment on this article's talk page, my talk page, or by email if you'd like it to be private.

Thank you for your continued patronage.

— The ed17, Signpost editor-in-chief

← Previous "From the editor"

Next "From the editor" →

In this issue

20 November 2013 (all comments)

From the editor

Book review

Featured content

WikiProject report

News and notes

Traffic report

Arbitration report

+ Add a comment

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.

• "Circulation" doesn't technically count me. I keep a link to the signpost in an email I send myself each week with other links in it. That way my talk page doesn't get cluttered. Some weeks I take so long to get around to reading I end up having to go to the archive. I did work my way back through the archives to the very first one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Re In the Media - we could definitely use a few more editors to help write up stories on a weekly basis. As I am sure many have noticed, this section is hit-or-miss week-to-week due to the fact that all four of us have been incredibly busy in real life lately ... we would love to make every week a "hit". Thanks! Go Phightins! 17:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am more than willing to write for the Signpost. Please consider this a request. Just directed here from a Signpost article asking for new writers.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a one time contributor to the sign post. I spent several hours working on an article about a feminist organization working on an improvement drive. I uploaded it to the appropriate spot and felt pleased with the contribution. When the signpost went live, literally one sentence was used. Apparently another editor or group of editors was duplicating the same effort on Google docs.

How am I supposed to meaningfully contribute if editing is not done in a place accessible to all, ie the wiki? It certainly felt like my contribution was a waste of time. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I love the signpost. Wincent77 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm mildly interested in helping out with the featured content feature. But, to be honest, I feel that it could use a bit of a shake up. The Traffic Report, with its lighter style and nice list-style formatting is so much easier (and more fun) to read. So I'd push for the featured content articles to be a bit more like that. At the very least, I'd write summaries that were just a little playful. I'm sure someone will reply to this comment with a dozen well-reasoned arguements against this, and fair enough. I'm totally new to this part of Wikipedia, and I have no right to tell the old veterans how to do their bizness. Just thought I'd let you know what I was thinking. Bobnorwal (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been keeping the FA summaries short, so there's room for more ... give it a shot :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]